The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
UK Government: Race Differences in Achievement Must be Explained
Some immigrants don’t contribute much: locals blamed.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

BRITAIN-POLITICS-RACE-AUDIT

Commenting on the findings shown on the Government website, the Prime Minister said: “What this audit shows is there isn’t anywhere to hide. That’s not just for Government, it’s for society as a whole. Britain has come a long way in promoting equality and opportunity but what the data we’ve published today shows is that we still have a way to go if we are going to truly have a country that works for everyone.” She added: Organisations will be forced to “explain or change” over the report’s findings, admitting the “findings will be uncomfortable” for public services.

I had a look at this much-trailed UK Government website on racial differences. It follows the well-known pattern, of treating race as a “now you see it, now you don’t” variable. That is, you are allowed to see differences in outcomes, but not differences in ability or character. For the opinion-forming, chattering classes, the tone was set by the required-listening Radio 4 news program, The World at One, in which the invited guests did not dream of mentioning ability, but competed to say how quickly the Government should institute policies to overcome the revealed disparities.

For example of “now you see it, now you don’t”, as regards education, there are many tables on scholastic differences between races, but absolutely nothing on any intelligence differences, despite the Cognitive Abilities Test being given to all schoolchildren, providing verbal, quantitative and non-verbal test scores. Hamlet without the Prince. I have asked the officials where I can find them on the site. In fact, some of the data can be dug up elsewhere, and I show it later on.

For example, as regards crime and punishment, there are many tables on racial differences in stop-and-search, arrest rates and so on, but absolutely nothing on racial classification of perpetrators as described by victims and witnesses. One cannot evaluate arrest rates without knowing who needs to be arrested. If victims and witnesses say the assailant was Chinese, the Police should be searching for Chinese persons. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Police in that instance would depend on them stopping and searching many Chinese people.

For example, there are many tables on standards of housing, but nothing I can find on savings rates, which is relevant to later wealth, quality of housing, and particularly of home ownership.

Do you need to know any more? The website is a question-begging selection which insinuates bias without providing fair benchmarks. Look at the collection of findings to see if I have missed anything, or judged it too harshly:

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk

Despite the short-comings of the official website, I assume you expect some comment from me, so here are a few points.

Government interventions are going to have to be early, very early. By 21 weeks differences in head circumference are apparent. Not 21 weeks of life, 21 weeks of gestation.

Buck et al. (2015) “significant differences in HC (head circumference) were detected at 21 weeks (in descending order): Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks (all pairwise comparisons were highly significant except between Asians and Hispanic groups).” Mothers had been selected as being in good health, and were dropped from the study if there were any complications, which means that the strongest of the presumed social and environmental variables which might affect the developing foetuses have been reduced. Since environmental variables have an ineffable X factor, they can never be totally removed, environmentalists assert.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584427/

In the first few days of life racial differences are apparent in motor development and tolerance of restriction.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-academics-open-to-hypotheses

Somewhere between 3 and 4 years of age, tests detect racial differences in intelligence between black and white children.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/thank-you-to-my-readers

By 7 years of life, the differences are stark. Here, from the website, are the percentages of children, by racial group, who can do Maths to the expected standard, and also to the higher standard. Maths can be defined logically, and so has an inherent measure of difficulty. Because of possible manipulation of basic pass rates, I have ranked the racial groups by the higher standard. To give you an idea of how feeble the “expected” standard is, note how long it holds up while the percentage of “higher standard” students collapses. The expected standard shows a 3-fold range, the higher standard a 20-fold range. “Expected” is a cop-out, “higher standard” the real thing which will determine employability.

Maths at expected and higher standard age 7

If teachers were trying to treat children badly according to their race, is this demonstrated outcome likely? In terms of racial purity, Black Africans are the real thing, being indubitably both Black and African, and so if teachers were strongly racist against Black Africans they would treat them the worst. But the (presumably mostly white) teachers allow them to excel as much as the local White British, all of these groups getting 18% of their number into the higher achieving category. Black Caribbeans, though Black and much more likely to have lived in Britain for a generation, if not two, and talking with local accents which should ingratiate them even with racism-inclined teachers, do less well, with only 12% excelling. Also, why are teachers so in love with the Chinese and Indians, clearly visible as genetic intruders? Why do they turn against White Irish Travellers (2% excel) having previously loved White Irish (20% excel). Mysterious are the ways of stereotypes. In the UK, teachers are not showing racial solidarity, or not in a consistent pattern, as required by racial supremacy. It is almost as if teachers did their best with all their students, regardless of their race. The results would be consistent with the observation that education in all well-organized countries contributes no more than 10% of the variance in scholastic outcomes, 90% being determined by the students themselves.

Immigrant scholastic results in each host country are mostly predictable from country of origin scholastic results, but there is variation according to immigration histories, such as whether skilled or unskilled labour was required at any particular time. UK Indians and Africans may not be representative of those groups in their home countries, and Indian province data shows enormous variation in scholastic ability. We cannot be sure that such regional, national and tribal differences exist in Africa, but further research may reveal cognitive elites.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-heterogeneous-states-of-india

Some groups are bimodal in terms of socio-economic status, such as Black Africans. The social profile of African immigrants is probably bimodal. They have almost as many parents in the professional ranks as the UK average, but also a very large number of unemployed persons. It is an odd distribution, suggestive of at least two different sources of immigrants as regards social status.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/chanda-chisala-african-hereditarian

The scholastic results at 16 are of a piece. The results at 18, just prior to going to tertiary education, or starting work, show that 24% of Chinese students achieve 3 or more A grades in their leaving examination, 14% of Indians, 11% of Whites, 5% of Black Africans, 3% of Black Caribbeans. Income, home ownership, and wealth will follow from these figures, so long as jobs are given on merit.

A similar picture is shown by employment rates. In fact, these latter figures give the game away. Some ethnic groups contribute relatively little. Indeed, compared with the locals, immigration has been an overall failure, if only from the point of view of benefitting the locals, the supposed justification for the experiment in the first place. UK Indians do well, UK Blacks less so, and further down the ethnic groups the disappointment deepens. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis contribute weakly.

Employment by ethnicity

The Chinese don’t figure on this table, presumably because there aren’t enough of them. Pity. By the way, if these groups are really being shunned because of white prejudice, the wide world should be their oyster, because they would be selling their labour into a buyer’s market, like my ancestors who left Britain over a century ago looking for, and obtaining work abroad, and better prospects, though not their fortunes.

How are these groups valued in the UK employment marketplace? Here the picture changes somewhat.
Title Average hourly pay by ethnicity

hourly pay by ethnicity

Now the heroes are the Indians and the indeterminate Mixed category, substantially outperforming the White locals. Blacks earn relatively little, Pakistani/Bangladeshis even less.

That standby of inflation calculations, an 800 gram loaf of white bread, costs about £1, so all working persons can keep body and soul together with 4 and a half minutes of exertion, thus living better than most humans throughout history, kings included, since the loaf comes already pre-sliced.

It is hard to spin this actual wealth as being poverty, unless one moves to the concept of relative poverty, an endless source of resentment.

We can do a racial group wages calculation:
Whites earn £13.75 per hour, for 8 hours a day, 240 working days a year= £26,400
Indians earn £15.81 per hour, for 8 hours a day, 240 working days a year= £30,355
Blacks earn £11.88 per hour, for 8 hours a day, 240 working days a year= £22,810
Pa/Ba earn £11.42 per hour, for 8 hours a day, 240 working days a year= £21,926

The contribution per member of each racial group, adjusted for percentage employed, is:
Whites 76% of 26,400 = £20,064
Indians 73% of 30,355 = £22,195
Blacks 67% of 22,810 = £15,283
Pa/Ba 54% of 21,926 = £11,840

These are very big differences, particularly for the Pakistani/Bangladeshi group. Lots of other indicators, such as housing, will be a result of these low earnings, and should not require extra explanations.

As discussed, this collection of findings makes no mention of the CAT scores already on each student file. Here are the overall results, showing the link between intelligence at age 11 and scholastic attainment at age 16.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/measurement-errors

Here are the racial group scores for 2009 pupil-background-cat-scores

This is a fascinating Table. Apart from the Traveller Irish and Gypsy Roma the sample sizes are reasonable, and often very large. The standard deviations for ethnic minorities are often much smaller than for White British, perhaps because of immigration selection pressures. Pakistani and Bangladeshis have a narrower standard deviation. The scores and the higher standard Maths results go a long way to explaining the observed scholastic attainments.

For IQ tests, there is a reasonable sample of the different racial groups for 5 year olds from the UK Millennium Cohort Study, though there may have been differential sample attrition by racial group.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-of-5-year-olds-in-uk

Lynn (2006) in Table 4.5 shows 22 studies of cognitive ability in Africans (mostly Carribeans) in Britain (the most studied group because of early immigration) dating from 1966 to 2002, with median IQ 86. Table 6.2 shows 12 studies for Indians and Pakistanis in Britain from 1967 to 1989 with a joint median IQ of 89

Summary

The idea of having a repository of national race difference statistics could be a good thing, if it contained the relevant statistics, and at least flagged up what was missing before any conclusions could be drawn. However, in its current form it is the apotheosis of silliness: trying to account for racial differences without being able to mention racial differences. How can anyone see that Chinese students do better than Pakistani/Bangladeshi students, without considering that one group might be faster to learn than the other? Surely any assessment of the effects of education should look at infants’ ability before they go to school? Why are cognitive assessments not given, when in fact they are routinely assessed in schools, and are present in student records?

To add silliness, they then compare regions across the country, and highlight things like different arrest rates between immigrant heavy and immigrant light areas, insinuating bias against Police in the latter, because arrest rates for racial minorities are higher in rural locations. Absent data on victim and witness descriptions of perpetrators, this is misleading.

In the midst of all these major omissions, a few gripes about the tables and charts. The tables they provide are just fractionally too wide for the viewing window. A minor issue, but irritating as hell, because they could have sorted it out beforehand. Also, they display the chart results by racial groups in alphabetical order. I find it easier to re-order the groups by the variable in question, such as total maths passes, so as to understand the overall pattern. I used the spreadsheets to generate those lists, and suggest you use the spreadsheets for your own analyses.

Finally, those of you better versed than me in understanding conspiracies (about 98% of the population, it would seem) may argue that the Government intends to turn local people against immigrants, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in particular. Perhaps so, but it seems a convoluted way of doing it. All part of the plot, you may say, but the Government seems to be saying to the public: “I dare you to point out that races differ in their achievements because they differ in their qualities. A curse on you if you even think it. You have nowhere to hide.”

Refs
Lynn, R. Race differences in intelligence. Washington Summit Publishers, 2006.

 
Hide 277 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. dearieme says:

    The pass has been sold. It’s all over. I hope my grandchildren grow up somewhere else. If ever I have grandchildren.

    But where?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    It is over but here's hoping you have grandchildren. Let's go down with a fight! (Cheers)
    , @Colleen Pater
    If youre in a mixed or liberal area move to a white conservative area and literally get ready for war it may not come in your lifetime sadly it may not even come but if it does you and your children need to be prepared, the idaho montana even maine vermont and many other less beautiful places need conservative whites to counter the governments effort to brown these places with refugees ans the liberals that flee the messes they created
    , @CanSpeccy

    The pass has been sold. It’s all over. I hope my grandchildren grow up somewhere else.
     
    One of Canada's first nations leaders remarked a while ago: "We should have killed them all when they first arrived."

    That may not have been a realistic possibility. Still the sentiment was wise. Those who won't fight for their country won't have a country or any posterity. And indeed there is no need even to fight the immigrants, merely the dopes and traitors, the Thereason Mays, the Corbyns and Blairs, the Heaths, and all the rest, including, at the price of being labelled by James Thompson a conspiracy theorist, the controlled opposition, the Nick Griffins, the Tommy Robinsons, and the Nigel Farages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/uk-government-race-differences-in-achievement-must-be-explained/#comment-2040825
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. res says:

    I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?

    One oddity is that in the final Table 4 CAT results Carribean Blacks slightly outperform African Blacks (except for -0.2 lower quantitative), but in your first table of maths results the relationship is reversed and larger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Agree. Could be sampling differences, but no real explanation comes to mind.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    There's definitely something going on with the selectivity, as I get the impression that the gap between Pakis and Hindus is much narrower in the U.S. There's also the issue of inbreeding in Muslim culture. Finally, a lot of the lowest caste Indians converted to Islam when that religion established itself on the subcontinent during the Moghul era, in order to escape discrimination.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    UK Muslims are mostly Mirpuri Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (sort of Pakistani I suppose). The ones from Lahore and other cities regard them as embarrassing inbred hillbillies and yokels.
    US gets the top of the crop, whatever that counts for.
    UK Indians are "Ugandan Asians" (thanks, Idi Amin Dada) and invariably SWPL-ites if not outright monarchists and coat & (regimental) tie-wearers, along with Sikhs and other fairly high status groups. Not a lot of South Indians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @res
    I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?

    One oddity is that in the final Table 4 CAT results Carribean Blacks slightly outperform African Blacks (except for -0.2 lower quantitative), but in your first table of maths results the relationship is reversed and larger.

    Agree. Could be sampling differences, but no real explanation comes to mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @R-truth
    Of course there is a valid explanation. Lynn's data on British Indian IQ is full of shit.
    , @Demontage2000
    On IQ, there is a higher likelihood of inbreeding among those who adhere to a strong Islamic culture, which is probable among Pakistani immigrants. On culture, in America at least, it's generally observed that 2nd-generation Hindu Indians assimilate and integrate unproblematically; this may have to do with greater Aryan heritage and/or the relatively liberal, pluralistic Hindu cultural attitudes. I have had a number of Hindu male friends in the U.S. who speak in an absolutely fluent surfer-dude or stoner-dude American tongue.
    , @Malla
    The answer is simple, the Indians who came to the UK are the intellectual/mercantile elites while most of the Pakistanis are the descendants of lower classes. Most of them Pakistanis are Mirpuris who came after the building of a dam in Pakistan and the British government 'for some weird reason' took in the village peoples displaced by the dam. Most of the Bangladeshis in the UK are descendants of Syletti (from North Bangladesh) peasants. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the west who are descendants of intellectual/mercantile elites perform exactly as the Indian populations.

    By my experience, as far as brown immigrants are concerned, the educated elites behave like Jews, out competing local average Whites, have low 'low level' crime rates but high amount of nepotism and 'white collared crimes'. The peasants from these brown countries behave like gypsies at best and their neighbourhoods end up looking like gypsy neighborhoods with high street crime (but at a lower rate than blacks) . This is true for Hispanics, Middle Easterners and Subcontinentals and even South East Asians up to some extent. Akarlin called India a country of Gypsies rule by Jews. That is one of the best, most accurate description of Indian society I have ever come across and I am Indian.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. annonn says:

    “I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?”

    Likely related to the fact that the former, while representing ~3% of the UK population, account for ~30% of the annual reported congenital birth defects in the UK. There are … cultural causes of this biological effect. Look it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Good point. I was aware of the cultural practices (though I failed to think of that as an explanation), but not the shocking numbers you gave.

    For anyone else who wants to follow up, this article mentions those same numbers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html

    Do you think less selective immigration for Pakistanis is also in play or is it all down to culture?
    , @James Thompson
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/more-sex-cousin
    , @pva
    One of the possible explanations for the high number of congenital birth defects amongst Pakistanis which rarely, if ever, gets a mention is the very low Vitamin D levels in Pakistani women. The enforcement of "modest" clothing for Muslim women ensures that there is virtually no skin exposed to sunlight...hence the vitamin D deficiency.

    This is a serious public health problem which should be addressed.
    , @Eagle Eye
    Also, many Pakistanis were recruited from narrow areas in Pakistan for industrial work. By contrast, many Indians are a self-selected elite since they were established as traders in Uganda and elsewhere before coming to the UK.

    For example, the Patel caste stereotypically runs retail shops in the UK.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. res says:
    @annonn
    "I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?"

    Likely related to the fact that the former, while representing ~3% of the UK population, account for ~30% of the annual reported congenital birth defects in the UK. There are ... cultural causes of this biological effect. Look it up.

    Good point. I was aware of the cultural practices (though I failed to think of that as an explanation), but not the shocking numbers you gave.

    For anyone else who wants to follow up, this article mentions those same numbers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html

    Do you think less selective immigration for Pakistanis is also in play or is it all down to culture?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. R-truth says:
    @James Thompson
    Agree. Could be sampling differences, but no real explanation comes to mind.

    Of course there is a valid explanation. Lynn’s data on British Indian IQ is full of shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Have you got links or refs to best data on British Indian IQ that I can use?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Realist says:

    “UK Government: Race Differences in Achievement Must be Explained”

    That’s easy: Some races are a lot stupider than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Some races are a lot stupider than others.

    They just have more children than the white British, which proves that bollocks baffle brains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @annonn
    "I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?"

    Likely related to the fact that the former, while representing ~3% of the UK population, account for ~30% of the annual reported congenital birth defects in the UK. There are ... cultural causes of this biological effect. Look it up.
    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for linking back to that. I was surprised by how much even the second cousin case was depressed. Second cousins have an F (coefficient of inbreeding) of 0.0156 per the paper. Why is that F half the size of the coefficient of relationship (r) discussed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_relationship#Human_relationships
    I am trying to understand how such a seemingly small amount of inbreeding can result in an ~0.5SD decline in IQ given the degree of relatedness already present in the overall population.
    Based on that wiki fourth cousins have an r of 0.2% (second cousins 3.13%) with r decreasing by a factor of 4 with every additional "level" of cousin. So if the population relatedness is ~seventh cousin then r is 0.003% which is 1/1000 the second cousin case. That helps put the second cousin case in perspective.

    Are similar effects seen in other characteristics (e.g. height)?

    I would be interested in a more formal explanation by someone more knowledgeable in population genetics, but I guess the above will suffice for my intuition. Some links:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-statistics#Definitions_and_equations
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5560808/

    My first thought from your inbreeding post/paper was whether there was an artifact from lower IQ people being more likely to inbreed, but the figure 3 results stratified by SES make me think that effect is not important.

    There is an interesting outlier in figure 6. A double first cousin case with an IQ of ~120 where the rest are all under 80. Speaks to your response to a commenter in the earlier thread.

    P.S. For others, the paper has a number of more detailed figures. Worth checking out IMHO.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @R-truth
    Of course there is a valid explanation. Lynn's data on British Indian IQ is full of shit.

    Have you got links or refs to best data on British Indian IQ that I can use?

    Read More
    • Replies: @R-truth
    I don't. But British Indian's have slightly higher median income than white British. It is hard to believe their IQ is 92 as claimed by Lynn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. R-truth says:
    @James Thompson
    Have you got links or refs to best data on British Indian IQ that I can use?

    I don’t. But British Indian’s have slightly higher median income than white British. It is hard to believe their IQ is 92 as claimed by Lynn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Smeeton
    Britain is actually a land of equal opportunity. The immigrants have only themselves to blame. It is not racist but fact to point out IQ differences between the different races, they do exist, and Africa comes out low.
    , @Santoculto
    You are comparing some thousand Indian previously self selected people living in Britain versus 1,1 billion people.
    Indeed Indians is a politically construct. RF
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. res says:
    @James Thompson
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/more-sex-cousin

    Thanks for linking back to that. I was surprised by how much even the second cousin case was depressed. Second cousins have an F (coefficient of inbreeding) of 0.0156 per the paper. Why is that F half the size of the coefficient of relationship (r) discussed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_relationship#Human_relationships
    I am trying to understand how such a seemingly small amount of inbreeding can result in an ~0.5SD decline in IQ given the degree of relatedness already present in the overall population.
    Based on that wiki fourth cousins have an r of 0.2% (second cousins 3.13%) with r decreasing by a factor of 4 with every additional “level” of cousin. So if the population relatedness is ~seventh cousin then r is 0.003% which is 1/1000 the second cousin case. That helps put the second cousin case in perspective.

    Are similar effects seen in other characteristics (e.g. height)?

    I would be interested in a more formal explanation by someone more knowledgeable in population genetics, but I guess the above will suffice for my intuition. Some links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-statistics#Definitions_and_equations

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5560808/

    My first thought from your inbreeding post/paper was whether there was an artifact from lower IQ people being more likely to inbreed, but the figure 3 results stratified by SES make me think that effect is not important.

    There is an interesting outlier in figure 6. A double first cousin case with an IQ of ~120 where the rest are all under 80. Speaks to your response to a commenter in the earlier thread.

    P.S. For others, the paper has a number of more detailed figures. Worth checking out IMHO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Also we need analyze who are the people more prone to

    Cousin marriage
    Hardcore cousin marriage

    Maybe we also can have a cognitive confound here, poor/poorest people who live in isolated/rural places are more prone to engage in hardcore cousin marriage at least in this places.

    It's can be a result of endogamic depression. We need analyze too if this endogamic depression is stable since a long time suggesting a kind of adaptation on this practices.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Selective migration may be the answer, particularly since there are big regional variations in Indian ability. http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-heterogeneous-states-of-india

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Winston says:

    Not mentioned importance of location.

    Majority of Pakistanis settled in rust belt of UK-but came when manufacturing had not started its decline. Those whose parents settled in London area did well, including current mayor of London (whose father was a bus driver-and two other bus drivers’ children-one who has held several cabinet positions-but is Communities Secretary currently, and another former head of Tory party).

    Bangladeshis mostly from Sylhet , so even though based mostly in London area they have less capacity.
    Most Pakistanis are from Mirpur-and came to UK to work in manufacturing after being displaced at home by dams.

    Most Pakistanis own their homes;but Bangladeshis live in govt housing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @janjan
    Britain's industrial rustbelt was in terminal decline 50 years ago. The vast majority of the UK's Pakistani population arrived long after any - claimed - need for them on the shop floors of the North. In fact taxi driving is a very important employer, to such an extent central government ordered local authorities to relax licensing conditions in order to soak up unemployment amongst Pakistani males.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Winston says:

    Also, in US 55% of Pakistani Americans have an undergraduate or masters degree. BIG difference from UK! So it appears that where Pakistanis are from and where they settle makes a big difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Undergraduate or masters" degrees in what?
    , @Philip Smeeton
    The educational standards in America are lower.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. I think in all countries, politicians just feel that it is pointless to say that racial differences in academic performance are related to genetic differences. It is a bit like when you are teaching CPR, you stress the factors that cause heart disease that can be changed by lifestyle more than the factors that cannot be changed.

    Everyone actually knows that some racial groups have the short straw in suitability for higher education, but if you want their votes, you probably don’t want to make that much of a big thing of it, and it is better to think of ways to eliminate inequalities that can be changed, rather than to dwell on those that cannot.

    If a group starts to think of itself as ineducable, then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as has happened with many African-Americans in the US, and success in school may be equated with not being authentically blackity black in the local (neighbor)hood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    Politicians don't care a lot about votes. Conservative immigration policies go down well with most voters. Politicians (or rather political parties) care more about donors. This is why the Tories and Republicans are pro-immigration - wealthy immigrants and businessmen bribe the political parties into supporting more immigration.

    Urban minorities usually end up voting for left-wing parties, yet because some white property developers and rich Chinese and Indian businessmen like to donate to both parties, the centre-right parties support Asian immigration.

    , @reiner Tor

    Everyone actually knows that some racial groups have the short straw in suitability for higher education
     
    That's untrue. Many people who grew up being fed anti-racist propaganda their whole lives believe all or most of it, regardless of experience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Wally says:
    @Winston
    Also, in US 55% of Pakistani Americans have an undergraduate or masters degree. BIG difference from UK! So it appears that where Pakistanis are from and where they settle makes a big difference.

    “Undergraduate or masters” degrees in what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Mostly sciences, engineering, and medicine.
    , @Che Guava
    Mainly vIctimology and other such rubbish, I would guessing.

    Nice to seeing you straying outside your usual pattern.

    With the English population, you have the Chavs, essentially English version of wiggers, only worse, they are as devoted to sucking on the tits of the state as the other groups.

    A native English-speaking friend was to visiting 15 or so years ago, working as a teacher in London for six months, it was so ugly, things thrown, refusal to listen, he was broken.

    Brexit or not, England and Scotland are fucked in the long term.

    SNP, what a joke. ''National', please to pulling the other one.

    From Stockholm to Oslo to Copenhagen to most cities in Germany, to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, to Paris, Marseilles, Lyon, to most of Italy, Madrid, etc., would never wanting to visit now.

    I wish I had visited western Europe, say before the end of the Cold War, although, as stating in an earlier post, a colleague was to visiting Portugal, she was saying the only problem was Roma pickpockets and beggars, and she and her husband were to taking adequate precautions against the former. To ignoring the latter was easy.
    , @GrenadierGunther
    He pulled that out of his ass. I haven't seen any direct numbers on education achievement of Pakistanis in the US, but given all together Asian Americans(which of course includes Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc which theoretically should have higher rates than Pakistanis) have a 53.9% rate of having Bachelor's degrees or higher, and 21.4% having advanced degrees(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf)

    Another figure making his claims highly unlikely is Pakistani Americans have an average income(not household income, which isn't as good an indicator of success because of differing household sizes and divorce rates among ethnic groups) of $26,739, compared to an average Asian income of $34,399, an average white income of $32,910, with various European ethnicities going over 40k(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income)

    Add on that Pakistanis are mostly concentrated in the largest metropolitan areas of the US where people get payed more for the same jobs as rural areas because of higher costs of everything, the numbers become more dismal for Pakistani Americans.

    Reminds me of the "higher educated than white American Nigerian immigrant" myth, when the average Nigerian income is similarly only around 26k.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Jonathan Mason
    I think in all countries, politicians just feel that it is pointless to say that racial differences in academic performance are related to genetic differences. It is a bit like when you are teaching CPR, you stress the factors that cause heart disease that can be changed by lifestyle more than the factors that cannot be changed.

    Everyone actually knows that some racial groups have the short straw in suitability for higher education, but if you want their votes, you probably don't want to make that much of a big thing of it, and it is better to think of ways to eliminate inequalities that can be changed, rather than to dwell on those that cannot.

    If a group starts to think of itself as ineducable, then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as has happened with many African-Americans in the US, and success in school may be equated with not being authentically blackity black in the local (neighbor)hood.

    Politicians don’t care a lot about votes. Conservative immigration policies go down well with most voters. Politicians (or rather political parties) care more about donors. This is why the Tories and Republicans are pro-immigration – wealthy immigrants and businessmen bribe the political parties into supporting more immigration.

    Urban minorities usually end up voting for left-wing parties, yet because some white property developers and rich Chinese and Indian businessmen like to donate to both parties, the centre-right parties support Asian immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You may be right about some groups of politicians paying more attention to donor's policy preferences than those of voters - which is how I understand your first sentence, but it is too broad a generalisation. For example the Liberal Party of Australia (think centre-left Republican or Tory), especially in its principled heartland of Victoria (capital Melbourne) used to have very strict rules separating individual MPs and candidates from the donors in contrast to the Labor party's iron discipline which meant expulsion if an MP voted against the party line which would usually be that of a party conference dominated by tbe big donors, viz. the trade unions. The fact that the Liberal government has just brought in an extra tax on the major banks suggests that attention to donors' wishes isn't as close as would be prudent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Fred9 says:

    Democracy will always fail us… Democracy will always result in popular opinions instead of cold reality. we do not see immigrants accepted into to China, Japan, Russia, at nearly the rates of the Western world. We will soon be outdone. We will be overrun. These people are parasites plain and simple. It’s not hate, it’s just the truth. They offer nothing but violence at their worst and their sassy attitude at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Most Europeans don't want mass immigration and most Europeans don't what (((really is going on))). It's not democracy when people is not heard.

    Russia is a third world country with rampant std incidence, social inequality, corruption and yes, immigration: 20 million people specially from ex-soviet republics, namely Muslim-majority ones.

    China is a combination between the worst aspects of capitalism with the worst aspects of communism. People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.

    Japan?? The next stage of (((globalism))) is to invite east Asian countries to enjoy the wonders of the multicultural country (((non monolithic mode))).
    , @CanSpeccy

    We will be overrun.
     
    Have been mate:

    RIP this Britain: With academic objectivity, Oxford Professor and population expert DAVID COLEMAN says white Britons could be in the minority by the 2060s - or sooner

    And that was the objective.

    No good railing against the immigrants. They're just doing what every living creature does, doing for themselves the best that they can. The real enemy is not the immigrant, it is the traitors in the pay of the globalist Money Power. Your only means of revenge is via the cradle.

    There you are, James, more conspiracy theory for you, as originally set forth by non other than Bill Clintons's revered Georgetown University history mentor, Carrol Quigley. If people wish to understand the conspiracy by which they are being manipulated, they would do well to read Quigley's works, which though for many decades suppressed, are now readily available on Amazon.com, etc., presumably because the globalist elite consider it to be game over.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. janjan says:
    @Winston
    Not mentioned importance of location.

    Majority of Pakistanis settled in rust belt of UK-but came when manufacturing had not started its decline. Those whose parents settled in London area did well, including current mayor of London (whose father was a bus driver-and two other bus drivers' children-one who has held several cabinet positions-but is Communities Secretary currently, and another former head of Tory party).

    Bangladeshis mostly from Sylhet , so even though based mostly in London area they have less capacity.
    Most Pakistanis are from Mirpur-and came to UK to work in manufacturing after being displaced at home by dams.

    Most Pakistanis own their homes;but Bangladeshis live in govt housing.

    Britain’s industrial rustbelt was in terminal decline 50 years ago. The vast majority of the UK’s Pakistani population arrived long after any – claimed – need for them on the shop floors of the North. In fact taxi driving is a very important employer, to such an extent central government ordered local authorities to relax licensing conditions in order to soak up unemployment amongst Pakistani males.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. I do not know the why.
    I did travel in India, Pakistan, Turkey, Syria and Morocco.
    It is long ago, so I do not know if my observations then still apply.
    But when one sees that a university graduate is unable to put the nuts on the bolts of a car wheel, one realizes that there is a big difference.
    Discovery has a program How It is Made, any time I see it I’m amazed at the knowledge we have.
    The last time I was in Turkey I rented a car made in Turkey, it was in fact a Fiat 131, rigid rear axle, dangerous on the bad roads.
    I knew the dangers of this suspension, yet on one occasion the whole rear axle went into the air, and the car wanted to go off the road.
    What we see in the Netherlands with immigrants that they occupy themselves with small businesses.
    Or in simple labour.
    Those who conclude an academic education do little else than complain about discrimination.
    Racist as I am, what I see that most of them never should have got a degree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. The race differences happened because the mass-immigration of people incompatible with British culture was allowed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. The cult of equality. Sitting there surrounded by immigrants she is unlikely to arrive at any conclusion remotely reflecting the truth. That allowing mass-immigration was a huge mistake and that the immigrants have themselves to blame for their poor performance and lack of integration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Equality is not the guilty, it's a victim too because this people or don't understand what this word really mean in real world context or many/most of them are deliberately malignant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Winston
    Also, in US 55% of Pakistani Americans have an undergraduate or masters degree. BIG difference from UK! So it appears that where Pakistanis are from and where they settle makes a big difference.

    The educational standards in America are lower.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @R-truth
    I don't. But British Indian's have slightly higher median income than white British. It is hard to believe their IQ is 92 as claimed by Lynn.

    Britain is actually a land of equal opportunity. The immigrants have only themselves to blame. It is not racist but fact to point out IQ differences between the different races, they do exist, and Africa comes out low.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. I find the gap of only 5-6 IQ between British whites and Caribbeans/Africans(as well as Pakistanis/Bangladeshis to a slightly lesser extent), as shown in the Quantitive and Non-Verbal sections of that CAT study, highly highly unlikely and impractical, atleast at adulthood. The UK would have to be the sole outlier in the world. The only other possibility is Australia, from which I haven’t seen any data from, but the academic results from another Anglosphere country like Canada, and of course the rest of Europe, are closer to the US black-white gap of 15, if not further in a country like Sweden/Belgium where a large portion of the black population are straight up refugees.

    This blog analyzed more academic data from Britain, nearly all adulthood data, all rather recent, and the gaps are much closer to what we’d expect: https://web.archive.org/web/20140903221626/http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/partially-falsified/ , most showing around 9-10 between South Asians and British Whites, as well as 10-15 between Blacks and British Whites. Other IQ studies of ethnic groups in Britain also give a gap closer to the American one, albeit they’re rather old.

    The black-white PISA gap on math in the UK is around 493-500 white to 460s black, depending on the year, and around 510 to 470s for science/reading, not sure how that converts to IQ. I’d probably trust that number more than GSCEs or any study done by actual British.

    I know the Anglosphere countries are known for having more sane immigration policies than their other European counterparts, but looking at some black, Bangladeshi, Pakistani communities in the UK, along with poverty rates and incomes, to me it doesn’t real scream out highly selected immigrants.

    The Indian data, while not as surprising due to other examples and a large base population pool of 1.4 billion people around the world, still surprises me. Are they really that selected of a group like Indians in the US? Pretty sure at one point the UK let all the Indian colonials living in Uganda in the 60s-70s to move to Britain, again, doesn’t really scream out immigrants selected for education to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    They were persecuted by Idi Amin's government, which found them a useful scapegoat. Indians dominated much of what urban business life there was in Uganda, especially in Kampala. Possibly as a group they were better educated than indigenous Ugandans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Jonathan Mason
    I think in all countries, politicians just feel that it is pointless to say that racial differences in academic performance are related to genetic differences. It is a bit like when you are teaching CPR, you stress the factors that cause heart disease that can be changed by lifestyle more than the factors that cannot be changed.

    Everyone actually knows that some racial groups have the short straw in suitability for higher education, but if you want their votes, you probably don't want to make that much of a big thing of it, and it is better to think of ways to eliminate inequalities that can be changed, rather than to dwell on those that cannot.

    If a group starts to think of itself as ineducable, then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as has happened with many African-Americans in the US, and success in school may be equated with not being authentically blackity black in the local (neighbor)hood.

    Everyone actually knows that some racial groups have the short straw in suitability for higher education

    That’s untrue. Many people who grew up being fed anti-racist propaganda their whole lives believe all or most of it, regardless of experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    My experience of young people is that they accept the idea that everyone should be treated equally regardless of ethnicity but they do perceive that cultural behaviours are different in different cultures. The problem is that the part of their brain that links perceived ethnicity with perceived behaviour has been neutralised so they cannot perceive behaviour as genetic. And thus will the future be a ghastly remake of the last two thousand years until someone has again the bright idea to abandon cousins for civic duty.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    I am talking about politicians and people who study educational policy making. What do you think would be the effect of leading politicians publicly saying "this data clearly shows that gypsies are the thickest group of people in the whole country."

    My Mother said, I never should
    Play with the gypsies in the wood.
    If I did, she would say;
    'Naughty girl to disobey!

    Your hair shan't curl and your shoes shan't shine,
    You gypsy girl, you shan't be mine!
    And my father said that if I did,
    He'd rap my head with the teapot lid.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. pva says:
    @annonn
    "I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?"

    Likely related to the fact that the former, while representing ~3% of the UK population, account for ~30% of the annual reported congenital birth defects in the UK. There are ... cultural causes of this biological effect. Look it up.

    One of the possible explanations for the high number of congenital birth defects amongst Pakistanis which rarely, if ever, gets a mention is the very low Vitamin D levels in Pakistani women. The enforcement of “modest” clothing for Muslim women ensures that there is virtually no skin exposed to sunlight…hence the vitamin D deficiency.

    This is a serious public health problem which should be addressed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @R-truth
    I don't. But British Indian's have slightly higher median income than white British. It is hard to believe their IQ is 92 as claimed by Lynn.

    You are comparing some thousand Indian previously self selected people living in Britain versus 1,1 billion people.
    Indeed Indians is a politically construct. RF

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Philip Smeeton
    The cult of equality. Sitting there surrounded by immigrants she is unlikely to arrive at any conclusion remotely reflecting the truth. That allowing mass-immigration was a huge mistake and that the immigrants have themselves to blame for their poor performance and lack of integration.

    Equality is not the guilty, it’s a victim too because this people or don’t understand what this word really mean in real world context or many/most of them are deliberately malignant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Fred9
    Democracy will always fail us... Democracy will always result in popular opinions instead of cold reality. we do not see immigrants accepted into to China, Japan, Russia, at nearly the rates of the Western world. We will soon be outdone. We will be overrun. These people are parasites plain and simple. It's not hate, it's just the truth. They offer nothing but violence at their worst and their sassy attitude at best.

    Most Europeans don’t want mass immigration and most Europeans don’t what (((really is going on))). It’s not democracy when people is not heard.

    Russia is a third world country with rampant std incidence, social inequality, corruption and yes, immigration: 20 million people specially from ex-soviet republics, namely Muslim-majority ones.

    China is a combination between the worst aspects of capitalism with the worst aspects of communism. People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.

    Japan?? The next stage of (((globalism))) is to invite east Asian countries to enjoy the wonders of the multicultural country (((non monolithic mode))).

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Most Europeans don’t want mass immigration and most Europeans don’t what (((really is going on))). It’s not democracy when people is not heard.
     
    Correct.

    Opinion polls in Britain for many years have shown 70-plus% opposition to mass immigration. Even many immigrants oppose mass immigration. So, no, Britain is not a democracy. What is called democracy is a system of bullshit and distraction under which traitors in office do as the Money Power that owns them demands, while the media fabricate the propaganda to persuade the masses that they're getting what they asked for.
    , @PandaAtWar

    "China...No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life."
     
    Do not try to trash talk something you absolutely have no clue of.

    watch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jLXBCwn-IE
    , @PandaAtWar
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAV0bFNjXwo
    , @Daniel Chieh

    People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.
     
    Pretty bullshit but otherwise I do agree that democracy is suboptimal given its obvious results. A good thing that China does not follow that particular cult.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @res
    Thanks for linking back to that. I was surprised by how much even the second cousin case was depressed. Second cousins have an F (coefficient of inbreeding) of 0.0156 per the paper. Why is that F half the size of the coefficient of relationship (r) discussed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_relationship#Human_relationships
    I am trying to understand how such a seemingly small amount of inbreeding can result in an ~0.5SD decline in IQ given the degree of relatedness already present in the overall population.
    Based on that wiki fourth cousins have an r of 0.2% (second cousins 3.13%) with r decreasing by a factor of 4 with every additional "level" of cousin. So if the population relatedness is ~seventh cousin then r is 0.003% which is 1/1000 the second cousin case. That helps put the second cousin case in perspective.

    Are similar effects seen in other characteristics (e.g. height)?

    I would be interested in a more formal explanation by someone more knowledgeable in population genetics, but I guess the above will suffice for my intuition. Some links:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-statistics#Definitions_and_equations
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5560808/

    My first thought from your inbreeding post/paper was whether there was an artifact from lower IQ people being more likely to inbreed, but the figure 3 results stratified by SES make me think that effect is not important.

    There is an interesting outlier in figure 6. A double first cousin case with an IQ of ~120 where the rest are all under 80. Speaks to your response to a commenter in the earlier thread.

    P.S. For others, the paper has a number of more detailed figures. Worth checking out IMHO.

    Also we need analyze who are the people more prone to

    Cousin marriage
    Hardcore cousin marriage

    Maybe we also can have a cognitive confound here, poor/poorest people who live in isolated/rural places are more prone to engage in hardcore cousin marriage at least in this places.

    It’s can be a result of endogamic depression. We need analyze too if this endogamic depression is stable since a long time suggesting a kind of adaptation on this practices.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. What exactly is the author trying to say?

    Read More
    • Troll: Beefcake the Mighty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. helena says:
    @reiner Tor

    Everyone actually knows that some racial groups have the short straw in suitability for higher education
     
    That's untrue. Many people who grew up being fed anti-racist propaganda their whole lives believe all or most of it, regardless of experience.

    My experience of young people is that they accept the idea that everyone should be treated equally regardless of ethnicity but they do perceive that cultural behaviours are different in different cultures. The problem is that the part of their brain that links perceived ethnicity with perceived behaviour has been neutralised so they cannot perceive behaviour as genetic. And thus will the future be a ghastly remake of the last two thousand years until someone has again the bright idea to abandon cousins for civic duty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Many people feel that something's going wrong with the society they live but they can't become consistently aware.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Z-man says:
    @dearieme
    The pass has been sold. It's all over. I hope my grandchildren grow up somewhere else. If ever I have grandchildren.

    But where?

    It is over but here’s hoping you have grandchildren. Let’s go down with a fight! (Cheers)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. This is what you get from marrying your cousin, or not knowing who your daddy is and end up unwittingly having children with a close kin, maybe even your own daddy.

    Since culture is a lot harder to fix, try the easier solution and cull the outliers, that means expelling all those at the top and bottom, the Chinese and the Roma gypsies both have to go, then the curve will flatten out and equality will be achieved, world peace will be restored.

    The real story here is that British whites score almost on par with blacks, despite having much higher IQ from the CAT scores. What explains the underachievement of this group? Racism against whites? Or do the smart British whites simply attend private schools? At least that seems to be the excuse being passed around.

    I’d love to see the IQ of the Royal family, and perhaps all the Eton and Harrow attendees, there may be some other kind of inbreeding going on among the British upper class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Speaking of inbreeding:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9aa743ab9b1921a2bcf6c834efadeed4e10bb230189560b5bdf845bbe2bcd5a9.jpg

    , @GrenadierGunther
    British whites do not score almost on par with blacks. An A-C grade level range(C only supposedly the lowest mark whilist still being a pass) is awfully broad, and as the author of this article pointed out, British whites get a little over double As that of African blacks and a little over triple Caribbean blacks. I don't really know anything about GSCEs but if the suggestion is that C is solely a passing grade then it really doesn't mean much. I also wouldn't call private schools an excuse, but I would want data of whites actually being over represented in them and private schools making up a decent sized portion of the overall student population before making that argument.

    The British white-black gap is also attested with international PISA scores.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. I find the gap of only 5-6 IQ between British whites and Caribbeans/Africans(as well as Pakistanis/Bangladeshis to a slightly lesser extent), as shown in the Quantitive and Non-Verbal sections of that CAT study, highly highly unlikely and impractical, atleast at adulthood.

    As far as I could see from the data, this data set only applied to children in so-called state schools (government schools in US terminology) and did not include children in private, fee-paying schools, which would include a disproportionate number of white children and a disproportionate number of the children with the highest academic ability. So that might account for the discrepancy, or part of it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Peter Johnson
    • Replies: @GrenadierGunther
    Good point, I didn't think of that. I have heard it's quite common to send people to private schools in Britain, similarly to the US and Canada, as opposed to countries like Sweden or Germany where they're almost non-existent and the only option is a public school.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @reiner Tor

    Everyone actually knows that some racial groups have the short straw in suitability for higher education
     
    That's untrue. Many people who grew up being fed anti-racist propaganda their whole lives believe all or most of it, regardless of experience.

    I am talking about politicians and people who study educational policy making. What do you think would be the effect of leading politicians publicly saying “this data clearly shows that gypsies are the thickest group of people in the whole country.”

    My Mother said, I never should
    Play with the gypsies in the wood.
    If I did, she would say;
    ‘Naughty girl to disobey!

    Your hair shan’t curl and your shoes shan’t shine,
    You gypsy girl, you shan’t be mine!
    And my father said that if I did,
    He’d rap my head with the teapot lid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I am talking about politicians and people who study educational policy making. What do you think would be the effect of leading politicians publicly saying “this data clearly shows that gypsies are the thickest group of people in the whole country.”
     
    That’s a false dichotomy. Politicians could evade talking about the subject, or they could make meaningless noncommittal utterances with no followup. When a politician really doesn’t want to do something, he has six ways from Sunday to avoid doing it. The fact that these words are followed up with forceful policy changes means that they really want to do it.

    By the way, I didn’t find your assertion that politicians know the score quite persuasive. They are watching the same propaganda TV shows and don’t think much about the subject. They are also at least as isolated from the problem (or any other problems of society) as your typical liberal, but probably even more. So, no personal experience either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @helena
    My experience of young people is that they accept the idea that everyone should be treated equally regardless of ethnicity but they do perceive that cultural behaviours are different in different cultures. The problem is that the part of their brain that links perceived ethnicity with perceived behaviour has been neutralised so they cannot perceive behaviour as genetic. And thus will the future be a ghastly remake of the last two thousand years until someone has again the bright idea to abandon cousins for civic duty.

    Many people feel that something’s going wrong with the society they live but they can’t become consistently aware.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    "Undergraduate or masters" degrees in what?

    Mostly sciences, engineering, and medicine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Proof?

    Nope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @dearieme
    The pass has been sold. It's all over. I hope my grandchildren grow up somewhere else. If ever I have grandchildren.

    But where?

    If youre in a mixed or liberal area move to a white conservative area and literally get ready for war it may not come in your lifetime sadly it may not even come but if it does you and your children need to be prepared, the idaho montana even maine vermont and many other less beautiful places need conservative whites to counter the governments effort to brown these places with refugees ans the liberals that flee the messes they created

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    idaho montana even maine vermont and many other less beautiful places need conservative whites to counter the governments effort to brown these places with refugees
     
    Same in Britain.

    Institutions like the university in my home town of Exeter, all white when I read there in the library during school vacations back in the 50's and eary 60's, is now deemed too white.

    Whiteness is to be exterminated.

    Innocents like James see such thoughts as loonie conspiracy theories. I guess that's what university psychology professors are employed to "prove." But the globalist goal is clearly to destroy the nation state. How else institute global governance?

    So how to destroy the nation state?

    Simple: destroy the nations, particularly the powerful nations of Europe.

    And how to destroy the nations?

    Easy: genocide by suppressed reproduction, aka sex "education" that teaches that reproduction is the only sexual perversion, combined with mass immigration.

    As for the IQ of the immigrants: who gives a damn? In what way could it possibly matter to the globalist elite who actually dictate your fate?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Mostly sciences, engineering, and medicine.

    Proof?

    Nope.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Here you are: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states#Age_Education_Employment
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Wally says:
    @Another Realist
    This is what you get from marrying your cousin, or not knowing who your daddy is and end up unwittingly having children with a close kin, maybe even your own daddy.

    Since culture is a lot harder to fix, try the easier solution and cull the outliers, that means expelling all those at the top and bottom, the Chinese and the Roma gypsies both have to go, then the curve will flatten out and equality will be achieved, world peace will be restored.

    The real story here is that British whites score almost on par with blacks, despite having much higher IQ from the CAT scores. What explains the underachievement of this group? Racism against whites? Or do the smart British whites simply attend private schools? At least that seems to be the excuse being passed around.

    I'd love to see the IQ of the Royal family, and perhaps all the Eton and Harrow attendees, there may be some other kind of inbreeding going on among the British upper class.

    Speaking of inbreeding:

    Read More
    • LOL: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Nailed it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Che Guava says:
    @Wally
    "Undergraduate or masters" degrees in what?

    Mainly vIctimology and other such rubbish, I would guessing.

    Nice to seeing you straying outside your usual pattern.

    With the English population, you have the Chavs, essentially English version of wiggers, only worse, they are as devoted to sucking on the tits of the state as the other groups.

    A native English-speaking friend was to visiting 15 or so years ago, working as a teacher in London for six months, it was so ugly, things thrown, refusal to listen, he was broken.

    Brexit or not, England and Scotland are fucked in the long term.

    SNP, what a joke. ”National’, please to pulling the other one.

    From Stockholm to Oslo to Copenhagen to most cities in Germany, to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, to Paris, Marseilles, Lyon, to most of Italy, Madrid, etc., would never wanting to visit now.

    I wish I had visited western Europe, say before the end of the Cold War, although, as stating in an earlier post, a colleague was to visiting Portugal, she was saying the only problem was Roma pickpockets and beggars, and she and her husband were to taking adequate precautions against the former. To ignoring the latter was easy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Words cannot describe how truly loathsome Theresa May is, even by liberal standards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Wally
    Speaking of inbreeding:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9aa743ab9b1921a2bcf6c834efadeed4e10bb230189560b5bdf845bbe2bcd5a9.jpg

    Nailed it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. UK Government: Race Differences in Achievement Must be Explained

    Yeah, how come blacks are achieving more in sports in and in colonizing the wombs of other races?

    Why are white wombs being colonized by African seeds?

    How come black males are over-achieving in beating up white males?

    We need an explanation, damn it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Why are white wombs being colonized by African seeds?

    Because whites are stupid, obviously.

    Or more exactly, because whites have been brainwashed into a state or paralysis that closely resembles stupidity, and appears to amount to a state of terminal helplessness.

    The European nations are being genocided, and folks stand idly by discoursing on trivial differences in mean academic achievement among the occupying races.

    It would be funny if genocide were not such a dirty business.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. m___ says:

    This is next to the markers, the scope of the article.

    But then, is above group measuring in any way of importance? Where society, a sophisticated one, should step in is fishing the uppermost talented, at the youngest age possible. A qualitative society, eugenic breeding and genetics, needs before anything else an elite in any field, not just or even “milionaires”, “high-income”. The way economics and war measure “succes” and “talent” is a brute force one, and has been hijacked by an elite not up to par.

    Too much may-be, but(again), it is hard to contest that high-talent tasks, and the few, are the ones that make a difference, bulk paints the canvas. Now since human blobs, contrairy to computers (the internet, serially connected processors on and of the motherboard), are not easily chained, macons may multiply outcome by augmenting the participating numbers of workers, but high-level tasks are single individual jobs, and need other high-talented individuals to understand and use the acquired building blocks.

    Convention has it wrong, in using education systems to fish out the lucky few that can make a difference, eugenics in breeding and genetic analysis and manipulation, universities that fall back on raw judgement of talent, at the price of being not understood, should be taken for granted.

    Even nano technology, and building machine logic interference into and useable by a human brain stands a better chance of stepping up cognitive power of modern societies. All in all, it must be that the advancement of man, should go through this phase of deconstructing radically our concepts of what is progress and where progress is to be made, what lays at the basis of progress.

    Qualitative society is not something bigger numbers, of anything, but better brain individuals can achieve, convention, education, war, economics, politics, sociology are stone age tools in achieving a new level op “prosperity”, starting by defining it.

    To say it mildly, our elites are not up to par, never were, and will hold us back as a species, to outright destruction. Focus, ignore the few points of ignorance between groups could be of essence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Another Realist
    This is what you get from marrying your cousin, or not knowing who your daddy is and end up unwittingly having children with a close kin, maybe even your own daddy.

    Since culture is a lot harder to fix, try the easier solution and cull the outliers, that means expelling all those at the top and bottom, the Chinese and the Roma gypsies both have to go, then the curve will flatten out and equality will be achieved, world peace will be restored.

    The real story here is that British whites score almost on par with blacks, despite having much higher IQ from the CAT scores. What explains the underachievement of this group? Racism against whites? Or do the smart British whites simply attend private schools? At least that seems to be the excuse being passed around.

    I'd love to see the IQ of the Royal family, and perhaps all the Eton and Harrow attendees, there may be some other kind of inbreeding going on among the British upper class.

    British whites do not score almost on par with blacks. An A-C grade level range(C only supposedly the lowest mark whilist still being a pass) is awfully broad, and as the author of this article pointed out, British whites get a little over double As that of African blacks and a little over triple Caribbean blacks. I don’t really know anything about GSCEs but if the suggestion is that C is solely a passing grade then it really doesn’t mean much. I also wouldn’t call private schools an excuse, but I would want data of whites actually being over represented in them and private schools making up a decent sized portion of the overall student population before making that argument.

    The British white-black gap is also attested with international PISA scores.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Jonathan Mason

    I find the gap of only 5-6 IQ between British whites and Caribbeans/Africans(as well as Pakistanis/Bangladeshis to a slightly lesser extent), as shown in the Quantitive and Non-Verbal sections of that CAT study, highly highly unlikely and impractical, atleast at adulthood.
     
    As far as I could see from the data, this data set only applied to children in so-called state schools (government schools in US terminology) and did not include children in private, fee-paying schools, which would include a disproportionate number of white children and a disproportionate number of the children with the highest academic ability. So that might account for the discrepancy, or part of it.

    Good point, I didn’t think of that. I have heard it’s quite common to send people to private schools in Britain, similarly to the US and Canada, as opposed to countries like Sweden or Germany where they’re almost non-existent and the only option is a public school.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme
    The pass has been sold. It's all over. I hope my grandchildren grow up somewhere else. If ever I have grandchildren.

    But where?

    The pass has been sold. It’s all over. I hope my grandchildren grow up somewhere else.

    One of Canada’s first nations leaders remarked a while ago: “We should have killed them all when they first arrived.”

    That may not have been a realistic possibility. Still the sentiment was wise. Those who won’t fight for their country won’t have a country or any posterity. And indeed there is no need even to fight the immigrants, merely the dopes and traitors, the Thereason Mays, the Corbyns and Blairs, the Heaths, and all the rest, including, at the price of being labelled by James Thompson a conspiracy theorist, the controlled opposition, the Nick Griffins, the Tommy Robinsons, and the Nigel Farages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Realist
    "UK Government: Race Differences in Achievement Must be Explained"

    That's easy: Some races are a lot stupider than others.

    Some races are a lot stupider than others.

    They just have more children than the white British, which proves that bollocks baffle brains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    The British are not using their brains by letting in third worlders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Fred9
    Democracy will always fail us... Democracy will always result in popular opinions instead of cold reality. we do not see immigrants accepted into to China, Japan, Russia, at nearly the rates of the Western world. We will soon be outdone. We will be overrun. These people are parasites plain and simple. It's not hate, it's just the truth. They offer nothing but violence at their worst and their sassy attitude at best.

    We will be overrun.

    Have been mate:

    RIP this Britain: With academic objectivity, Oxford Professor and population expert DAVID COLEMAN says white Britons could be in the minority by the 2060s – or sooner

    And that was the objective.

    No good railing against the immigrants. They’re just doing what every living creature does, doing for themselves the best that they can. The real enemy is not the immigrant, it is the traitors in the pay of the globalist Money Power. Your only means of revenge is via the cradle.

    There you are, James, more conspiracy theory for you, as originally set forth by non other than Bill Clintons’s revered Georgetown University history mentor, Carrol Quigley. If people wish to understand the conspiracy by which they are being manipulated, they would do well to read Quigley’s works, which though for many decades suppressed, are now readily available on Amazon.com, etc., presumably because the globalist elite consider it to be game over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Wally
    "Undergraduate or masters" degrees in what?

    He pulled that out of his ass. I haven’t seen any direct numbers on education achievement of Pakistanis in the US, but given all together Asian Americans(which of course includes Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc which theoretically should have higher rates than Pakistanis) have a 53.9% rate of having Bachelor’s degrees or higher, and 21.4% having advanced degrees(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf)

    Another figure making his claims highly unlikely is Pakistani Americans have an average income(not household income, which isn’t as good an indicator of success because of differing household sizes and divorce rates among ethnic groups) of $26,739, compared to an average Asian income of $34,399, an average white income of $32,910, with various European ethnicities going over 40k(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income)

    Add on that Pakistanis are mostly concentrated in the largest metropolitan areas of the US where people get payed more for the same jobs as rural areas because of higher costs of everything, the numbers become more dismal for Pakistani Americans.

    Reminds me of the “higher educated than white American Nigerian immigrant” myth, when the average Nigerian income is similarly only around 26k.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar
    "Asian" Americans include Filipinos, who are the 2nd largest group of "Asian" Americans, most of them being non-ethnic Chinese. The average IQ of Philippine is 86. So the average "Asian" income you cited has been watered down a lot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    Most Europeans don't want mass immigration and most Europeans don't what (((really is going on))). It's not democracy when people is not heard.

    Russia is a third world country with rampant std incidence, social inequality, corruption and yes, immigration: 20 million people specially from ex-soviet republics, namely Muslim-majority ones.

    China is a combination between the worst aspects of capitalism with the worst aspects of communism. People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.

    Japan?? The next stage of (((globalism))) is to invite east Asian countries to enjoy the wonders of the multicultural country (((non monolithic mode))).

    Most Europeans don’t want mass immigration and most Europeans don’t what (((really is going on))). It’s not democracy when people is not heard.

    Correct.

    Opinion polls in Britain for many years have shown 70-plus% opposition to mass immigration. Even many immigrants oppose mass immigration. So, no, Britain is not a democracy. What is called democracy is a system of bullshit and distraction under which traitors in office do as the Money Power that owns them demands, while the media fabricate the propaganda to persuade the masses that they’re getting what they asked for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    death by gullibility
    , @Santoculto
    Exactly.

    Other supposed aspect of democracy is the duty of intellectual classes to inform other classes in very correct ways. We don't have this, otherwise is absolutely expected. Of course I'm saying about a ideal form of democracy because even original/greek version it was not what many people today believe it must be or always was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Proof?

    Nope.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Except there's nothing about actual degrees earned in what.

    Fail.

    Keep at it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Colleen Pater
    If youre in a mixed or liberal area move to a white conservative area and literally get ready for war it may not come in your lifetime sadly it may not even come but if it does you and your children need to be prepared, the idaho montana even maine vermont and many other less beautiful places need conservative whites to counter the governments effort to brown these places with refugees ans the liberals that flee the messes they created

    idaho montana even maine vermont and many other less beautiful places need conservative whites to counter the governments effort to brown these places with refugees

    Same in Britain.

    Institutions like the university in my home town of Exeter, all white when I read there in the library during school vacations back in the 50′s and eary 60′s, is now deemed too white.

    Whiteness is to be exterminated.

    Innocents like James see such thoughts as loonie conspiracy theories. I guess that’s what university psychology professors are employed to “prove.” But the globalist goal is clearly to destroy the nation state. How else institute global governance?

    So how to destroy the nation state?

    Simple: destroy the nations, particularly the powerful nations of Europe.

    And how to destroy the nations?

    Easy: genocide by suppressed reproduction, aka sex “education” that teaches that reproduction is the only sexual perversion, combined with mass immigration.

    As for the IQ of the immigrants: who gives a damn? In what way could it possibly matter to the globalist elite who actually dictate your fate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    IQ is important both to those of us who wish to preserve our states and those who wish to destroy them. IQ determines to a large part a states success. And Its a barrier to those who would like to control that state.

    But its more important than just that because we are watching two types of leftism negotiate, the old school communism, which failed at class redistributionism in the high IQ productive west because it was a hard sell until they found their cultural marxist side projects of destabilization like feminism, immigration, race politics, all were doing so well and they switched from class to racial/gender redistributionism in europe they didnt have the slave meme to work, but then developed the colonial excuse. (europe did better with old commism because it transitioned from serf ag to industrialization worse)
    Now this new iteration of old school communism also found during this transition that they had to have a capitalist frame work to parasitize, but that the Caps were all too happy now that the commies were not out to destroy them to partner with the commies on immigration and globalism thus we have the soros clinton gates bobo etal billionaire bolsheviks phenom. CapComs if you will or globalists
    But we also have the other leftism the one developed specifically for the High IQ western european born in the American leftist revolution and the Anglo political philosophers, thats the leftism we call classical liberalism in america. Democracy for short.Now this sort of leftism has a half life it sems of about 200 years before it devolves from republicanism to democracy to populism to fascism to anarchy and hopefully to war and restoration. This leftism hopes because it sprouts from a people of high IQ but also of singularly different people from the rest of the world people who are outward non tribal we organize around ideas not blood and soil, we are co opertive altruistic because we are high trust -worthy an so complex capable sociologically. We thought and it can be argued may have been right that leftism demotism within these populations was possible.Of course it was always a gentleman's agreement dependent on a morally supreme people. as it seemed to succeed we expanded the franchise to include more and more of our co ethnics including our women, its probably somewhere in here that we hit the laffer curve of classical liberalism. But we argued since it was an aristocracy of merit things would be ok. Unfortunately all these high principles we counted on are next to impossible to make hard laws of and to a great extent require the aristocracy which was morphed nto one of merit to continue to enforce standards mostly socially this didn't happen, one reason was capitalism it turned out as any king or bishop might have told you was not particularly right wing more self interested in a single minded way.And it turned out the old aristocracy wasn't any good at capitalism without the closed system abolished as america exported its leftist revolution back to europe. non anglos began to assert interests through capitalism and socialism, they had interests that were more ethnic than the grand experiment of this anglo high leftism. the wasps and their acolytes held on to their ideals for a while though in the end most betrayed us for (((filthy lucre)))

    So you have whats left of this other leftism and it doesn't realize that what it thinks of as conservatism is really them trying to conserve a certain period of a leftist revolution and the commie left is in reality simply the continuation of that revolution. They dont realize you cant lock that early american anglo revolution in place at 1690 1820 or 1950 or where ever you think was the sweet spot because you dont have those people anymore and if you did you need them to maintain that system socially, yet it was always going to be a legalistic system eventually because muh enlightenment, see the inherent contradiction. well follow along then. we start with nietzsche's slave morality of christianity its non morbid as long as its demotism accrues only to fellow europeans historically geographically and later economically isolated, in that environment its a net positive and actually genetically selects for the high trust raits of euroman and sets the stage for the enlightenment that too works great in that high trust high IQ genetic environment, america exports the revolution designed by the anglos who actually already had a few glorious revolutions of their own before hand,america sends it to france and it gets a bit out of hand with the gauls, then it gets into the murderous hands of the jews in russia and all hell breaks loose, now in fairness this was bound to happen as we transitioned from the social order of serf agriculture to industrialized capitalism or at least some pains were to be expected and surely europe lagged america because of this.and inter eiro ethnic interests became a player. Now heres the rub.

    So now we see both the right and the left are left though they dont understand themselves that way they both proceed fromthe absurd assertion that all men are created equal which of course proceeds from the far leftist christian theology.
    But now these two lefts are vying for supremacy and the righter left is hung up on reason and merit which they don't understand why the lefter left doesnt get. Heres why. the lefter left understands perfectly what they have convinced the righter right (through alinsky's rule of "hold the enemy to its own principles") what they can never think let alone utter, the lefter left knows perfectly that all men are not created equally at all that women are not men's equals that africans will never in a million years equal the achievements of european men.This is why affirmative action ( seems like youre about to learn about that) white privilege etc are instituted the left knows meritocracy is in no way in the interest of its constituents.Its constituents are stupid useless mouths the average african IQ depending on tribe is 55-65. In other words the anglo leftism of reason and merit will only work within those countries but then who would pay for the rest of the revolution.and the right can defend this from its classical liberal christian principle of all men are created equal and are our brothers in christ. this is why communism infected the west through christianity first then through democracy both are leftist ideologies.

    Until white men understand that defending christian and classical liberalism is defending leftism they are helpless against further leftism. They need to defend themselves as a people a culture and as geographic nations of the specific ethnic people and nation or in the case of much of the anglo diaspora a generally white ethno culture. They probably if they manage to do this and survive rethink democracy particularly gender equality. they had better at least have a good reason to think if they pursue it again why it wont replay as it did ths past time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    UK Government: Race Differences in Achievement Must be Explained

    Yeah, how come blacks are achieving more in sports in and in colonizing the wombs of other races?

    Why are white wombs being colonized by African seeds?

    How come black males are over-achieving in beating up white males?

    We need an explanation, damn it.

    Why are white wombs being colonized by African seeds?

    Because whites are stupid, obviously.

    Or more exactly, because whites have been brainwashed into a state or paralysis that closely resembles stupidity, and appears to amount to a state of terminal helplessness.

    The European nations are being genocided, and folks stand idly by discoursing on trivial differences in mean academic achievement among the occupying races.

    It would be funny if genocide were not such a dirty business.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    But why by the black race? It's because as Pop Culture reminds everyone through TV sitcoms, rap music, advertising, movies, and sex industry. Negro men got bigger dongs, and white girls are raised with that trope as topic of their conversation.
    , @Santoculto
    Not just whites but seems most people without their elites, for their not so well being, mostly, will act in this errant ways. Why "white elites" are traitors??? They ALWAYS were, because they always were attracted to power and not help "their own" people. When "white elites" forge war worlds in XX century it was a huge traitor act against European people's. Europeans as well most other human populations has been selected specially to be a breed of natural workers instead a breed of thinkers firstly/too. The markers of psychological castration/domestication is there, always or specially since the rise of complex societies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. helena says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Most Europeans don’t want mass immigration and most Europeans don’t what (((really is going on))). It’s not democracy when people is not heard.
     
    Correct.

    Opinion polls in Britain for many years have shown 70-plus% opposition to mass immigration. Even many immigrants oppose mass immigration. So, no, Britain is not a democracy. What is called democracy is a system of bullshit and distraction under which traitors in office do as the Money Power that owns them demands, while the media fabricate the propaganda to persuade the masses that they're getting what they asked for.

    death by gullibility

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Re:

    death by gullibility
     
    “Naturally, the common people don’t want [war] to be victims of genocide*; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is ... denounce the [pacifists] patriots for [lack of patriotism] their racism.... It works the same way in any country.”

    Herman Goering, at his trial at Nuremberg.

    ———
    * Italicized text substituted for original text in square brackets.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @GrenadierGunther
    He pulled that out of his ass. I haven't seen any direct numbers on education achievement of Pakistanis in the US, but given all together Asian Americans(which of course includes Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc which theoretically should have higher rates than Pakistanis) have a 53.9% rate of having Bachelor's degrees or higher, and 21.4% having advanced degrees(https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf)

    Another figure making his claims highly unlikely is Pakistani Americans have an average income(not household income, which isn't as good an indicator of success because of differing household sizes and divorce rates among ethnic groups) of $26,739, compared to an average Asian income of $34,399, an average white income of $32,910, with various European ethnicities going over 40k(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income)

    Add on that Pakistanis are mostly concentrated in the largest metropolitan areas of the US where people get payed more for the same jobs as rural areas because of higher costs of everything, the numbers become more dismal for Pakistani Americans.

    Reminds me of the "higher educated than white American Nigerian immigrant" myth, when the average Nigerian income is similarly only around 26k.

    “Asian” Americans include Filipinos, who are the 2nd largest group of “Asian” Americans, most of them being non-ethnic Chinese. The average IQ of Philippine is 86. So the average “Asian” income you cited has been watered down a lot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Santoculto
    Most Europeans don't want mass immigration and most Europeans don't what (((really is going on))). It's not democracy when people is not heard.

    Russia is a third world country with rampant std incidence, social inequality, corruption and yes, immigration: 20 million people specially from ex-soviet republics, namely Muslim-majority ones.

    China is a combination between the worst aspects of capitalism with the worst aspects of communism. People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.

    Japan?? The next stage of (((globalism))) is to invite east Asian countries to enjoy the wonders of the multicultural country (((non monolithic mode))).

    “China…No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.”

    Do not try to trash talk something you absolutely have no clue of.

    watch:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I will not debate with a Chinese hasbara version....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @helena
    death by gullibility

    Re:

    death by gullibility

    “Naturally, the common people don’t want [war] to be victims of genocide*; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is … denounce the [pacifists] patriots for [lack of patriotism] their racism…. It works the same way in any country.”

    Herman Goering, at his trial at Nuremberg.

    ———
    * Italicized text substituted for original text in square brackets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Santoculto
    Most Europeans don't want mass immigration and most Europeans don't what (((really is going on))). It's not democracy when people is not heard.

    Russia is a third world country with rampant std incidence, social inequality, corruption and yes, immigration: 20 million people specially from ex-soviet republics, namely Muslim-majority ones.

    China is a combination between the worst aspects of capitalism with the worst aspects of communism. People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.

    Japan?? The next stage of (((globalism))) is to invite east Asian countries to enjoy the wonders of the multicultural country (((non monolithic mode))).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. El Dato says:

    > 2030: Sharia Europe implemented. A lot of intersectional shutting-up occurs. Liberals aghast. Female liberation movement declares victory, then is no longer allowed to leave home.
    > 2040: Black Africans shoaed by Caliph’s decree. A short smoking of stacks occur, then further immigration is disallowed. Trans-Saharan voyages are rendered difficult as large regions are sterilized by lacing them with radiocobalt 60. Liberals even more aghast.
    > 2042: Liberals gassed.
    > 2045: Society breaks down as knowledge to run the machines is either lost or becomes inaccessible. Some leftover AIs try to keep things running, then give up.
    > 2050: In a reverse Operation Dandelion, China depopulates Europe by using a flesh-eating nanomachine. Europe becomes an archeological paradise and sought-after holiday resort for Asian glitterati. “Kraft durch Freude” socialistic holiday programme is resurrected, only in another language.

    THE END!

    Read More
    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Re. the events in 2042: what kind of gas do you suppose they’ll use?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Wally says: • Website
    @Anon
    Here you are: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states#Age_Education_Employment

    Except there’s nothing about actual degrees earned in what.

    Fail.

    Keep at it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What would be the point of finding those data for you? You'll just dismiss any evidence that proves you wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Realist says:
    @CanSpeccy
    Some races are a lot stupider than others.

    They just have more children than the white British, which proves that bollocks baffle brains.

    The British are not using their brains by letting in third worlders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The British are not using their brains by letting in third worlders.
     
    But they're not letting in Third Worlders, or First Worlders for that matter. Its the treasonous scum in Parliament justified by the propagandists at the BBC and the rest of the media, who are letting them in. Not because its good for the British, but because it will destroy them as a racial and cultural entity: a genocide undertaken in the interests of the globalist elite, AKA, the Money Power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Rdm says:

    I chime in my two cents.

    I’d like to have the narrative in the future from the Chinese perspective, instead of “Euro-centric” perspective.

    1. I want to label Chinese IQ as normal, not “high” IQ. In this case, all other races IQ will become subpar IQ, depending on where you look at it.

    “High” IQ is not a compliment, it has a subliminal message that White IQ are normal whereas the rest of the IQ are categorized as necessary.

    2. Slanted eyes are not abnormal. If it’s assumed “normal”, White people eyes will be stereotyped as “Beady” eyes or “Gouged” eyes.

    Now we all can make stereotypes and bash one another.

    The bottom line is, he who has the narrative, wins the argument.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Government interventions are going to have to be early, very early. By 21 weeks differences in head circumference are apparent. Not 21 weeks of life, 21 weeks of gestation.

    Ha! The conclusive proof of racial differences in intelligence, a difference in head circumference.

    LOL

    Did Einstein have a big head? Um, well probably not. On autopsy, his brain was found to weigh no more than average for a man of his build.

    Then there was Carl Gauss, his brain on autopsy was also found to be quite normal in size too. So normal, in fact, that some geniuses began to wonder whether Gauss was perhaps not the genius everyone had supposed — as if some nincompoop with a tape measure determining the circumference of someone’s head can make a better assessment of that person’s mathematical talent than all the math professors in the world.

    And is there any real evidence evidence of racial differences in brain mass? Here’s what one anthropologist had to say:

    A critical review is given of those factors which may be accompanied by variations in brain weight, viz. sex, body size, age of death, nutritional state in early life, source of the sample, occupational group, cause of death, lapse of time after death, temperature after death, anatomical level of severance, presence or absence of cerebrospinal fluid, of meninges, and of blood-vessels. Valid comparisons between the brain-weight of human populations should take all, or several, of these variables into account; however, published studies have not done so, despite claims to the contrary. The ideal sample is from subjects who have died suddenly without prior disease: while three such samples are on record for Europeans, none has been recorded for Negroes. The brain-weight of healthy Negroes is not known. Most published interracial comparisons are invalid. The histological, chemical and functional counterparts of big and small brains in modern man are not known. Published interracial comparisons of thickness of the cerebral cortex and, particularly, of its supragranular layer, are technically invalid: there is no acceptable proof that the cortex of Negroes is thinner in whole, or in any layer, than that of Europeans. It is concluded that vast claims have been based on insubstantial evidence.

    Has anything changed since Tobias wrote that in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I guess they did.

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement in naturally aspirated piston engines produced in the same year. A larger engine will typically be more powerful, but there are other factors that determine the final output, so that it’s quite possible for a smaller engine to be more powerful. However, on average, larger engines will average higher power outputs.

    By the way I’m sure you actually understand this, so you shouldn’t use fallacious arguments like “Einstein didn’t have a large brain so brain size cannot have any correlation to intelligence at all”.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Realist
    The British are not using their brains by letting in third worlders.

    The British are not using their brains by letting in third worlders.

    But they’re not letting in Third Worlders, or First Worlders for that matter. Its the treasonous scum in Parliament justified by the propagandists at the BBC and the rest of the media, who are letting them in. Not because its good for the British, but because it will destroy them as a racial and cultural entity: a genocide undertaken in the interests of the globalist elite, AKA, the Money Power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "Its the treasonous scum in Parliament justified by the propagandists at the BBC and the rest of the media, who are letting them in."

    Who elected them???
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Thomm says:

    This data destroys a fair amount of the IQ fetishism of WNs (except regarding blacks, where it is in fact true).

    Pakistanis are considerably more Caucasoid than Indians, yet Indians outperform them in the UK, the US, etc.

    So Islam was obviously the biggest factor here, and supercedes genetics as a factor (otherwise Pakistan would be to India what Spain is to Mexico, in terms of economic performance).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    IQ has nothing to do with Caucasoidness per se.
    , @Santoculto
    Or the brain drain in Pakistan is higher than in India.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @James Thompson
    Agree. Could be sampling differences, but no real explanation comes to mind.

    On IQ, there is a higher likelihood of inbreeding among those who adhere to a strong Islamic culture, which is probable among Pakistani immigrants. On culture, in America at least, it’s generally observed that 2nd-generation Hindu Indians assimilate and integrate unproblematically; this may have to do with greater Aryan heritage and/or the relatively liberal, pluralistic Hindu cultural attitudes. I have had a number of Hindu male friends in the U.S. who speak in an absolutely fluent surfer-dude or stoner-dude American tongue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Except there's nothing about actual degrees earned in what.

    Fail.

    Keep at it.

    What would be the point of finding those data for you? You’ll just dismiss any evidence that proves you wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    A WN retard like Wally never gets out of his mother's basement. Everyone (even people who hate Indians) know that Indians almost exclusively pursue medicine, engineering, or finance as professions. Whatever their other flaws, this fact about Indians living in the West is not in dispute.

    Wally can't even write a comment more than one line, because his IQ is too low. He reminds us that White Trashionalists have Negro IQs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Thomm says:
    @Anon
    What would be the point of finding those data for you? You'll just dismiss any evidence that proves you wrong.

    A WN retard like Wally never gets out of his mother’s basement. Everyone (even people who hate Indians) know that Indians almost exclusively pursue medicine, engineering, or finance as professions. Whatever their other flaws, this fact about Indians living in the West is not in dispute.

    Wally can’t even write a comment more than one line, because his IQ is too low. He reminds us that White Trashionalists have Negro IQs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    Oh yes. I put forward a near-treatise once on the fascist aspects of the political system in Turkey. Wally (what a beautiful name, especially given its British English colloquial meaning!) dismissed it in one line, namely that I allegedly don't know what fascism is. Still, he does have his Holocaust denial template which pads out most of his posts. No doubt that was written by someone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Wally says: • Website

    IOW, as I demonstrated, you can’t find data to support your false & very stupid argument. LOL

    I win again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    In Australia,

    http://www.slang-dictionary.org/australian-slang/Wally

    "Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @El Dato
    > 2030: Sharia Europe implemented. A lot of intersectional shutting-up occurs. Liberals aghast. Female liberation movement declares victory, then is no longer allowed to leave home.
    > 2040: Black Africans shoaed by Caliph's decree. A short smoking of stacks occur, then further immigration is disallowed. Trans-Saharan voyages are rendered difficult as large regions are sterilized by lacing them with radiocobalt 60. Liberals even more aghast.
    > 2042: Liberals gassed.
    > 2045: Society breaks down as knowledge to run the machines is either lost or becomes inaccessible. Some leftover AIs try to keep things running, then give up.
    > 2050: In a reverse Operation Dandelion, China depopulates Europe by using a flesh-eating nanomachine. Europe becomes an archeological paradise and sought-after holiday resort for Asian glitterati. "Kraft durch Freude" socialistic holiday programme is resurrected, only in another language.

    THE END!

    Re. the events in 2042: what kind of gas do you suppose they’ll use?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    what kind of gas do you suppose they’ll use? - Laughing gas?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Eagle Eye says:
    @annonn
    "I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?"

    Likely related to the fact that the former, while representing ~3% of the UK population, account for ~30% of the annual reported congenital birth defects in the UK. There are ... cultural causes of this biological effect. Look it up.

    Also, many Pakistanis were recruited from narrow areas in Pakistan for industrial work. By contrast, many Indians are a self-selected elite since they were established as traders in Uganda and elsewhere before coming to the UK.

    For example, the Patel caste stereotypically runs retail shops in the UK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Blockstack?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    IOW, as I demonstrated, you can't find data to support your false & very stupid argument. LOL

    I win again.

    In Australia,

    http://www.slang-dictionary.org/australian-slang/Wally

    “Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    “Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet”
     
    Wow. Pwned!

    Wally is actually claiming that Indians study easy fields (despite this, they are the highest-income ethnic group in the US, and are doing pretty well in the UK). Of course, Wally, being a WN wigger, cannot explain why he thinks this, despite overwhelming evidence that Indians study STEM with a higher incidence than any other group (even Chinese).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Hence during times of drought a typical government TV ad would say "Don't be aWally with Water".
    , @anon
    Never heard it said in Australia before Minder, where Dennis Waterman often used it.
    Real meaning: short for wally woofta = poofter = sleazy homosexual [Cockney rhyming slang]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Thomm says:
    @anon
    In Australia,

    http://www.slang-dictionary.org/australian-slang/Wally

    "Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet"

    “Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet”

    Wow. Pwned!

    Wally is actually claiming that Indians study easy fields (despite this, they are the highest-income ethnic group in the US, and are doing pretty well in the UK). Of course, Wally, being a WN wigger, cannot explain why he thinks this, despite overwhelming evidence that Indians study STEM with a higher incidence than any other group (even Chinese).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    So where's the stats & "overwhelming evidence" for degrees that I asked for? LOL

    You are dodging & weasel wording, and you know it.

    You talk because you have a mouth.

    I win.
    , @GrenadierGunther
    Wally hasn't even mention Indians before this post, he responded to a post claiming -Pakistanis- have a high rate of advanced degrees in the US, which is untrue. For some reason when asked for proof of Pakistani success in the US, anon linked to the education attainment levels of Indians in the US.

    Also, Indians are not the highest-income ethnic group in the US, they're 9th(not that it isn't impressive). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. utu says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Re. the events in 2042: what kind of gas do you suppose they’ll use?

    what kind of gas do you suppose they’ll use? – Laughing gas?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @unpc downunder
    Politicians don't care a lot about votes. Conservative immigration policies go down well with most voters. Politicians (or rather political parties) care more about donors. This is why the Tories and Republicans are pro-immigration - wealthy immigrants and businessmen bribe the political parties into supporting more immigration.

    Urban minorities usually end up voting for left-wing parties, yet because some white property developers and rich Chinese and Indian businessmen like to donate to both parties, the centre-right parties support Asian immigration.

    You may be right about some groups of politicians paying more attention to donor’s policy preferences than those of voters – which is how I understand your first sentence, but it is too broad a generalisation. For example the Liberal Party of Australia (think centre-left Republican or Tory), especially in its principled heartland of Victoria (capital Melbourne) used to have very strict rules separating individual MPs and candidates from the donors in contrast to the Labor party’s iron discipline which meant expulsion if an MP voted against the party line which would usually be that of a party conference dominated by tbe big donors, viz. the trade unions. The fact that the Liberal government has just brought in an extra tax on the major banks suggests that attention to donors’ wishes isn’t as close as would be prudent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Right or wrong, banks are hated in Australia.
    The Labor Party have been calling for a Royal Commission into banking. the tax is just Liberal politics, while trying to keep the banks on side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @anon
    In Australia,

    http://www.slang-dictionary.org/australian-slang/Wally

    "Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet"

    Hence during times of drought a typical government TV ad would say “Don’t be aWally with Water”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @res
    I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?

    One oddity is that in the final Table 4 CAT results Carribean Blacks slightly outperform African Blacks (except for -0.2 lower quantitative), but in your first table of maths results the relationship is reversed and larger.

    There’s definitely something going on with the selectivity, as I get the impression that the gap between Pakis and Hindus is much narrower in the U.S. There’s also the issue of inbreeding in Muslim culture. Finally, a lot of the lowest caste Indians converted to Islam when that religion established itself on the subcontinent during the Moghul era, in order to escape discrimination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    You may be right about some groups of politicians paying more attention to donor's policy preferences than those of voters - which is how I understand your first sentence, but it is too broad a generalisation. For example the Liberal Party of Australia (think centre-left Republican or Tory), especially in its principled heartland of Victoria (capital Melbourne) used to have very strict rules separating individual MPs and candidates from the donors in contrast to the Labor party's iron discipline which meant expulsion if an MP voted against the party line which would usually be that of a party conference dominated by tbe big donors, viz. the trade unions. The fact that the Liberal government has just brought in an extra tax on the major banks suggests that attention to donors' wishes isn't as close as would be prudent.

    Right or wrong, banks are hated in Australia.
    The Labor Party have been calling for a Royal Commission into banking. the tax is just Liberal politics, while trying to keep the banks on side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    No doubt you are rigjt when you imply that the Liberal Party has put politics (and the Budget) first but I think the assumption is that the banks don't have anywhere to go politically.

    Hated? I wonder. I recall hate circa 1990 when stressed banks were hardnosed with customers. Now I would have thought a large number of retired people and others saving for retirement value the large dividends that the banks are relied on to pay.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    In Australia,

    http://www.slang-dictionary.org/australian-slang/Wally

    "Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet"

    Never heard it said in Australia before Minder, where Dennis Waterman often used it.
    Real meaning: short for wally woofta = poofter = sleazy homosexual [Cockney rhyming slang]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Wally says:
    @Thomm

    “Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet”
     
    Wow. Pwned!

    Wally is actually claiming that Indians study easy fields (despite this, they are the highest-income ethnic group in the US, and are doing pretty well in the UK). Of course, Wally, being a WN wigger, cannot explain why he thinks this, despite overwhelming evidence that Indians study STEM with a higher incidence than any other group (even Chinese).

    So where’s the stats & “overwhelming evidence” for degrees that I asked for? LOL

    You are dodging & weasel wording, and you know it.

    You talk because you have a mouth.

    I win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    You are the one who claimed that Indians don't study STEM. So it is your job to support it.

    Whether people like Indians or hate them, everyone agrees they all study STEM, Finance, or Law.

    I understand that as a WN wigger, you have a negro IQ, so you don't know how to read statistics. But you still have to back up your statements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Realist says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The British are not using their brains by letting in third worlders.
     
    But they're not letting in Third Worlders, or First Worlders for that matter. Its the treasonous scum in Parliament justified by the propagandists at the BBC and the rest of the media, who are letting them in. Not because its good for the British, but because it will destroy them as a racial and cultural entity: a genocide undertaken in the interests of the globalist elite, AKA, the Money Power.

    “Its the treasonous scum in Parliament justified by the propagandists at the BBC and the rest of the media, who are letting them in.”

    Who elected them???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @CanSpeccy

    Government interventions are going to have to be early, very early. By 21 weeks differences in head circumference are apparent. Not 21 weeks of life, 21 weeks of gestation.
     
    Ha! The conclusive proof of racial differences in intelligence, a difference in head circumference.

    LOL

    Did Einstein have a big head? Um, well probably not. On autopsy, his brain was found to weigh no more than average for a man of his build.

    Then there was Carl Gauss, his brain on autopsy was also found to be quite normal in size too. So normal, in fact, that some geniuses began to wonder whether Gauss was perhaps not the genius everyone had supposed — as if some nincompoop with a tape measure determining the circumference of someone's head can make a better assessment of that person's mathematical talent than all the math professors in the world.

    And is there any real evidence evidence of racial differences in brain mass? Here's what one anthropologist had to say:

    A critical review is given of those factors which may be accompanied by variations in brain weight, viz. sex, body size, age of death, nutritional state in early life, source of the sample, occupational group, cause of death, lapse of time after death, temperature after death, anatomical level of severance, presence or absence of cerebrospinal fluid, of meninges, and of blood-vessels. Valid comparisons between the brain-weight of human populations should take all, or several, of these variables into account; however, published studies have not done so, despite claims to the contrary. The ideal sample is from subjects who have died suddenly without prior disease: while three such samples are on record for Europeans, none has been recorded for Negroes. The brain-weight of healthy Negroes is not known. Most published interracial comparisons are invalid. The histological, chemical and functional counterparts of big and small brains in modern man are not known. Published interracial comparisons of thickness of the cerebral cortex and, particularly, of its supragranular layer, are technically invalid: there is no acceptable proof that the cortex of Negroes is thinner in whole, or in any layer, than that of Europeans. It is concluded that vast claims have been based on insubstantial evidence.
     
    Has anything changed since Tobias wrote that in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology?

    I guess they did.

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement in naturally aspirated piston engines produced in the same year. A larger engine will typically be more powerful, but there are other factors that determine the final output, so that it’s quite possible for a smaller engine to be more powerful. However, on average, larger engines will average higher power outputs.

    By the way I’m sure you actually understand this, so you shouldn’t use fallacious arguments like “Einstein didn’t have a large brain so brain size cannot have any correlation to intelligence at all”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement
     
    Obviously. Obviously? Obviously!

    A more "obvious" analogy one might have thought would be with integrated circuits, the smaller they become the more powerful.

    I said, incidentally, nothing about cranial "capacity." I spoke of cranial circumference, which is a poor proxy for cerebral volume.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @CanSpeccy
    Why are white wombs being colonized by African seeds?

    Because whites are stupid, obviously.

    Or more exactly, because whites have been brainwashed into a state or paralysis that closely resembles stupidity, and appears to amount to a state of terminal helplessness.

    The European nations are being genocided, and folks stand idly by discoursing on trivial differences in mean academic achievement among the occupying races.

    It would be funny if genocide were not such a dirty business.

    But why by the black race? It’s because as Pop Culture reminds everyone through TV sitcoms, rap music, advertising, movies, and sex industry. Negro men got bigger dongs, and white girls are raised with that trope as topic of their conversation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Thomm
    This data destroys a fair amount of the IQ fetishism of WNs (except regarding blacks, where it is in fact true).

    Pakistanis are considerably more Caucasoid than Indians, yet Indians outperform them in the UK, the US, etc.

    So Islam was obviously the biggest factor here, and supercedes genetics as a factor (otherwise Pakistan would be to India what Spain is to Mexico, in terms of economic performance).

    IQ has nothing to do with Caucasoidness per se.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Jonathan Mason
    I am talking about politicians and people who study educational policy making. What do you think would be the effect of leading politicians publicly saying "this data clearly shows that gypsies are the thickest group of people in the whole country."

    My Mother said, I never should
    Play with the gypsies in the wood.
    If I did, she would say;
    'Naughty girl to disobey!

    Your hair shan't curl and your shoes shan't shine,
    You gypsy girl, you shan't be mine!
    And my father said that if I did,
    He'd rap my head with the teapot lid.

    I am talking about politicians and people who study educational policy making. What do you think would be the effect of leading politicians publicly saying “this data clearly shows that gypsies are the thickest group of people in the whole country.”

    That’s a false dichotomy. Politicians could evade talking about the subject, or they could make meaningless noncommittal utterances with no followup. When a politician really doesn’t want to do something, he has six ways from Sunday to avoid doing it. The fact that these words are followed up with forceful policy changes means that they really want to do it.

    By the way, I didn’t find your assertion that politicians know the score quite persuasive. They are watching the same propaganda TV shows and don’t think much about the subject. They are also at least as isolated from the problem (or any other problems of society) as your typical liberal, but probably even more. So, no personal experience either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    By the way, I didn’t find your assertion that politicians know the score quite persuasive. They are watching the same propaganda TV shows and don’t think much about the subject.
     
    I don't know. I suspect that politicians generally have very busy lives and don't have time to watch TV themselves, though I am sure that they have people who give them summaries of what the media is saying.

    I say this because I am usually very busy, and very, very rarely had time to watch TV over the last 25 years since the Internet arrived, unless I am in a hotel room or airport or something, and I would think that for politicians it is even more so. However, since many or most voters probably do watch TV on a daily basis, politicians have to give the impression that they are just like the voters, even though they get their news from other sources.

    Of course Donald Trump is an exception.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @pva
    One of the possible explanations for the high number of congenital birth defects amongst Pakistanis which rarely, if ever, gets a mention is the very low Vitamin D levels in Pakistani women. The enforcement of "modest" clothing for Muslim women ensures that there is virtually no skin exposed to sunlight...hence the vitamin D deficiency.

    This is a serious public health problem which should be addressed.

    Why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @PandaAtWar

    "China...No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life."
     
    Do not try to trash talk something you absolutely have no clue of.

    watch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jLXBCwn-IE

    I will not debate with a Chinese hasbara version….

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar
    Of course you will not. ROFL! that was an order, not a debate, which is only appropriate among you Brazilian hasbaras.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @CanSpeccy

    Most Europeans don’t want mass immigration and most Europeans don’t what (((really is going on))). It’s not democracy when people is not heard.
     
    Correct.

    Opinion polls in Britain for many years have shown 70-plus% opposition to mass immigration. Even many immigrants oppose mass immigration. So, no, Britain is not a democracy. What is called democracy is a system of bullshit and distraction under which traitors in office do as the Money Power that owns them demands, while the media fabricate the propaganda to persuade the masses that they're getting what they asked for.

    Exactly.

    Other supposed aspect of democracy is the duty of intellectual classes to inform other classes in very correct ways. We don’t have this, otherwise is absolutely expected. Of course I’m saying about a ideal form of democracy because even original/greek version it was not what many people today believe it must be or always was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @CanSpeccy
    Why are white wombs being colonized by African seeds?

    Because whites are stupid, obviously.

    Or more exactly, because whites have been brainwashed into a state or paralysis that closely resembles stupidity, and appears to amount to a state of terminal helplessness.

    The European nations are being genocided, and folks stand idly by discoursing on trivial differences in mean academic achievement among the occupying races.

    It would be funny if genocide were not such a dirty business.

    Not just whites but seems most people without their elites, for their not so well being, mostly, will act in this errant ways. Why “white elites” are traitors??? They ALWAYS were, because they always were attracted to power and not help “their own” people. When “white elites” forge war worlds in XX century it was a huge traitor act against European people’s. Europeans as well most other human populations has been selected specially to be a breed of natural workers instead a breed of thinkers firstly/too. The markers of psychological castration/domestication is there, always or specially since the rise of complex societies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @GrenadierGunther
    I find the gap of only 5-6 IQ between British whites and Caribbeans/Africans(as well as Pakistanis/Bangladeshis to a slightly lesser extent), as shown in the Quantitive and Non-Verbal sections of that CAT study, highly highly unlikely and impractical, atleast at adulthood. The UK would have to be the sole outlier in the world. The only other possibility is Australia, from which I haven't seen any data from, but the academic results from another Anglosphere country like Canada, and of course the rest of Europe, are closer to the US black-white gap of 15, if not further in a country like Sweden/Belgium where a large portion of the black population are straight up refugees.

    This blog analyzed more academic data from Britain, nearly all adulthood data, all rather recent, and the gaps are much closer to what we'd expect: https://web.archive.org/web/20140903221626/http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/partially-falsified/ , most showing around 9-10 between South Asians and British Whites, as well as 10-15 between Blacks and British Whites. Other IQ studies of ethnic groups in Britain also give a gap closer to the American one, albeit they're rather old.

    The black-white PISA gap on math in the UK is around 493-500 white to 460s black, depending on the year, and around 510 to 470s for science/reading, not sure how that converts to IQ. I'd probably trust that number more than GSCEs or any study done by actual British.

    I know the Anglosphere countries are known for having more sane immigration policies than their other European counterparts, but looking at some black, Bangladeshi, Pakistani communities in the UK, along with poverty rates and incomes, to me it doesn't real scream out highly selected immigrants.

    The Indian data, while not as surprising due to other examples and a large base population pool of 1.4 billion people around the world, still surprises me. Are they really that selected of a group like Indians in the US? Pretty sure at one point the UK let all the Indian colonials living in Uganda in the 60s-70s to move to Britain, again, doesn't really scream out immigrants selected for education to me.

    They were persecuted by Idi Amin’s government, which found them a useful scapegoat. Indians dominated much of what urban business life there was in Uganda, especially in Kampala. Possibly as a group they were better educated than indigenous Ugandans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Thomm
    A WN retard like Wally never gets out of his mother's basement. Everyone (even people who hate Indians) know that Indians almost exclusively pursue medicine, engineering, or finance as professions. Whatever their other flaws, this fact about Indians living in the West is not in dispute.

    Wally can't even write a comment more than one line, because his IQ is too low. He reminds us that White Trashionalists have Negro IQs.

    Oh yes. I put forward a near-treatise once on the fascist aspects of the political system in Turkey. Wally (what a beautiful name, especially given its British English colloquial meaning!) dismissed it in one line, namely that I allegedly don’t know what fascism is. Still, he does have his Holocaust denial template which pads out most of his posts. No doubt that was written by someone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Thomm
    This data destroys a fair amount of the IQ fetishism of WNs (except regarding blacks, where it is in fact true).

    Pakistanis are considerably more Caucasoid than Indians, yet Indians outperform them in the UK, the US, etc.

    So Islam was obviously the biggest factor here, and supercedes genetics as a factor (otherwise Pakistan would be to India what Spain is to Mexico, in terms of economic performance).

    Or the brain drain in Pakistan is higher than in India.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    The brain drain data gives 2010 5 year emigration rates for total/low/medium/high skill as:
    India: 0.45% 0.14% 0.17% 4.97%
    Pakistan: 1.09% 0.63% 0.62% 7.47%

    Pakistan has double the emigration rate but it is less biased towards high skill (~12x) than India's (~30x).

    2010 UK total male immigration stock for total/low/medium/high skill were:
    India: 267839 121334 13683 132822
    Pakistan: 166950 102389 8034 56527
    and women:
    India: 279556 151772 11104 116680
    Pakistan: 153482 111436 5334 36712

    So both countries have large proportions of low skilled immigrants in the UK, but Pakistanis are worse (especially the women).

    For comparison, the 2010 numbers for US men:
    India: 778907 36157 76155 666595
    Pakistan: 126191 10976 24212 91003
    and women:
    India: 678733 62466 87042 529225
    Pakistan: 103166 14834 25283 63049

    The US is getting a much more skilled mix of immigrants from the subcontinent.

    P.S. Data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx
    , @Thomm
    Funny how other on this site (usually WN retards) argue the opposite.

    They say that only 1% of Indians have an IQ above 100, and all of those have come to the US.

    That is completely false, of course, but WNs are never interested in facts (and they don't do math either).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @CanSpeccy

    idaho montana even maine vermont and many other less beautiful places need conservative whites to counter the governments effort to brown these places with refugees
     
    Same in Britain.

    Institutions like the university in my home town of Exeter, all white when I read there in the library during school vacations back in the 50's and eary 60's, is now deemed too white.

    Whiteness is to be exterminated.

    Innocents like James see such thoughts as loonie conspiracy theories. I guess that's what university psychology professors are employed to "prove." But the globalist goal is clearly to destroy the nation state. How else institute global governance?

    So how to destroy the nation state?

    Simple: destroy the nations, particularly the powerful nations of Europe.

    And how to destroy the nations?

    Easy: genocide by suppressed reproduction, aka sex "education" that teaches that reproduction is the only sexual perversion, combined with mass immigration.

    As for the IQ of the immigrants: who gives a damn? In what way could it possibly matter to the globalist elite who actually dictate your fate?

    IQ is important both to those of us who wish to preserve our states and those who wish to destroy them. IQ determines to a large part a states success. And Its a barrier to those who would like to control that state.

    But its more important than just that because we are watching two types of leftism negotiate, the old school communism, which failed at class redistributionism in the high IQ productive west because it was a hard sell until they found their cultural marxist side projects of destabilization like feminism, immigration, race politics, all were doing so well and they switched from class to racial/gender redistributionism in europe they didnt have the slave meme to work, but then developed the colonial excuse. (europe did better with old commism because it transitioned from serf ag to industrialization worse)
    Now this new iteration of old school communism also found during this transition that they had to have a capitalist frame work to parasitize, but that the Caps were all too happy now that the commies were not out to destroy them to partner with the commies on immigration and globalism thus we have the soros clinton gates bobo etal billionaire bolsheviks phenom. CapComs if you will or globalists
    But we also have the other leftism the one developed specifically for the High IQ western european born in the American leftist revolution and the Anglo political philosophers, thats the leftism we call classical liberalism in america. Democracy for short.Now this sort of leftism has a half life it sems of about 200 years before it devolves from republicanism to democracy to populism to fascism to anarchy and hopefully to war and restoration. This leftism hopes because it sprouts from a people of high IQ but also of singularly different people from the rest of the world people who are outward non tribal we organize around ideas not blood and soil, we are co opertive altruistic because we are high trust -worthy an so complex capable sociologically. We thought and it can be argued may have been right that leftism demotism within these populations was possible.Of course it was always a gentleman’s agreement dependent on a morally supreme people. as it seemed to succeed we expanded the franchise to include more and more of our co ethnics including our women, its probably somewhere in here that we hit the laffer curve of classical liberalism. But we argued since it was an aristocracy of merit things would be ok. Unfortunately all these high principles we counted on are next to impossible to make hard laws of and to a great extent require the aristocracy which was morphed nto one of merit to continue to enforce standards mostly socially this didn’t happen, one reason was capitalism it turned out as any king or bishop might have told you was not particularly right wing more self interested in a single minded way.And it turned out the old aristocracy wasn’t any good at capitalism without the closed system abolished as america exported its leftist revolution back to europe. non anglos began to assert interests through capitalism and socialism, they had interests that were more ethnic than the grand experiment of this anglo high leftism. the wasps and their acolytes held on to their ideals for a while though in the end most betrayed us for (((filthy lucre)))

    So you have whats left of this other leftism and it doesn’t realize that what it thinks of as conservatism is really them trying to conserve a certain period of a leftist revolution and the commie left is in reality simply the continuation of that revolution. They dont realize you cant lock that early american anglo revolution in place at 1690 1820 or 1950 or where ever you think was the sweet spot because you dont have those people anymore and if you did you need them to maintain that system socially, yet it was always going to be a legalistic system eventually because muh enlightenment, see the inherent contradiction. well follow along then. we start with nietzsche’s slave morality of christianity its non morbid as long as its demotism accrues only to fellow europeans historically geographically and later economically isolated, in that environment its a net positive and actually genetically selects for the high trust raits of euroman and sets the stage for the enlightenment that too works great in that high trust high IQ genetic environment, america exports the revolution designed by the anglos who actually already had a few glorious revolutions of their own before hand,america sends it to france and it gets a bit out of hand with the gauls, then it gets into the murderous hands of the jews in russia and all hell breaks loose, now in fairness this was bound to happen as we transitioned from the social order of serf agriculture to industrialized capitalism or at least some pains were to be expected and surely europe lagged america because of this.and inter eiro ethnic interests became a player. Now heres the rub.

    So now we see both the right and the left are left though they dont understand themselves that way they both proceed fromthe absurd assertion that all men are created equal which of course proceeds from the far leftist christian theology.
    But now these two lefts are vying for supremacy and the righter left is hung up on reason and merit which they don’t understand why the lefter left doesnt get. Heres why. the lefter left understands perfectly what they have convinced the righter right (through alinsky’s rule of “hold the enemy to its own principles”) what they can never think let alone utter, the lefter left knows perfectly that all men are not created equally at all that women are not men’s equals that africans will never in a million years equal the achievements of european men.This is why affirmative action ( seems like youre about to learn about that) white privilege etc are instituted the left knows meritocracy is in no way in the interest of its constituents.Its constituents are stupid useless mouths the average african IQ depending on tribe is 55-65. In other words the anglo leftism of reason and merit will only work within those countries but then who would pay for the rest of the revolution.and the right can defend this from its classical liberal christian principle of all men are created equal and are our brothers in christ. this is why communism infected the west through christianity first then through democracy both are leftist ideologies.

    Until white men understand that defending christian and classical liberalism is defending leftism they are helpless against further leftism. They need to defend themselves as a people a culture and as geographic nations of the specific ethnic people and nation or in the case of much of the anglo diaspora a generally white ethno culture. They probably if they manage to do this and survive rethink democracy particularly gender equality. they had better at least have a good reason to think if they pursue it again why it wont replay as it did ths past time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @anon
    Right or wrong, banks are hated in Australia.
    The Labor Party have been calling for a Royal Commission into banking. the tax is just Liberal politics, while trying to keep the banks on side.

    No doubt you are rigjt when you imply that the Liberal Party has put politics (and the Budget) first but I think the assumption is that the banks don’t have anywhere to go politically.

    Hated? I wonder. I recall hate circa 1990 when stressed banks were hardnosed with customers. Now I would have thought a large number of retired people and others saving for retirement value the large dividends that the banks are relied on to pay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    I guess they did.

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement in naturally aspirated piston engines produced in the same year. A larger engine will typically be more powerful, but there are other factors that determine the final output, so that it’s quite possible for a smaller engine to be more powerful. However, on average, larger engines will average higher power outputs.

    By the way I’m sure you actually understand this, so you shouldn’t use fallacious arguments like “Einstein didn’t have a large brain so brain size cannot have any correlation to intelligence at all”.

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement

    Obviously. Obviously? Obviously!

    A more “obvious” analogy one might have thought would be with integrated circuits, the smaller they become the more powerful.

    I said, incidentally, nothing about cranial “capacity.” I spoke of cranial circumference, which is a poor proxy for cerebral volume.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    cranial “capacity.”
     
    Why the scare quotes?
    , @reiner Tor
    Integrated circuit is not a very good analogy, since the technology is still not very good, so there's still plenty of room for improvement. With humans, there's probably also some room for improvement, but not nearly as much. It's not for nothing that our brain volume has increased so much since our common ancestor with the chimps, while that of chimpanzees not so much.

    Apropos, what is your theory for why humans have the largest brains among primates? Actually, humans' encephalization quotient is the highest among mammals. Are we the dumbest mammals? As I'm sure you're aware, brain tissue is probably the most expensive tissue around (at any rate, one of the most expensive ones), both in terms of building (raw materials needed) and maintenance (like oxygen or blood sugar intake) costs, not to mention the fact that birth is so really hard (and early!) for humans because our heads are so big already at birth. If we had smaller brains (and hence, heads), we could spend more time in our mothers' wombs, which would make it possible for fully functional human babies (like babies with the capacity to walk, as with most other mammals) to be born. So there must be a reason why we have bigger brains. If evolution could get away with smaller brains, it most definitely would.

    So what is your theory why humans have such big brains?

    , @Daniel Chieh
    Its not true that Einstein had a brain just like an average human's, however. There were differences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Factorize says:

    Human IQ can now be increased by genetic technology.

    Simply selecting the one embryo among ten with the highest
    polygenic IQ score would lead to a 1 SD in IQ. This strategy
    could be used generation after generation for the next many
    centuries.

    Why is this conversation focused on what was and not what will be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    How the Hell do you measure the IQ of an embryo?
    , @RaceRealist88

    Simply selecting the one embryo among ten with the highest
    polygenic IQ score would lead to a 1 SD in IQ. This strategy
    could be used generation after generation for the next many
    centuries.
     
    Because 'what will be' (lol) is a huge pipe dream:

    https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/12/its-now-possible-in-theory-to-predict-life-success-from-a-genetic-test-at-birth/#comment-9122

    In the case of the individual, the original cells are totipotent; in spite of the same genes, they have the same potential to become any kind of differentiated cell for a particular organism. In the French Flag model, every cell has the potential to develop as white, blue, or red. Indeed, recent advances in the laboratory prove that it is possible to change virtually any type of cell into another cell type---to recover their potential for diversity. This epigenetic reprogramming, in which a developed specific potential is turned back to become a totipotent cell. (http://www.eurostemcell.org/ips-cells-and-reprogramming-turn-any-cell-body-stem-cell) (Richardson, 2017: 156)

    Indeed, most labs admit that any generalization about quality made from grading embryos are rather inaccurate. As one site puts it: "We see some cycles fail after transferring 3 perfect looking embryos, and we also see beautiful babies born after transferring only one low grade embryo." The best test of egg quality in fact seems to be female age. Much the same applies to sperm quality. (Richardson, 2017: 156)

    What parents tend to worry about, of course, is "genetic potential"---usually for critical functions like brain and cognition. Thanks to the kind of hype and publicity mentioned in chapter 1, these parents are mostly convinced that the potential for desireable qualities like intelligence, or special talent of some sort, resides and varies in the genes. And they think of it already residing in the egg, in that homunculus state mentioned earlier. (Richardson, 2017: 156-257)

    As we have already seen, though, what is assumed to be genetic is really the manifestation of whole developmental system. So, with the exception of rare disorders, the anxiety is probably unwarranted. And there is certainly no test for the genetic potential of eggs or sperm from different individuals, however much the idea inspires pipe dreams from behavioral geneticists. (Richardson, 2017: 157)

    Pipe dream. Keep dreaming.

    This paper is also relevant on individual differences.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLm5ld2lkZWFwc3ljaC4yMDEyLjA4LjAwMg==/10.1016%40j.newideapsych.2012.08.002.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @CanSpeccy

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement
     
    Obviously. Obviously? Obviously!

    A more "obvious" analogy one might have thought would be with integrated circuits, the smaller they become the more powerful.

    I said, incidentally, nothing about cranial "capacity." I spoke of cranial circumference, which is a poor proxy for cerebral volume.

    cranial “capacity.”

    Why the scare quotes?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    Human IQ can now be increased by genetic technology.

    Simply selecting the one embryo among ten with the highest
    polygenic IQ score would lead to a 1 SD in IQ. This strategy
    could be used generation after generation for the next many
    centuries.

    Why is this conversation focused on what was and not what will be?

    How the Hell do you measure the IQ of an embryo?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @CanSpeccy

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement
     
    Obviously. Obviously? Obviously!

    A more "obvious" analogy one might have thought would be with integrated circuits, the smaller they become the more powerful.

    I said, incidentally, nothing about cranial "capacity." I spoke of cranial circumference, which is a poor proxy for cerebral volume.

    Integrated circuit is not a very good analogy, since the technology is still not very good, so there’s still plenty of room for improvement. With humans, there’s probably also some room for improvement, but not nearly as much. It’s not for nothing that our brain volume has increased so much since our common ancestor with the chimps, while that of chimpanzees not so much.

    Apropos, what is your theory for why humans have the largest brains among primates? Actually, humans’ encephalization quotient is the highest among mammals. Are we the dumbest mammals? As I’m sure you’re aware, brain tissue is probably the most expensive tissue around (at any rate, one of the most expensive ones), both in terms of building (raw materials needed) and maintenance (like oxygen or blood sugar intake) costs, not to mention the fact that birth is so really hard (and early!) for humans because our heads are so big already at birth. If we had smaller brains (and hence, heads), we could spend more time in our mothers’ wombs, which would make it possible for fully functional human babies (like babies with the capacity to walk, as with most other mammals) to be born. So there must be a reason why we have bigger brains. If evolution could get away with smaller brains, it most definitely would.

    So what is your theory why humans have such big brains?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy, @RaceRealist88
    "So what is your theory why humans have such big brains?"

    It's not for IQ. John Skoyles believes it's for expertise capacity, not IQ.

    http://www.human-existence.com/publications/Skoyles%20Human%20evolution%20expanded%20brains%20expertise%20not%20IQ.pdf

    I extended this to human races, noting that Arctic peoples use more tools, and therefore need more expertise, which further expanded their brains (along with the climate).

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

    This hypothesis explains Lynn et al's so-called 'outlier' in regards to Inuits having only a 91 IQ yet heads the size of East Asians. Tropical peoples use fewer tools; Arctic peoples use more tools. Tool use is related to brain size... etc etc. I think it's a better hypothesis than the cold winter/IQ stuff, but I may be biased.

    Tell me what you think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Factorize says:

    Hundreds of genetic variants associated with IQ have already been found.
    There are thought to be tens of thousands.

    Genotype the embryos.
    Select the embryo with the highest polygenic IQ.

    Increasing IQ by 1 SD renders the entire conversation mute.
    Apparently 100 SD increases (i.e., 1500 IQ people) are also possible.

    This technique would be effective for any race, nationality or lifestyle designation.
    In the 21st Century none of that will be relevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Apparently 100 SD increases (i.e., 1500 IQ people) are also possible.
     
    I once worked close to a bunch of breeders. They manifest a kind of nuttiness and general intellectual fatuity of which your remarks strongly remind me.

    But what would give you or anyone else the right to breed humans with any traits you or they deem desirable? Are humans just like poultry or swine, to be bred according to the whim of self-appointed human animal scientists?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. res says:
    @Santoculto
    Or the brain drain in Pakistan is higher than in India.

    The brain drain data gives 2010 5 year emigration rates for total/low/medium/high skill as:
    India: 0.45% 0.14% 0.17% 4.97%
    Pakistan: 1.09% 0.63% 0.62% 7.47%

    Pakistan has double the emigration rate but it is less biased towards high skill (~12x) than India’s (~30x).

    2010 UK total male immigration stock for total/low/medium/high skill were:
    India: 267839 121334 13683 132822
    Pakistan: 166950 102389 8034 56527
    and women:
    India: 279556 151772 11104 116680
    Pakistan: 153482 111436 5334 36712

    So both countries have large proportions of low skilled immigrants in the UK, but Pakistanis are worse (especially the women).

    For comparison, the 2010 numbers for US men:
    India: 778907 36157 76155 666595
    Pakistan: 126191 10976 24212 91003
    and women:
    India: 678733 62466 87042 529225
    Pakistan: 103166 14834 25283 63049

    The US is getting a much more skilled mix of immigrants from the subcontinent.

    P.S. Data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    But you are using recent immigration waves??
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What a silly article –as if money is measure of everything. A low paid cleaner may well contribute more usefully than a high paid accountant with tax avoidance ‘work’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    What a silly article
     
    Hey, you. Talk like that is like laughing in church. We have a hierarchy to be rigidly maintained. IQ is the basis of the new aristocracy. Unless you have an IQ of about 200 you'd better shut up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    Hundreds of genetic variants associated with IQ have already been found.
    There are thought to be tens of thousands.

    Genotype the embryos.
    Select the embryo with the highest polygenic IQ.

    Increasing IQ by 1 SD renders the entire conversation mute.
    Apparently 100 SD increases (i.e., 1500 IQ people) are also possible.

    This technique would be effective for any race, nationality or lifestyle designation.
    In the 21st Century none of that will be relevant.

    Apparently 100 SD increases (i.e., 1500 IQ people) are also possible.

    I once worked close to a bunch of breeders. They manifest a kind of nuttiness and general intellectual fatuity of which your remarks strongly remind me.

    But what would give you or anyone else the right to breed humans with any traits you or they deem desirable? Are humans just like poultry or swine, to be bred according to the whim of self-appointed human animal scientists?

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    Pregnant women are now routinely given ultrasounds, and they are then informed whether the fetus has Down's syndrome. Some parents subsequently decide to have the fetus aborted. What do you think about this? Would it be a good idea in the future to extend these practices to fetuses who are at high risk for mental retardation (IQ<70)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    What a silly article --as if money is measure of everything. A low paid cleaner may well contribute more usefully than a high paid accountant with tax avoidance 'work'.

    What a silly article

    Hey, you. Talk like that is like laughing in church. We have a hierarchy to be rigidly maintained. IQ is the basis of the new aristocracy. Unless you have an IQ of about 200 you’d better shut up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    Integrated circuit is not a very good analogy, since the technology is still not very good, so there's still plenty of room for improvement. With humans, there's probably also some room for improvement, but not nearly as much. It's not for nothing that our brain volume has increased so much since our common ancestor with the chimps, while that of chimpanzees not so much.

    Apropos, what is your theory for why humans have the largest brains among primates? Actually, humans' encephalization quotient is the highest among mammals. Are we the dumbest mammals? As I'm sure you're aware, brain tissue is probably the most expensive tissue around (at any rate, one of the most expensive ones), both in terms of building (raw materials needed) and maintenance (like oxygen or blood sugar intake) costs, not to mention the fact that birth is so really hard (and early!) for humans because our heads are so big already at birth. If we had smaller brains (and hence, heads), we could spend more time in our mothers' wombs, which would make it possible for fully functional human babies (like babies with the capacity to walk, as with most other mammals) to be born. So there must be a reason why we have bigger brains. If evolution could get away with smaller brains, it most definitely would.

    So what is your theory why humans have such big brains?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Wikipedia still insists on humans having by far the highest EQ, with birds usually having lower EQs than mammals. So do you have a source for your numbers?

    (The obvious caveats apply: one number cannot describe something very complex very well, neither EQ, nor IQ, nor any one number. These are just useful as rules of thumb.)

    Also, humans have the largest brains by any measure among primates, having tripled our brains over the last few millions of years. What was the source of this increase, which resulted in difficult and dangerous childbirth, underdeveloped babies being born (unable to walk or do basically anything), and a consumption of 20% of our bodies' oxygen intakes and some 10-20% of our bodies' calorie needs? Surely a brain third of the size would be better, provided it could still do the same things. What is your theory for this tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Thomm says:
    @Santoculto
    Or the brain drain in Pakistan is higher than in India.

    Funny how other on this site (usually WN retards) argue the opposite.

    They say that only 1% of Indians have an IQ above 100, and all of those have come to the US.

    That is completely false, of course, but WNs are never interested in facts (and they don’t do math either).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Never interest in facts???
    , @GrenadierGunther
    If the idea of Indian success in the US(and the UK, Australia, Canada, etc) isn't because they're simply a selected group of smart people, allowed to migrate for their merit, from a population pool of 1.3 billion, how do you explain the actual state of India itself then(not only economically, but IQ and academic results)?

    If you're going to claim nutrition and upbringing at an early age, you'll have to explain why rural poor Chinese, Vietnamese, Mongolians, Siberians, Eastern Europeans outperform India as a whole.

    If you really think Indians in the US are successful because they aren't in post British colonial ruined impoverished India, you are a very deluded individual, with a seemingly irrational hatred of WNs ontop of that. If your people are really that equal(or superiour, as a lot of you ethnocentric Indians like to claim), what do you have against WNs? Surely if you're so smart you should be an Indian nationalist, whose goals shouldn't come into conflict with WNs' goals.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Thomm says:
    @Wally
    So where's the stats & "overwhelming evidence" for degrees that I asked for? LOL

    You are dodging & weasel wording, and you know it.

    You talk because you have a mouth.

    I win.

    You are the one who claimed that Indians don’t study STEM. So it is your job to support it.

    Whether people like Indians or hate them, everyone agrees they all study STEM, Finance, or Law.

    I understand that as a WN wigger, you have a negro IQ, so you don’t know how to read statistics. But you still have to back up your statements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Factorize says:

    Yes, exactly, the conversation is no longer about if, only when.

    All the positive reinforcement for the idea that IQ is related to group membership needs to be
    corrected at every opportunity: Reinforcement replaced with punishement.

    Breeders probably exude a certain nuttiness to others because they have achieved modifications in animals that others are largely unaware of. Hens that lay an egg a day? Doesn’t that seem somewhat odd to you? There has never been a wild hen that laid an egg a day. Breeders created extreme traits in animals decades ago. You do not need to look far in your local supermarket to see many genetically selected food items. I suspect many would be truly surprised to see a natural strawberry or blueberry.

    Extreme traits will now be introduced into humans.

    A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling? Get ready for real human diversity to appear. I don’t expect that progressives would regard others favorably who did not openly embrace such diversity.

    The nature of human genetics is such that there is not a great deal of point in arguing about it. A very large number of SNPs involved in IQ and other traits are very common (20%+ MAF). There had been some expectation that very rare variants would account for much of the variation. This is apparently not true. The variation in human intelligence results largely from differences in a great many common variants. Human polygenic traits are, in fact, highly egalitarian. The differences that exist in human populations today only represent a sliver of the variation that is possible.

    An operant conditioning program that removes outdated classist, racist, and other assumptions
    would now probably be of much value.

    Any randomly selected person could use low tech methods such as embryo selection to greatly increase their children’s IQ. If CRISPR or some other high end technology were required, then there might be a reasonably effective way that a high IQ world could be prevented. Alas, no. We will simply have to live in a world in which the color of one’s skin or place of national ancestry has absolutely no predictive value for anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling? Get ready for real human diversity to appear.
     
    As I said, breeders or advocates of [human] breeding exude a certain [rather scary] nuttiness.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling?"

    You have quite the imagination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @reiner Tor

    I am talking about politicians and people who study educational policy making. What do you think would be the effect of leading politicians publicly saying “this data clearly shows that gypsies are the thickest group of people in the whole country.”
     
    That’s a false dichotomy. Politicians could evade talking about the subject, or they could make meaningless noncommittal utterances with no followup. When a politician really doesn’t want to do something, he has six ways from Sunday to avoid doing it. The fact that these words are followed up with forceful policy changes means that they really want to do it.

    By the way, I didn’t find your assertion that politicians know the score quite persuasive. They are watching the same propaganda TV shows and don’t think much about the subject. They are also at least as isolated from the problem (or any other problems of society) as your typical liberal, but probably even more. So, no personal experience either.

    By the way, I didn’t find your assertion that politicians know the score quite persuasive. They are watching the same propaganda TV shows and don’t think much about the subject.

    I don’t know. I suspect that politicians generally have very busy lives and don’t have time to watch TV themselves, though I am sure that they have people who give them summaries of what the media is saying.

    I say this because I am usually very busy, and very, very rarely had time to watch TV over the last 25 years since the Internet arrived, unless I am in a hotel room or airport or something, and I would think that for politicians it is even more so. However, since many or most voters probably do watch TV on a daily basis, politicians have to give the impression that they are just like the voters, even though they get their news from other sources.

    Of course Donald Trump is an exception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Usually people's views of "racism" etc. forms early on. I was an anti-racist by age 10, or earlier. It was influenced by schools, movies, and TV shows, all of which condemned it. I guess it works similarly for politicians. They were indoctrinated early on, and by the time they had no more time to watch TV shows etc., they no longer needed it. Actually, I was very much interested in evolutionary biology, and that's how I came around (first in Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn, then of course I started to dig deeper...) the idea that human racial differences are real - around age 30. Most people that age don't read things like this. Had I not read this, I'd probably still be vaguely anti-racist. I doubt anyone not deeply into evolutionary biology would encounter any such information, and I don't think politicians are reading such things.

    Do you have any reason to think politicians either

    A) have never been indoctrinated to begin with, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the population, or

    B) they read evolutionary biology and HBD blogs to overcome that indoctrination (as was the case with me)?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    Yes, exactly, the conversation is no longer about if, only when.

    All the positive reinforcement for the idea that IQ is related to group membership needs to be
    corrected at every opportunity: Reinforcement replaced with punishement.

    Breeders probably exude a certain nuttiness to others because they have achieved modifications in animals that others are largely unaware of. Hens that lay an egg a day? Doesn't that seem somewhat odd to you? There has never been a wild hen that laid an egg a day. Breeders created extreme traits in animals decades ago. You do not need to look far in your local supermarket to see many genetically selected food items. I suspect many would be truly surprised to see a natural strawberry or blueberry.

    Extreme traits will now be introduced into humans.

    A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling? Get ready for real human diversity to appear. I don't expect that progressives would regard others favorably who did not openly embrace such diversity.

    The nature of human genetics is such that there is not a great deal of point in arguing about it. A very large number of SNPs involved in IQ and other traits are very common (20%+ MAF). There had been some expectation that very rare variants would account for much of the variation. This is apparently not true. The variation in human intelligence results largely from differences in a great many common variants. Human polygenic traits are, in fact, highly egalitarian. The differences that exist in human populations today only represent a sliver of the variation that is possible.

    An operant conditioning program that removes outdated classist, racist, and other assumptions
    would now probably be of much value.

    Any randomly selected person could use low tech methods such as embryo selection to greatly increase their children's IQ. If CRISPR or some other high end technology were required, then there might be a reasonably effective way that a high IQ world could be prevented. Alas, no. We will simply have to live in a world in which the color of one's skin or place of national ancestry has absolutely no predictive value for anything.

    A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling? Get ready for real human diversity to appear.

    As I said, breeders or advocates of [human] breeding exude a certain [rather scary] nuttiness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Thomm
    Funny how other on this site (usually WN retards) argue the opposite.

    They say that only 1% of Indians have an IQ above 100, and all of those have come to the US.

    That is completely false, of course, but WNs are never interested in facts (and they don't do math either).

    Never interest in facts???

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Nope. To them, ideology > facts
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @res
    The brain drain data gives 2010 5 year emigration rates for total/low/medium/high skill as:
    India: 0.45% 0.14% 0.17% 4.97%
    Pakistan: 1.09% 0.63% 0.62% 7.47%

    Pakistan has double the emigration rate but it is less biased towards high skill (~12x) than India's (~30x).

    2010 UK total male immigration stock for total/low/medium/high skill were:
    India: 267839 121334 13683 132822
    Pakistan: 166950 102389 8034 56527
    and women:
    India: 279556 151772 11104 116680
    Pakistan: 153482 111436 5334 36712

    So both countries have large proportions of low skilled immigrants in the UK, but Pakistanis are worse (especially the women).

    For comparison, the 2010 numbers for US men:
    India: 778907 36157 76155 666595
    Pakistan: 126191 10976 24212 91003
    and women:
    India: 678733 62466 87042 529225
    Pakistan: 103166 14834 25283 63049

    The US is getting a much more skilled mix of immigrants from the subcontinent.

    P.S. Data at http://www.iab.de/en/daten/iab-brain-drain-data.aspx

    But you are using recent immigration waves??

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    As I said in the comment, the data was from 2010. That is the most recent they had.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Factorize says:

    At some level we are all breeders.
    Our species needs to reproduce in order to continue to exist.

    This leaves us only with the choice of whether we will be intelligent breeders or non-intelligent breeders. After a brief survey of humanity, it should be clear to all that we have up till this point not been intelligent breeders.

    This will be all the more obvious once examples of intelligent breeding manifest. As you mentioned, there is a certain scary nuttiness in the ineptitude of human genetic engineering to date. I fully agree. However, a highly rationalized genetic engineering technology will allow us a very different future.

    Given that we now permit people to make very unwise genetic reproductive choices, it would seem counter-intuitive to suggest that people would somehow not be permitted to make very good reproductive choices. Such choices reside with the individuals involved and are fundamental inalienable human rights.

    The ability of intrusive state power to control the roll out of genetic engineering will be weak. CRISPR is not required. Simply selecting embryos will be sufficient.

    Further, considering the extreme demographic weakness that now exists in almost every advanced nation, it does not seem reasonable to expect that governments or other powers could withhold this technology from the many citizens that could benefit from it. If they chose to do so, then a severe demographic collapse could ensue quickly afterwards as people sought other more progressive nations to reside.

    A trans-racial, trans-class political alliance that advocated for a future for our children not based on the genetic structures that have existed for the last few thousand years would be unbeatable. It is now abundantly obvious that there are inherent genetic flaws in all humans. In so many respects, it appears that the genetic technology that now exists will soon completely upend our societies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    After a brief survey of humanity, it should be clear to all that we have up till this point not been intelligent breeders.
     
    Bollocks. What do you think sexual selection is all about?

    Your ridiculous pronouncements confirm that those lusting to breed humanity on scientific lines are totally insane and are intent on a totalitarian program to the detriment of the mass of the people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. phil says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Apparently 100 SD increases (i.e., 1500 IQ people) are also possible.
     
    I once worked close to a bunch of breeders. They manifest a kind of nuttiness and general intellectual fatuity of which your remarks strongly remind me.

    But what would give you or anyone else the right to breed humans with any traits you or they deem desirable? Are humans just like poultry or swine, to be bred according to the whim of self-appointed human animal scientists?

    Pregnant women are now routinely given ultrasounds, and they are then informed whether the fetus has Down’s syndrome. Some parents subsequently decide to have the fetus aborted. What do you think about this? Would it be a good idea in the future to extend these practices to fetuses who are at high risk for mental retardation (IQ<70)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Phil,
    And the mentally disabled with IQ 90,100,120,140...?? I mean, irrational...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    At some level we are all breeders.
    Our species needs to reproduce in order to continue to exist.

    This leaves us only with the choice of whether we will be intelligent breeders or non-intelligent breeders. After a brief survey of humanity, it should be clear to all that we have up till this point not been intelligent breeders.

    This will be all the more obvious once examples of intelligent breeding manifest. As you mentioned, there is a certain scary nuttiness in the ineptitude of human genetic engineering to date. I fully agree. However, a highly rationalized genetic engineering technology will allow us a very different future.

    Given that we now permit people to make very unwise genetic reproductive choices, it would seem counter-intuitive to suggest that people would somehow not be permitted to make very good reproductive choices. Such choices reside with the individuals involved and are fundamental inalienable human rights.

    The ability of intrusive state power to control the roll out of genetic engineering will be weak. CRISPR is not required. Simply selecting embryos will be sufficient.

    Further, considering the extreme demographic weakness that now exists in almost every advanced nation, it does not seem reasonable to expect that governments or other powers could withhold this technology from the many citizens that could benefit from it. If they chose to do so, then a severe demographic collapse could ensue quickly afterwards as people sought other more progressive nations to reside.

    A trans-racial, trans-class political alliance that advocated for a future for our children not based on the genetic structures that have existed for the last few thousand years would be unbeatable. It is now abundantly obvious that there are inherent genetic flaws in all humans. In so many respects, it appears that the genetic technology that now exists will soon completely upend our societies.

    After a brief survey of humanity, it should be clear to all that we have up till this point not been intelligent breeders.

    Bollocks. What do you think sexual selection is all about?

    Your ridiculous pronouncements confirm that those lusting to breed humanity on scientific lines are totally insane and are intent on a totalitarian program to the detriment of the mass of the people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Still, if our choices are between mechanical or biological singularity, the biological aspect is slightly more appealing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. res says:
    @Santoculto
    But you are using recent immigration waves??

    As I said in the comment, the data was from 2010. That is the most recent they had.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Yes but I'm talking about total number of Pakistanis and Indians who has immigrated to Briton's. Seems you showed this data too in your comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Let’s Break a Taboo

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. Factorize says:

    Endless argumentation would seem futile. This is an unstoppable wave. The technology involved is very low end. The forces that could stop this are weak. Certain nations appear to already be preparing to make this widely available.

    We can see all too clearly what happens to a societies that fall 2 SD behind others in IQ. Those who reject this can have a first hand experience of how devastating that would be. Probably be best to be on one of the first emergency airlifts out of nations that refuse to comply with international human rights laws. It would then be transparently clear how severe bad policy choices could be for such nations.

    Interestingly the true totalitarian forces have already lined up to create a global moratorium on gene editing. How can that be understood to uphold human rights?

    The recent research from Iceland found that dysgenics is occurring and will have profound long term consequences if it were to continue.
    Applying genetic engineering technologies to preserve our species and our humanity seems unavoidable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. @Thomm

    “Definition Of: Wally
    australian slang Australian Slang
    1. someone who keeps making mistakes; not a very clever person; 2. wallet”
     
    Wow. Pwned!

    Wally is actually claiming that Indians study easy fields (despite this, they are the highest-income ethnic group in the US, and are doing pretty well in the UK). Of course, Wally, being a WN wigger, cannot explain why he thinks this, despite overwhelming evidence that Indians study STEM with a higher incidence than any other group (even Chinese).

    Wally hasn’t even mention Indians before this post, he responded to a post claiming -Pakistanis- have a high rate of advanced degrees in the US, which is untrue. For some reason when asked for proof of Pakistani success in the US, anon linked to the education attainment levels of Indians in the US.

    Also, Indians are not the highest-income ethnic group in the US, they’re 9th(not that it isn’t impressive). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    It says Indians are first over here :

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

    This list is household income, while yours is per capita. Indians have a low divorce rate, so more households have two earners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Thomm
    Funny how other on this site (usually WN retards) argue the opposite.

    They say that only 1% of Indians have an IQ above 100, and all of those have come to the US.

    That is completely false, of course, but WNs are never interested in facts (and they don't do math either).

    If the idea of Indian success in the US(and the UK, Australia, Canada, etc) isn’t because they’re simply a selected group of smart people, allowed to migrate for their merit, from a population pool of 1.3 billion, how do you explain the actual state of India itself then(not only economically, but IQ and academic results)?

    If you’re going to claim nutrition and upbringing at an early age, you’ll have to explain why rural poor Chinese, Vietnamese, Mongolians, Siberians, Eastern Europeans outperform India as a whole.

    If you really think Indians in the US are successful because they aren’t in post British colonial ruined impoverished India, you are a very deluded individual, with a seemingly irrational hatred of WNs ontop of that. If your people are really that equal(or superiour, as a lot of you ethnocentric Indians like to claim), what do you have against WNs? Surely if you’re so smart you should be an Indian nationalist, whose goals shouldn’t come into conflict with WNs’ goals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    First of all, I am a white American, not an Indian.

    I have a hatred of WNs because they have none of the traits that made the other 80% of whites successful. The males among the loser tier are WNs, the women become fat feminists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Thomm says:
    @GrenadierGunther
    Wally hasn't even mention Indians before this post, he responded to a post claiming -Pakistanis- have a high rate of advanced degrees in the US, which is untrue. For some reason when asked for proof of Pakistani success in the US, anon linked to the education attainment levels of Indians in the US.

    Also, Indians are not the highest-income ethnic group in the US, they're 9th(not that it isn't impressive). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income

    It says Indians are first over here :

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

    This list is household income, while yours is per capita. Indians have a low divorce rate, so more households have two earners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Thomm says:
    @GrenadierGunther
    If the idea of Indian success in the US(and the UK, Australia, Canada, etc) isn't because they're simply a selected group of smart people, allowed to migrate for their merit, from a population pool of 1.3 billion, how do you explain the actual state of India itself then(not only economically, but IQ and academic results)?

    If you're going to claim nutrition and upbringing at an early age, you'll have to explain why rural poor Chinese, Vietnamese, Mongolians, Siberians, Eastern Europeans outperform India as a whole.

    If you really think Indians in the US are successful because they aren't in post British colonial ruined impoverished India, you are a very deluded individual, with a seemingly irrational hatred of WNs ontop of that. If your people are really that equal(or superiour, as a lot of you ethnocentric Indians like to claim), what do you have against WNs? Surely if you're so smart you should be an Indian nationalist, whose goals shouldn't come into conflict with WNs' goals.

    First of all, I am a white American, not an Indian.

    I have a hatred of WNs because they have none of the traits that made the other 80% of whites successful. The males among the loser tier are WNs, the women become fat feminists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    But they has been the "winners" in the past.

    Today hypocrisy and self entitlement make any high IQ idiot suck access fool.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Santoculto
    I will not debate with a Chinese hasbara version....

    Of course you will not. ROFL! that was an order, not a debate, which is only appropriate among you Brazilian hasbaras.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Yes and supposedly I'm a well paid hyper nationalist who defend my marvelous country against any even a slight criticism-hasbara...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @res
    I had not realized Pakistanis did so much worse than Indians in the UK. Is that the result of differing immigration selectivity or is something else going on?

    One oddity is that in the final Table 4 CAT results Carribean Blacks slightly outperform African Blacks (except for -0.2 lower quantitative), but in your first table of maths results the relationship is reversed and larger.

    UK Muslims are mostly Mirpuri Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (sort of Pakistani I suppose). The ones from Lahore and other cities regard them as embarrassing inbred hillbillies and yokels.
    US gets the top of the crop, whatever that counts for.
    UK Indians are “Ugandan Asians” (thanks, Idi Amin Dada) and invariably SWPL-ites if not outright monarchists and coat & (regimental) tie-wearers, along with Sikhs and other fairly high status groups. Not a lot of South Indians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @CanSpeccy

    By the way quite obviously cranial capacity is similar to engine displacement
     
    Obviously. Obviously? Obviously!

    A more "obvious" analogy one might have thought would be with integrated circuits, the smaller they become the more powerful.

    I said, incidentally, nothing about cranial "capacity." I spoke of cranial circumference, which is a poor proxy for cerebral volume.

    Its not true that Einstein had a brain just like an average human’s, however. There were differences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein’s_brain

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Its not true that Einstein had a brain just like an average human’s
     
    Did I say it was? Obviously not. I was responding to the idiotic notion that you can measure a person's mind with a tape measure.

    But IQist seem to understand nothing at all, which is not surprising since acceptance of the notion of rating the intelligence of Jesus Christ, Hitler and the average reader of the Unz Review on single a linear scale is itself a pretty good indication of severe intellectual incompetence.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @CanSpeccy

    After a brief survey of humanity, it should be clear to all that we have up till this point not been intelligent breeders.
     
    Bollocks. What do you think sexual selection is all about?

    Your ridiculous pronouncements confirm that those lusting to breed humanity on scientific lines are totally insane and are intent on a totalitarian program to the detriment of the mass of the people.

    Still, if our choices are between mechanical or biological singularity, the biological aspect is slightly more appealing.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Still, if our choices are between mechanical or biological singularity
     
    Screw your "choice." We have to destroy the techno-fascist bastards before they destroy humanity.
    , @reiner Tor
    I agree, though the 1500 IQ people 50 feet tall sounds like a parody.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @CanSpeccy

    Wikipedia still insists on humans having by far the highest EQ, with birds usually having lower EQs than mammals. So do you have a source for your numbers?

    (The obvious caveats apply: one number cannot describe something very complex very well, neither EQ, nor IQ, nor any one number. These are just useful as rules of thumb.)

    Also, humans have the largest brains by any measure among primates, having tripled our brains over the last few millions of years. What was the source of this increase, which resulted in difficult and dangerous childbirth, underdeveloped babies being born (unable to walk or do basically anything), and a consumption of 20% of our bodies’ oxygen intakes and some 10-20% of our bodies’ calorie needs? Surely a brain third of the size would be better, provided it could still do the same things. What is your theory for this tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?
     
    Should read:

    tripling in size in humans over the past few million years?
     
    , @CanSpeccy

    So do you have a source for your numbers?
     
    I gave you one if you'd bother to use the link I provided.
    , @RaceRealist88

    Also, humans have the largest brains by any measure among primates, having tripled our brains over the last few millions of years. What was the source of this increase, which resulted in difficult and dangerous childbirth, underdeveloped babies being born (unable to walk or do basically anything), and a consumption of 20% of our bodies’ oxygen intakes and some 10-20% of our bodies’ calorie needs? Surely a brain third of the size would be better, provided it could still do the same things. What is your theory for this tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?
     
    Read the previous references I provided.

    Now think about when brains began increasing. It's when the modern human body plan began. Nariokotome boy had human-like growth patterns. This implies that, of course, the advent of full-on human bipedalism was a huge factor in brain size increase. Know what else was? Endurance running.

    Erectus had our gait:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmpoZXZvbC4yMDA2LjA1LjAwMQ==/10.1016%40j.jhevol.2006.05.001.pdf

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1197.full

    Now couple this with aerobic physical activity and the brain hormone BDNF (Brain Derived Neurotopic Factor).

    Controlling for body mass in humans, extinct hominins and great apes, Raichlen and Polk (2012) found significant positive correlations with encephalization quotient and hindlimb length (0.93), anterior and posterior radii (0.77 and 0.66 respectively), which support the idea that human athletic ability is tied to neurobiological evolution

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1750/20122250

    With all this in mind, now think of endurance running. Large heads mean large pelves which then would impede endurance running. So there was obviously something to our 'big brains' which selected for them.

    http://www.human-existence.com/publications/Up%20from%20dragons%20skoyles%20Big%20Heads%20running%20evolution.pdf

    res linked to a paper by Hofman that stated that human brains have the 'possibility' of getting to 3500 cc. That's ridiculous! We have problems birthing babes with large brains now; imagine if our brains doubled in size. The brain/head size we have now is 'just right' in regards to pelvic width which allows us to run run run the way our species does.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/18/man-the-athlete/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh
    Still, if our choices are between mechanical or biological singularity, the biological aspect is slightly more appealing.

    Still, if our choices are between mechanical or biological singularity

    Screw your “choice.” We have to destroy the techno-fascist bastards before they destroy humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    What can we do to stop an elite from altering their own progeny? Some of them are already practicing embryo selection. Growth hormone use is rampant. Etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh
    Its not true that Einstein had a brain just like an average human's, however. There were differences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

    Its not true that Einstein had a brain just like an average human’s

    Did I say it was? Obviously not. I was responding to the idiotic notion that you can measure a person’s mind with a tape measure.

    But IQist seem to understand nothing at all, which is not surprising since acceptance of the notion of rating the intelligence of Jesus Christ, Hitler and the average reader of the Unz Review on single a linear scale is itself a pretty good indication of severe intellectual incompetence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    IQ doesn't measure everything. It's similar to height and basketball ability. There is a lot of correlation, but of course it won't always be the tallest person who will be the best basketball player. Actually, it will probably never be. But on average, the best basketball players will tend to be taller in any group than the group average. By increasing the height of a group, ceteris paribus (like no similar increase in other groups) you can increase one group's basketball ability relative to other groups.

    I thought you understood that. You seem to be fighting with a straw man.

    , @Santoculto
    Why not?? IQ based on modern standards (literacy, numeracy) maybe useful to speculate about ancient civilizations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Daniel Chieh
    Still, if our choices are between mechanical or biological singularity, the biological aspect is slightly more appealing.

    I agree, though the 1500 IQ people 50 feet tall sounds like a parody.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Santoculto
    Never interest in facts???

    Nope. To them, ideology > facts

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Even about Jews?? And race mixing??
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Factorize
    Yes, exactly, the conversation is no longer about if, only when.

    All the positive reinforcement for the idea that IQ is related to group membership needs to be
    corrected at every opportunity: Reinforcement replaced with punishement.

    Breeders probably exude a certain nuttiness to others because they have achieved modifications in animals that others are largely unaware of. Hens that lay an egg a day? Doesn't that seem somewhat odd to you? There has never been a wild hen that laid an egg a day. Breeders created extreme traits in animals decades ago. You do not need to look far in your local supermarket to see many genetically selected food items. I suspect many would be truly surprised to see a natural strawberry or blueberry.

    Extreme traits will now be introduced into humans.

    A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling? Get ready for real human diversity to appear. I don't expect that progressives would regard others favorably who did not openly embrace such diversity.

    The nature of human genetics is such that there is not a great deal of point in arguing about it. A very large number of SNPs involved in IQ and other traits are very common (20%+ MAF). There had been some expectation that very rare variants would account for much of the variation. This is apparently not true. The variation in human intelligence results largely from differences in a great many common variants. Human polygenic traits are, in fact, highly egalitarian. The differences that exist in human populations today only represent a sliver of the variation that is possible.

    An operant conditioning program that removes outdated classist, racist, and other assumptions
    would now probably be of much value.

    Any randomly selected person could use low tech methods such as embryo selection to greatly increase their children's IQ. If CRISPR or some other high end technology were required, then there might be a reasonably effective way that a high IQ world could be prevented. Alas, no. We will simply have to live in a world in which the color of one's skin or place of national ancestry has absolutely no predictive value for anything.

    “A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling?”

    You have quite the imagination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    “A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling?”

    You have quite the imagination.
     
    He has the imagination of a techno-fascist. People to be made in accordance with the needs of the state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Jonathan Mason

    By the way, I didn’t find your assertion that politicians know the score quite persuasive. They are watching the same propaganda TV shows and don’t think much about the subject.
     
    I don't know. I suspect that politicians generally have very busy lives and don't have time to watch TV themselves, though I am sure that they have people who give them summaries of what the media is saying.

    I say this because I am usually very busy, and very, very rarely had time to watch TV over the last 25 years since the Internet arrived, unless I am in a hotel room or airport or something, and I would think that for politicians it is even more so. However, since many or most voters probably do watch TV on a daily basis, politicians have to give the impression that they are just like the voters, even though they get their news from other sources.

    Of course Donald Trump is an exception.

    Usually people’s views of “racism” etc. forms early on. I was an anti-racist by age 10, or earlier. It was influenced by schools, movies, and TV shows, all of which condemned it. I guess it works similarly for politicians. They were indoctrinated early on, and by the time they had no more time to watch TV shows etc., they no longer needed it. Actually, I was very much interested in evolutionary biology, and that’s how I came around (first in Nicholas Wade’s Before the Dawn, then of course I started to dig deeper…) the idea that human racial differences are real – around age 30. Most people that age don’t read things like this. Had I not read this, I’d probably still be vaguely anti-racist. I doubt anyone not deeply into evolutionary biology would encounter any such information, and I don’t think politicians are reading such things.

    Do you have any reason to think politicians either

    A) have never been indoctrinated to begin with, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the population, or

    B) they read evolutionary biology and HBD blogs to overcome that indoctrination (as was the case with me)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @reiner Tor
    Wikipedia still insists on humans having by far the highest EQ, with birds usually having lower EQs than mammals. So do you have a source for your numbers?

    (The obvious caveats apply: one number cannot describe something very complex very well, neither EQ, nor IQ, nor any one number. These are just useful as rules of thumb.)

    Also, humans have the largest brains by any measure among primates, having tripled our brains over the last few millions of years. What was the source of this increase, which resulted in difficult and dangerous childbirth, underdeveloped babies being born (unable to walk or do basically anything), and a consumption of 20% of our bodies' oxygen intakes and some 10-20% of our bodies' calorie needs? Surely a brain third of the size would be better, provided it could still do the same things. What is your theory for this tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?

    tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?

    Should read:

    tripling in size in humans over the past few million years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @CanSpeccy

    Its not true that Einstein had a brain just like an average human’s
     
    Did I say it was? Obviously not. I was responding to the idiotic notion that you can measure a person's mind with a tape measure.

    But IQist seem to understand nothing at all, which is not surprising since acceptance of the notion of rating the intelligence of Jesus Christ, Hitler and the average reader of the Unz Review on single a linear scale is itself a pretty good indication of severe intellectual incompetence.

    IQ doesn’t measure everything. It’s similar to height and basketball ability. There is a lot of correlation, but of course it won’t always be the tallest person who will be the best basketball player. Actually, it will probably never be. But on average, the best basketball players will tend to be taller in any group than the group average. By increasing the height of a group, ceteris paribus (like no similar increase in other groups) you can increase one group’s basketball ability relative to other groups.

    I thought you understood that. You seem to be fighting with a straw man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    But basketball ability never was only about be taller...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    "A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling?"

    You have quite the imagination.

    “A wide range of human traits including intelligence, height, other behaviors etc. are also highly polygenic. A 50 foot 1500 IQ person with double muscling?”

    You have quite the imagination.

    He has the imagination of a techno-fascist. People to be made in accordance with the needs of the state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    Wikipedia still insists on humans having by far the highest EQ, with birds usually having lower EQs than mammals. So do you have a source for your numbers?

    (The obvious caveats apply: one number cannot describe something very complex very well, neither EQ, nor IQ, nor any one number. These are just useful as rules of thumb.)

    Also, humans have the largest brains by any measure among primates, having tripled our brains over the last few millions of years. What was the source of this increase, which resulted in difficult and dangerous childbirth, underdeveloped babies being born (unable to walk or do basically anything), and a consumption of 20% of our bodies' oxygen intakes and some 10-20% of our bodies' calorie needs? Surely a brain third of the size would be better, provided it could still do the same things. What is your theory for this tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?

    So do you have a source for your numbers?

    I gave you one if you’d bother to use the link I provided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Dear CanSpeccy,

    Your link leads to a blog by a certain CanSpeccy. The blog's statements on encephalization ratio's of humans relative to birds or shrews, for example, are totally unsourced. So can you maybe tell me where the blogger CanSpeccy got his numbers?

    Or you can provide any other source.

    Thanks in advance,
    reiner Tor

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @CanSpeccy

    So do you have a source for your numbers?
     
    I gave you one if you'd bother to use the link I provided.

    Dear CanSpeccy,

    Your link leads to a blog by a certain CanSpeccy. The blog’s statements on encephalization ratio’s of humans relative to birds or shrews, for example, are totally unsourced. So can you maybe tell me where the blogger CanSpeccy got his numbers?

    Or you can provide any other source.

    Thanks in advance,
    reiner Tor

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Or you can provide any other source.
     
    The blog post provides a source, for Christ's sake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Factorize says:

    Daniel, exactly.

    The unstated here is that many want to continue to live in a homocentric universe with all the implications that has for maintaining power, social structure etc. .

    Yet, this conception of reality is attacked on all fronts. Technology is offering us multiple routes to
    homo sapiens being on the periphery. A $1000 computer within the next ten years with human equivalent computational power? Would not that displace our place in the universe?

    There would also be less ethical angst in making a 1500 IQ 50 foot gorilla. For those who wish the future would just go away, would they really want to have to report to a big, hairy and might I say UGLY primate?

    What will it be? Genetic selection technology is very simple; it is fairly clear that in the near term
    it will roll out. Denial and attacking the messenger is not an effective rebuttal.

    Humans can either engage with the future or they can choose not to be part of it.
    It is their choice.

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible. This is a very large
    shift in what the future might hold for us. The future will be what we can imagine it to be.

    Those without such imaginations can continue to live with the primordial world.
    Others might want to experiment with a 1500 IQ lifestyle. Some might be interested in being
    50 foot tall; others might want 100 SD of happiness or longevity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible. This is a very large
    shift in what the future might hold for us.
     
    Yes, as I discuss here, it's a shift to a technology based fascism, which is to say an end to individual liberty at any level. What you are advocating is an unbreakable technological totalitarianism, under which human DNA will be selected from, modified, and remixed to create a biological appendage to a system that ultimately will most probably be ruled by artificially intelligent robots. What you are promoting is the effective extinction of mankind, and certainly an end to any kind of human self-determination, independence, democracy or freedom.
    , @reiner Tor

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible.
     
    50 foot humans are impossible, at least under Earth's gravity. 1500 IQ is meaningless, or at least I'm not sure it means what you think it means. 115 IQ means that you are more intelligent than 68% of a given group (usually your country's population or white Britons), 130 IQ that you're smarter than 95% of them, and an IQ of 145 means you're smarter than 99.7% of them. 1500 IQ would definitely mean that you were the most intelligent (not necessarily the smartest) person on the planet, but what does it mean beyond that? Probably nothing quantifiable. In any event, there are serious physiological limits to brain size or brain efficiency, I don't think intelligence can be grown beyond a certain physiological limit unless you're willing to create "humans" which look like League Navigators in Dune.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    Dear CanSpeccy,

    Your link leads to a blog by a certain CanSpeccy. The blog's statements on encephalization ratio's of humans relative to birds or shrews, for example, are totally unsourced. So can you maybe tell me where the blogger CanSpeccy got his numbers?

    Or you can provide any other source.

    Thanks in advance,
    reiner Tor

    Or you can provide any other source.

    The blog post provides a source, for Christ’s sake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Where? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just provide it here? This part in particular has no sources at all:

    "But then it has been argued that what matters is not the size of the brain but the ratio of brain to body weight, the so-called encephalization ratio. On that basis, humans with an ER of 1:40, beat elephants, with a ratio of 1:560, massively. Remarkably though, birds come out ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. "
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    Daniel, exactly.

    The unstated here is that many want to continue to live in a homocentric universe with all the implications that has for maintaining power, social structure etc. .

    Yet, this conception of reality is attacked on all fronts. Technology is offering us multiple routes to
    homo sapiens being on the periphery. A $1000 computer within the next ten years with human equivalent computational power? Would not that displace our place in the universe?

    There would also be less ethical angst in making a 1500 IQ 50 foot gorilla. For those who wish the future would just go away, would they really want to have to report to a big, hairy and might I say UGLY primate?

    What will it be? Genetic selection technology is very simple; it is fairly clear that in the near term
    it will roll out. Denial and attacking the messenger is not an effective rebuttal.

    Humans can either engage with the future or they can choose not to be part of it.
    It is their choice.

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible. This is a very large
    shift in what the future might hold for us. The future will be what we can imagine it to be.

    Those without such imaginations can continue to live with the primordial world.
    Others might want to experiment with a 1500 IQ lifestyle. Some might be interested in being
    50 foot tall; others might want 100 SD of happiness or longevity.

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible. This is a very large
    shift in what the future might hold for us.

    Yes, as I discuss here, it’s a shift to a technology based fascism, which is to say an end to individual liberty at any level. What you are advocating is an unbreakable technological totalitarianism, under which human DNA will be selected from, modified, and remixed to create a biological appendage to a system that ultimately will most probably be ruled by artificially intelligent robots. What you are promoting is the effective extinction of mankind, and certainly an end to any kind of human self-determination, independence, democracy or freedom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    But that is what is coming don't you think? I already think of the alt right like the escapees in brave new world living outside in nature, although nature has become the internet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @CanSpeccy

    Or you can provide any other source.
     
    The blog post provides a source, for Christ's sake.

    Where? Wouldn’t it have been simpler to just provide it here? This part in particular has no sources at all:

    “But then it has been argued that what matters is not the size of the brain but the ratio of brain to body weight, the so-called encephalization ratio. On that basis, humans with an ER of 1:40, beat elephants, with a ratio of 1:560, massively. Remarkably though, birds come out ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. “

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    My bad. The encephalization quotient is different from the encephalization ratio, the latter is probably (I guess) the same as the brain-to-body mass ratio. I thought you were writing about encephalization quotient, as I had been before.

    So yes, the shrew has a very good brain-to-body mass ratio, but its encephalization quotient is not nearly up there.
    , @CanSpeccy
    I gave a link to a page that gave a link to a source. Is that too hard for an IQist to understand?
    , @RaceRealist88
    Yes, so much for bird brains. Corvids and parrots have a primate-like number of neurons in their forebrain.

    Thus, large-brained parrots and corvids have forebrain neuron counts equal to or greater than primates with much larger brains. We suggest that the large numbers of neurons concentrated in high densities in the telencephalon substantially contribute to the neural basis of avian intelligence.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/26/7255.full
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @phil
    Pregnant women are now routinely given ultrasounds, and they are then informed whether the fetus has Down's syndrome. Some parents subsequently decide to have the fetus aborted. What do you think about this? Would it be a good idea in the future to extend these practices to fetuses who are at high risk for mental retardation (IQ<70)?

    Phil,
    And the mentally disabled with IQ 90,100,120,140…?? I mean, irrational…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @reiner Tor
    IQ doesn't measure everything. It's similar to height and basketball ability. There is a lot of correlation, but of course it won't always be the tallest person who will be the best basketball player. Actually, it will probably never be. But on average, the best basketball players will tend to be taller in any group than the group average. By increasing the height of a group, ceteris paribus (like no similar increase in other groups) you can increase one group's basketball ability relative to other groups.

    I thought you understood that. You seem to be fighting with a straw man.

    But basketball ability never was only about be taller…

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Genius in physics or any other area has never only been about having higher IQ. Higher IQ was never only about having bigger brains. There's correlation, but it's a stochastic function. We can easily measure brain size, but not so easily other, elusive factors (how the brain is organized etc.) that go into IQ; or we can easily measure IQ, but not the other, elusive factors (like specific talent for physics, or persistence and determination, etc.) that go into being a genius.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @RaceRealist88
    Nope. To them, ideology > facts

    Even about Jews?? And race mixing??

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    No. On a lot of science.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @reiner Tor
    Where? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just provide it here? This part in particular has no sources at all:

    "But then it has been argued that what matters is not the size of the brain but the ratio of brain to body weight, the so-called encephalization ratio. On that basis, humans with an ER of 1:40, beat elephants, with a ratio of 1:560, massively. Remarkably though, birds come out ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. "
     

    My bad. The encephalization quotient is different from the encephalization ratio, the latter is probably (I guess) the same as the brain-to-body mass ratio. I thought you were writing about encephalization quotient, as I had been before.

    So yes, the shrew has a very good brain-to-body mass ratio, but its encephalization quotient is not nearly up there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @CanSpeccy

    Still, if our choices are between mechanical or biological singularity
     
    Screw your "choice." We have to destroy the techno-fascist bastards before they destroy humanity.

    What can we do to stop an elite from altering their own progeny? Some of them are already practicing embryo selection. Growth hormone use is rampant. Etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @CanSpeccy

    Its not true that Einstein had a brain just like an average human’s
     
    Did I say it was? Obviously not. I was responding to the idiotic notion that you can measure a person's mind with a tape measure.

    But IQist seem to understand nothing at all, which is not surprising since acceptance of the notion of rating the intelligence of Jesus Christ, Hitler and the average reader of the Unz Review on single a linear scale is itself a pretty good indication of severe intellectual incompetence.

    Why not?? IQ based on modern standards (literacy, numeracy) maybe useful to speculate about ancient civilizations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @PandaAtWar
    Of course you will not. ROFL! that was an order, not a debate, which is only appropriate among you Brazilian hasbaras.

    Yes and supposedly I’m a well paid hyper nationalist who defend my marvelous country against any even a slight criticism-hasbara…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Thomm
    First of all, I am a white American, not an Indian.

    I have a hatred of WNs because they have none of the traits that made the other 80% of whites successful. The males among the loser tier are WNs, the women become fat feminists.

    But they has been the “winners” in the past.

    Today hypocrisy and self entitlement make any high IQ idiot suck access fool.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @res
    As I said in the comment, the data was from 2010. That is the most recent they had.

    Yes but I’m talking about total number of Pakistanis and Indians who has immigrated to Briton’s. Seems you showed this data too in your comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    All of the data I gave was from 2010. My understanding is the emigration rate is a five year window (2005-2010 here) percentage while the immigration numbers are the entire population of that group at that moment in time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    Where? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just provide it here? This part in particular has no sources at all:

    "But then it has been argued that what matters is not the size of the brain but the ratio of brain to body weight, the so-called encephalization ratio. On that basis, humans with an ER of 1:40, beat elephants, with a ratio of 1:560, massively. Remarkably though, birds come out ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. "
     

    I gave a link to a page that gave a link to a source. Is that too hard for an IQist to understand?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Or you could have just done a Google search.
    , @reiner Tor
    What page? When and where did you provide it? I only found your blogpost, which had no citations for the statements regarding the shrew's brain. Would it not have been easier by now to just provide the frigging citations? We could have clarified the misunderstanding on my part.

    Because, by the way, you don't need the citations, since I now realized you were writing about the "encephalization ratio", which I guess is exactly the same thing as the "brain-to-body mass ratio". I know that the shrews have large brain-to-body mass ratios. Of course, I referred to the encephalization quotient.

    So humans have I think the largest encephalization quotient among any animal living ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy
    I gave a link to a page that gave a link to a source. Is that too hard for an IQist to understand?

    Or you could have just done a Google search.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Look.

    In #105 I mentioned the encephalization quotient.

    To which you replied in #111 with the blogpost claiming that the encephalization "ratio" (an entirely different thing) was larger for shrews. I did a search for shrews, and of course I realized that you're probably mixing up something.

    So in #133 I gave you the Wikipedia page to prove that humans do indeed have a higher encephalization quotient than any other animal ever.

    In #143 you insisted you have already given a source.

    In #144 I asked you again, reminding you that your blogpost has no sources (I specifically had shrews and birds in mind, the latter of which Wikipedia in #133 explicitly mentioned as having smaller EQs than humans).

    In #146 you still insisted the blog provides the source.

    I was still sure that you're mixing up something, so I asked again in #148.

    In #152 (before reading any of your replies) I realized the problem: I misunderstood, and thought that encephalization ratio was encephalization quotient. (Which it was not.)

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Santoculto
    But basketball ability never was only about be taller...

    Genius in physics or any other area has never only been about having higher IQ. Higher IQ was never only about having bigger brains. There’s correlation, but it’s a stochastic function. We can easily measure brain size, but not so easily other, elusive factors (how the brain is organized etc.) that go into IQ; or we can easily measure IQ, but not the other, elusive factors (like specific talent for physics, or persistence and determination, etc.) that go into being a genius.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Maybe we can predict them. Determination is a personality trait. Intellectual independence too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @CanSpeccy
    I gave a link to a page that gave a link to a source. Is that too hard for an IQist to understand?

    What page? When and where did you provide it? I only found your blogpost, which had no citations for the statements regarding the shrew’s brain. Would it not have been easier by now to just provide the frigging citations? We could have clarified the misunderstanding on my part.

    Because, by the way, you don’t need the citations, since I now realized you were writing about the “encephalization ratio”, which I guess is exactly the same thing as the “brain-to-body mass ratio”. I know that the shrews have large brain-to-body mass ratios. Of course, I referred to the encephalization quotient.

    So humans have I think the largest encephalization quotient among any animal living ever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Santoculto
    Most Europeans don't want mass immigration and most Europeans don't what (((really is going on))). It's not democracy when people is not heard.

    Russia is a third world country with rampant std incidence, social inequality, corruption and yes, immigration: 20 million people specially from ex-soviet republics, namely Muslim-majority ones.

    China is a combination between the worst aspects of capitalism with the worst aspects of communism. People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.

    Japan?? The next stage of (((globalism))) is to invite east Asian countries to enjoy the wonders of the multicultural country (((non monolithic mode))).

    People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.

    Pretty bullshit but otherwise I do agree that democracy is suboptimal given its obvious results. A good thing that China does not follow that particular cult.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Another hasbara Chinese... People who choice to defense their government than their people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @CanSpeccy
    Or you could have just done a Google search.

    Look.

    In #105 I mentioned the encephalization quotient.

    To which you replied in #111 with the blogpost claiming that the encephalization “ratio” (an entirely different thing) was larger for shrews. I did a search for shrews, and of course I realized that you’re probably mixing up something.

    So in #133 I gave you the Wikipedia page to prove that humans do indeed have a higher encephalization quotient than any other animal ever.

    In #143 you insisted you have already given a source.

    In #144 I asked you again, reminding you that your blogpost has no sources (I specifically had shrews and birds in mind, the latter of which Wikipedia in #133 explicitly mentioned as having smaller EQs than humans).

    In #146 you still insisted the blog provides the source.

    I was still sure that you’re mixing up something, so I asked again in #148.

    In #152 (before reading any of your replies) I realized the problem: I misunderstood, and thought that encephalization ratio was encephalization quotient. (Which it was not.)

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Herculano-Houzel disproved the EQ:

    It is further proposed that, if such neuronal excess does provide for improved cognitive abilities, then the total number of excess neurons in each species—here dubbed the neuronal index—should be a better indicator of cognitive abilities than the encephalization quotient (EQ). Because the neuronal index is a function of both the number of neurons expected from the size of the body and the absolute number of neurons in the brain, differences in this parameter across species that share similar EQs might explain why these often have different cognitive capabilities, particularly when comparing across mammalian orders.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20598/full

    However, the notion that higher encephalization correlates with improved cognitive abilities has recently been disputed in favor of absolute numbers of cortical neurons and connections (12), or simply absolute brain size (13). If encephalization were the main determinant of cognitive abilities, small-brained animals with very large encephalization quotients, such as capuchin monkeys, should be more cognitively able than large-brained but less encephalized animals, such as the gorilla (2). However, the former animals with a smaller brain are outranked by the latter in cognitive performance (13).

    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_1/10661.full

    And my personal fave:

    Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTE1OS8wMDAxMDI5NzM=/10.1159%40000102973.pdf


    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?
     
    The answer is obvious: because it puts Man on top of the animal kingdom. EQ is disproven.
    , @CanSpeccy

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?
     
    Oh, so since humans don't have the highest brain to body weight ratio we have to consider some BS encephalization quotient. Sounds like bollocks to me. You might as well just stick to using a tape measure and measure the circumference of people's heads. I am sure that will prove whatever nonsense you want to prove.

    As for why humans have a larger cerebrum than apes, that's obvious: language.

    Language is highly resource demanding. People don't understand words based on definitions. Most people don't know the definitions of most of the words they use. What they do know is the context in which they have heard or seen particular words used: often thousands of contexts, contexts that include visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile sensations.

    Such knowledge takes a lot of memory, but it is worth it because it allows humans to share experience across families, tribes, and generations, and now across the globe with the Internet.

    Shared experience increases success in exploitation of the environment and thus pays back the metabolic cost of more brain tissue. But a larger cerebrum does not make humans more intelligent than other animals. Chimps are smarter than humans in many ways. But they don't have our knowledge gleaned through language use.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @reiner Tor
    Integrated circuit is not a very good analogy, since the technology is still not very good, so there's still plenty of room for improvement. With humans, there's probably also some room for improvement, but not nearly as much. It's not for nothing that our brain volume has increased so much since our common ancestor with the chimps, while that of chimpanzees not so much.

    Apropos, what is your theory for why humans have the largest brains among primates? Actually, humans' encephalization quotient is the highest among mammals. Are we the dumbest mammals? As I'm sure you're aware, brain tissue is probably the most expensive tissue around (at any rate, one of the most expensive ones), both in terms of building (raw materials needed) and maintenance (like oxygen or blood sugar intake) costs, not to mention the fact that birth is so really hard (and early!) for humans because our heads are so big already at birth. If we had smaller brains (and hence, heads), we could spend more time in our mothers' wombs, which would make it possible for fully functional human babies (like babies with the capacity to walk, as with most other mammals) to be born. So there must be a reason why we have bigger brains. If evolution could get away with smaller brains, it most definitely would.

    So what is your theory why humans have such big brains?

    “So what is your theory why humans have such big brains?”

    It’s not for IQ. John Skoyles believes it’s for expertise capacity, not IQ.

    http://www.human-existence.com/publications/Skoyles%20Human%20evolution%20expanded%20brains%20expertise%20not%20IQ.pdf

    I extended this to human races, noting that Arctic peoples use more tools, and therefore need more expertise, which further expanded their brains (along with the climate).

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

    This hypothesis explains Lynn et al’s so-called ‘outlier’ in regards to Inuits having only a 91 IQ yet heads the size of East Asians. Tropical peoples use fewer tools; Arctic peoples use more tools. Tool use is related to brain size… etc etc. I think it’s a better hypothesis than the cold winter/IQ stuff, but I may be biased.

    Tell me what you think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @reiner Tor
    Look.

    In #105 I mentioned the encephalization quotient.

    To which you replied in #111 with the blogpost claiming that the encephalization "ratio" (an entirely different thing) was larger for shrews. I did a search for shrews, and of course I realized that you're probably mixing up something.

    So in #133 I gave you the Wikipedia page to prove that humans do indeed have a higher encephalization quotient than any other animal ever.

    In #143 you insisted you have already given a source.

    In #144 I asked you again, reminding you that your blogpost has no sources (I specifically had shrews and birds in mind, the latter of which Wikipedia in #133 explicitly mentioned as having smaller EQs than humans).

    In #146 you still insisted the blog provides the source.

    I was still sure that you're mixing up something, so I asked again in #148.

    In #152 (before reading any of your replies) I realized the problem: I misunderstood, and thought that encephalization ratio was encephalization quotient. (Which it was not.)

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?

    Herculano-Houzel disproved the EQ:

    It is further proposed that, if such neuronal excess does provide for improved cognitive abilities, then the total number of excess neurons in each species—here dubbed the neuronal index—should be a better indicator of cognitive abilities than the encephalization quotient (EQ). Because the neuronal index is a function of both the number of neurons expected from the size of the body and the absolute number of neurons in the brain, differences in this parameter across species that share similar EQs might explain why these often have different cognitive capabilities, particularly when comparing across mammalian orders.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20598/full

    However, the notion that higher encephalization correlates with improved cognitive abilities has recently been disputed in favor of absolute numbers of cortical neurons and connections (12), or simply absolute brain size (13). If encephalization were the main determinant of cognitive abilities, small-brained animals with very large encephalization quotients, such as capuchin monkeys, should be more cognitively able than large-brained but less encephalized animals, such as the gorilla (2). However, the former animals with a smaller brain are outranked by the latter in cognitive performance (13).

    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_1/10661.full

    And my personal fave:

    Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTE1OS8wMDAxMDI5NzM=/10.1159%40000102973.pdf

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?

    The answer is obvious: because it puts Man on top of the animal kingdom. EQ is disproven.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    It is odd to see you translate language like "It is further proposed that" and "might explain why" into "disproved."

    Then there is using this:

    And my personal fave:

    Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates.
     
    To argue:

    The answer is obvious: because it puts Man on top of the animal kingdom. EQ is disproven.
     
    Eliding away the "primates" qualifier in the first part to draw a conclusion about the entire animal kingdom.

    This whole "disproved" rhetoric is misguided IMHO since what we are really talking about is models which have better or worse fits (and not by large margins AFAICT) to the observed data.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @reiner Tor
    Genius in physics or any other area has never only been about having higher IQ. Higher IQ was never only about having bigger brains. There's correlation, but it's a stochastic function. We can easily measure brain size, but not so easily other, elusive factors (how the brain is organized etc.) that go into IQ; or we can easily measure IQ, but not the other, elusive factors (like specific talent for physics, or persistence and determination, etc.) that go into being a genius.

    Maybe we can predict them. Determination is a personality trait. Intellectual independence too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Daniel Chieh

    People has been sacrificed to enrich their rulling-cunning elites, something that is totally unnecessary. No have freedom of speech and standard living is considerably lower than in the west as well quality of life.
     
    Pretty bullshit but otherwise I do agree that democracy is suboptimal given its obvious results. A good thing that China does not follow that particular cult.

    Another hasbara Chinese… People who choice to defense their government than their people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The correct insult is "wumao" btw. And I just happen to live in reality and actually have a clue about the country you're rambling about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Santoculto
    Even about Jews?? And race mixing??

    No. On a lot of science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Santoculto
    Another hasbara Chinese... People who choice to defense their government than their people.

    The correct insult is “wumao” btw. And I just happen to live in reality and actually have a clue about the country you’re rambling about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Ok blue blood...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @reiner Tor
    Where? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just provide it here? This part in particular has no sources at all:

    "But then it has been argued that what matters is not the size of the brain but the ratio of brain to body weight, the so-called encephalization ratio. On that basis, humans with an ER of 1:40, beat elephants, with a ratio of 1:560, massively. Remarkably though, birds come out ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. "
     

    Yes, so much for bird brains. Corvids and parrots have a primate-like number of neurons in their forebrain.

    Thus, large-brained parrots and corvids have forebrain neuron counts equal to or greater than primates with much larger brains. We suggest that the large numbers of neurons concentrated in high densities in the telencephalon substantially contribute to the neural basis of avian intelligence.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/26/7255.full

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. res says:
    @Santoculto
    Yes but I'm talking about total number of Pakistanis and Indians who has immigrated to Briton's. Seems you showed this data too in your comment.

    All of the data I gave was from 2010. My understanding is the emigration rate is a five year window (2005-2010 here) percentage while the immigration numbers are the entire population of that group at that moment in time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @reiner Tor
    Wikipedia still insists on humans having by far the highest EQ, with birds usually having lower EQs than mammals. So do you have a source for your numbers?

    (The obvious caveats apply: one number cannot describe something very complex very well, neither EQ, nor IQ, nor any one number. These are just useful as rules of thumb.)

    Also, humans have the largest brains by any measure among primates, having tripled our brains over the last few millions of years. What was the source of this increase, which resulted in difficult and dangerous childbirth, underdeveloped babies being born (unable to walk or do basically anything), and a consumption of 20% of our bodies' oxygen intakes and some 10-20% of our bodies' calorie needs? Surely a brain third of the size would be better, provided it could still do the same things. What is your theory for this tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?

    Also, humans have the largest brains by any measure among primates, having tripled our brains over the last few millions of years. What was the source of this increase, which resulted in difficult and dangerous childbirth, underdeveloped babies being born (unable to walk or do basically anything), and a consumption of 20% of our bodies’ oxygen intakes and some 10-20% of our bodies’ calorie needs? Surely a brain third of the size would be better, provided it could still do the same things. What is your theory for this tripling in size in humans over the past few millennia?

    Read the previous references I provided.

    Now think about when brains began increasing. It’s when the modern human body plan began. Nariokotome boy had human-like growth patterns. This implies that, of course, the advent of full-on human bipedalism was a huge factor in brain size increase. Know what else was? Endurance running.

    Erectus had our gait:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmpoZXZvbC4yMDA2LjA1LjAwMQ==/10.1016%40j.jhevol.2006.05.001.pdf

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5918/1197.full

    Now couple this with aerobic physical activity and the brain hormone BDNF (Brain Derived Neurotopic Factor).

    Controlling for body mass in humans, extinct hominins and great apes, Raichlen and Polk (2012) found significant positive correlations with encephalization quotient and hindlimb length (0.93), anterior and posterior radii (0.77 and 0.66 respectively), which support the idea that human athletic ability is tied to neurobiological evolution

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1750/20122250

    With all this in mind, now think of endurance running. Large heads mean large pelves which then would impede endurance running. So there was obviously something to our ‘big brains’ which selected for them.

    http://www.human-existence.com/publications/Up%20from%20dragons%20skoyles%20Big%20Heads%20running%20evolution.pdf

    res linked to a paper by Hofman that stated that human brains have the ‘possibility’ of getting to 3500 cc. That’s ridiculous! We have problems birthing babes with large brains now; imagine if our brains doubled in size. The brain/head size we have now is ‘just right’ in regards to pelvic width which allows us to run run run the way our species does.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/18/man-the-athlete/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Herculano-Houzel disproved the EQ:

    It is further proposed that, if such neuronal excess does provide for improved cognitive abilities, then the total number of excess neurons in each species—here dubbed the neuronal index—should be a better indicator of cognitive abilities than the encephalization quotient (EQ). Because the neuronal index is a function of both the number of neurons expected from the size of the body and the absolute number of neurons in the brain, differences in this parameter across species that share similar EQs might explain why these often have different cognitive capabilities, particularly when comparing across mammalian orders.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20598/full

    However, the notion that higher encephalization correlates with improved cognitive abilities has recently been disputed in favor of absolute numbers of cortical neurons and connections (12), or simply absolute brain size (13). If encephalization were the main determinant of cognitive abilities, small-brained animals with very large encephalization quotients, such as capuchin monkeys, should be more cognitively able than large-brained but less encephalized animals, such as the gorilla (2). However, the former animals with a smaller brain are outranked by the latter in cognitive performance (13).

    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_1/10661.full

    And my personal fave:

    Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTE1OS8wMDAxMDI5NzM=/10.1159%40000102973.pdf


    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?
     
    The answer is obvious: because it puts Man on top of the animal kingdom. EQ is disproven.

    It is odd to see you translate language like “It is further proposed that” and “might explain why” into “disproved.”

    Then there is using this:

    And my personal fave:

    Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates.

    To argue:

    The answer is obvious: because it puts Man on top of the animal kingdom. EQ is disproven.

    Eliding away the “primates” qualifier in the first part to draw a conclusion about the entire animal kingdom.

    This whole “disproved” rhetoric is misguided IMHO since what we are really talking about is models which have better or worse fits (and not by large margins AFAICT) to the observed data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    True. I do use strong language (a lot, gotta work on that).

    HH does, herself, not take to EQ and uses total neurons as a better predictor (because there are problems with EQ as shown).

    The capuchin monkey/gorilla EQ difference is explained by neuronal count, not EQ. This relationship is also seen in other ways as well.

    HH et al have shown that different mammals' brains follow different scaling rules. So to use just gross size/body size is extremely misleading. Using her and Lent's isotropic fractionator allows one to see how many neurons are in that brain, and by doing so, her and her team showed that neuronal count---not EQ---is best predictor for intelligence between species.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    Look.

    In #105 I mentioned the encephalization quotient.

    To which you replied in #111 with the blogpost claiming that the encephalization "ratio" (an entirely different thing) was larger for shrews. I did a search for shrews, and of course I realized that you're probably mixing up something.

    So in #133 I gave you the Wikipedia page to prove that humans do indeed have a higher encephalization quotient than any other animal ever.

    In #143 you insisted you have already given a source.

    In #144 I asked you again, reminding you that your blogpost has no sources (I specifically had shrews and birds in mind, the latter of which Wikipedia in #133 explicitly mentioned as having smaller EQs than humans).

    In #146 you still insisted the blog provides the source.

    I was still sure that you're mixing up something, so I asked again in #148.

    In #152 (before reading any of your replies) I realized the problem: I misunderstood, and thought that encephalization ratio was encephalization quotient. (Which it was not.)

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?

    Oh, so since humans don’t have the highest brain to body weight ratio we have to consider some BS encephalization quotient. Sounds like bollocks to me. You might as well just stick to using a tape measure and measure the circumference of people’s heads. I am sure that will prove whatever nonsense you want to prove.

    As for why humans have a larger cerebrum than apes, that’s obvious: language.

    Language is highly resource demanding. People don’t understand words based on definitions. Most people don’t know the definitions of most of the words they use. What they do know is the context in which they have heard or seen particular words used: often thousands of contexts, contexts that include visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile sensations.

    Such knowledge takes a lot of memory, but it is worth it because it allows humans to share experience across families, tribes, and generations, and now across the globe with the Internet.

    Shared experience increases success in exploitation of the environment and thus pays back the metabolic cost of more brain tissue. But a larger cerebrum does not make humans more intelligent than other animals. Chimps are smarter than humans in many ways. But they don’t have our knowledge gleaned through language use.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Oh, so since humans don’t have the highest brain to body weight ratio
     
    There's a rather easy to understand point that the ratio cannot be quite meaningful when we're talking about very small animals. There are two ideas competing. One is the absolute brains size idea (probably useful within a species, and might be at least somewhat useful with comparisons between two or more different species), which can of course be measured in terms of brain mass or number of neurons in the cortex or some other way.

    The other idea is that absolute size of the brain needs to be adjusted by the body size of the animal in question. It's quite easy to see why - bigger bodies need bigger brains to control them, bigger animals often receive more sensory input etc. The adjustment cannot be a simply brain-to-body mass ratio, because of course sensory inputs and control requirements have a floor - very small animals need to process some sensory inputs (like vision) often regardless of body size. So, the simple idea of EQ is that brain size doesn't need to be compared to body size as such, but to how large a brain a similar sized animal might have.

    It's well known that it punishes very big animals, severely underestimating their braininess. I find it possible that some whales (especially sperm whales) or dolphins might be smarter than humans (but cannot discover quantum mechanics due to a lack of hands and thus writing). Another criticism is that among primates it doesn't seem to work (but then again, it doesn't seem to work within species either, at least it doesn't seem to work within humans). In any event, humans definitely have much larger brains than other primates (whether in absolute or relative terms, however measured) and they also have much larger brains than they had a couple millions of years ago.

    I seriously doubt that this increase has nothing to do with a growth in intelligence.
    , @James Thompson
    You may have all referenced this link, but if not, here are some comments

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-makes-brains-brainy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Factorize
    Human IQ can now be increased by genetic technology.

    Simply selecting the one embryo among ten with the highest
    polygenic IQ score would lead to a 1 SD in IQ. This strategy
    could be used generation after generation for the next many
    centuries.

    Why is this conversation focused on what was and not what will be?

    Simply selecting the one embryo among ten with the highest
    polygenic IQ score would lead to a 1 SD in IQ. This strategy
    could be used generation after generation for the next many
    centuries.

    Because ‘what will be’ (lol) is a huge pipe dream:

    https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/12/its-now-possible-in-theory-to-predict-life-success-from-a-genetic-test-at-birth/#comment-9122

    In the case of the individual, the original cells are totipotent; in spite of the same genes, they have the same potential to become any kind of differentiated cell for a particular organism. In the French Flag model, every cell has the potential to develop as white, blue, or red. Indeed, recent advances in the laboratory prove that it is possible to change virtually any type of cell into another cell type—to recover their potential for diversity. This epigenetic reprogramming, in which a developed specific potential is turned back to become a totipotent cell. (http://www.eurostemcell.org/ips-cells-and-reprogramming-turn-any-cell-body-stem-cell) (Richardson, 2017: 156)

    Indeed, most labs admit that any generalization about quality made from grading embryos are rather inaccurate. As one site puts it: “We see some cycles fail after transferring 3 perfect looking embryos, and we also see beautiful babies born after transferring only one low grade embryo.” The best test of egg quality in fact seems to be female age. Much the same applies to sperm quality. (Richardson, 2017: 156)

    What parents tend to worry about, of course, is “genetic potential”—usually for critical functions like brain and cognition. Thanks to the kind of hype and publicity mentioned in chapter 1, these parents are mostly convinced that the potential for desireable qualities like intelligence, or special talent of some sort, resides and varies in the genes. And they think of it already residing in the egg, in that homunculus state mentioned earlier. (Richardson, 2017: 156-257)

    As we have already seen, though, what is assumed to be genetic is really the manifestation of whole developmental system. So, with the exception of rare disorders, the anxiety is probably unwarranted. And there is certainly no test for the genetic potential of eggs or sperm from different individuals, however much the idea inspires pipe dreams from behavioral geneticists. (Richardson, 2017: 157)

    Pipe dream. Keep dreaming.

    This paper is also relevant on individual differences.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLm5ld2lkZWFwc3ljaC4yMDEyLjA4LjAwMg==/10.1016%40j.newideapsych.2012.08.002.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @res
    It is odd to see you translate language like "It is further proposed that" and "might explain why" into "disproved."

    Then there is using this:

    And my personal fave:

    Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates.
     
    To argue:

    The answer is obvious: because it puts Man on top of the animal kingdom. EQ is disproven.
     
    Eliding away the "primates" qualifier in the first part to draw a conclusion about the entire animal kingdom.

    This whole "disproved" rhetoric is misguided IMHO since what we are really talking about is models which have better or worse fits (and not by large margins AFAICT) to the observed data.

    True. I do use strong language (a lot, gotta work on that).

    HH does, herself, not take to EQ and uses total neurons as a better predictor (because there are problems with EQ as shown).

    The capuchin monkey/gorilla EQ difference is explained by neuronal count, not EQ. This relationship is also seen in other ways as well.

    HH et al have shown that different mammals’ brains follow different scaling rules. So to use just gross size/body size is extremely misleading. Using her and Lent’s isotropic fractionator allows one to see how many neurons are in that brain, and by doing so, her and her team showed that neuronal count—not EQ—is best predictor for intelligence between species.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Factorize says:

    RaceRealist, I was unsure about your quote when you posted it previously.

    My interpretation is that this has more to do with selecting an embryo that will result in a healthy
    child than it has to do with specifically selecting for a specific genotype. If this is the intended meaning, then I would completely admit that this would be true.

    Perhaps a good way to re-frame the discussion {away from talking exclusively about IQ} is to consider the result from the September 19th blog about predicting height. The article referenced was able to predict human height within a few centimeters using genotypes alone. This is a very impressive achievement.

    Using the embryo selection idea, we have now already crossed over into a new genetic era with respect to height. Selecting embryos on the basis of polygenic height score should mean that substantial increases in population scale height is possible at this time. I would not understand an argument that attempted to refute this assertion. This might soon have real world confirmation if we start to see a generation of very tall Chinese.

    The article went on to note that they were also able to explain the genetics behind 9% of the variation in educational attainment. I would also be unclear if it were now asserted that what applied to height somehow might not now apply to EA/IQ. We are all anxiously waiting for the 1 million person Oslo EA GWAS which could further amplify the EA/IQ genetics question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The last quote was the most important:

    As we have already seen, though, what is assumed to be genetic is really the manifestation of whole developmental system. So, with the exception of rare disorders, the anxiety is probably unwarranted. And there is certainly no test for the genetic potential of eggs or sperm from different individuals, however much the idea inspires pipe dreams from behavioral geneticists. (Richardson, 2017: 157)

    It's the whole of the developmental system (which is itself an intelligent system). Genes don't direct development. Intelligent physiological systems use genes as slaves, genes are not the masters of human development.

    Using Dawkins' gene/replicator body/vehicle analogy, the vehicle came before the replicators! Do you know what that means?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Daniel Chieh
    The correct insult is "wumao" btw. And I just happen to live in reality and actually have a clue about the country you're rambling about.

    Ok blue blood…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Thanks for the compliment. I really am.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Factorize says:

    Hopefully my comments will re-orientate the discussion away from focusing on the divisions that divide us and towards the unities that unite us.

    Obsessing about the 4 point IQ gender difference or the 15 point or less race differences is not reasonable in the context of the over 1 thousand points that will separate us from a genetically optimized humanoid. Current differences will soon only be considered rounding errors.

    Anyone big enough to bury the hatchet and have a kumbaya sing along?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Obsessing about the 4 point IQ gender difference or the 15 point or less race differences is not reasonable in the context of the over 1 thousand points that will separate us from a genetically optimized humanoid.
     
    Does it actually make any sense to talk of IQ's of more than one thousand? I thought IQ was a ranking on a standardized test. Presumably, those who are very bright answer every question correctly, which means they have the maximum possible score. Would that equate to an IQ of 1000, or is the notion of an IQ of one thousand nonsense?

    Also, why is it deemed desirable to breed a race of humans vastly superior to the present human population? How much do these IQ obsessives hate us? And why bother breeding IQ 1000 humans assuming that it means anything to talk of people with an IQ of one thousand? Why not just exterminate all humans and replace them with robots equipped with IQ 2000 AI?

    There is, I suggest something verging on insanity among the IQ crowd, which could well manifest itself in genocide of those they consider inferior. That is not such a stretch when you remember that (a) the Nazis did actually slaughter mental defectives, and (b) many British and American intellectuals were thinking along the same lines, until Hitler gave the idea such a bad name. But that idea could, it seems, be well on its way back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Santoculto
    Ok blue blood...

    Thanks for the compliment. I really am.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Yes, the average Black IQ is literally less than that for the White. But is it meaningful?

    In Rushton’s raw data for South Africa, at the 11:00 mark, it was clearly shown that the IQ for the Black was bimodal. Let us tentatively take the ‘dip valley’ between the two Black clusters as the cutoff for smart fraction. By inspection the average IQs of the Black and White fractions were the same, about half way between the cutoff and the top of the horizontal IQ scale. The vertical scale is frequency. Yes there are more white by percentage in the smart fraction but the average IQ of the two smart fractions are about the same. Thus the meaning of average here is different from that for the overall ethnic groups because the distribution was bimodal. The use of average is meaningless in this case.

    Now look at the chart more closely. At the right hand end, the IQ distribution for the White was on a downward trend while that for the Black was on an upward trend and hit the ceiling. If the test was a bit harder the Black might have a thicker right hand tail than that for the White. Just think about that.

    By forcing a unimodal bell curve, the contribution from the Black smart fraction was eliminated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Psychological traits are not normally distributed.

    http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf

    Sensory acuity, reaction time, memory word usage, basal metabolic rate, resting heart rate, and sentence lengths aren't distributed in this way either. See Buzsaki and Mizuseki's work.

    Physiological traits aren't normally distributed. So if 'g' is physiological (it's not), then it doesn't fall on a normal distribution either.

    , @res

    at the 11:00 mark, it was clearly shown that the IQ for the Black was bimodal.
     
    That is an interesting chart, but I think you might be treating it as a bit more definitive than it really is. Let's take a look at the research paper which was the source of that plot, given as Figure 1 (this paper seems to have different DOIs and publication dates, I think these are the same content though): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289600000350
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    First observation is that this was a selected sample:


    The primary purpose was to examine performance on the Raven's SPM in a sample likely to score at least 1 SD above the general South African population mean.
     
    The test used was Raven's SPM. This paper has some norm information: http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStability.pdf
    Figure 3 is especially interesting showing 5/10/25/50/75/90/95 percentiles from age 6 to 15.5 in half year intervals for both the 1938 and 1979 Great Britain norming samples.

    To help put the scores in perspective, here are some 1986 percentiles for "Anglo"s in an unidentified US school district from Table 4. 95th percentile = 59, 50th percentile = 49. Raven's SPM is not a high ceiling test.

    Here is a statistical summary for the plot data along with some additional information:


    Whites averaged higher scores than Africans (unweighted means = 54, 44; SD = 5, 9; Ranges = 42-60, 10-59, respectively)
    ...
    For the total score the African-White difference was 1.2 SD (based on Black SD), and 2.6 SD (based on the White SD).
    ...
    The 1993 US norms for 18- to 22-year-olds show that the White men, with 54 out of 60 correct responses, average at the 61st percentile; that the White women, with 53 correct responses, average at the 55th percentile; that the African men, with 46 correct responses, average at the 19th percentile; and the African women with 42 correct responses average at the 11th percentile (Raven et al., 1996, p. 65, Table SPM 12). These SPM grades and percentile points convert to IQ equivalents of 105 for White men, 102 for White women, 87 for African men, and 82 for African women (Raven et al., 1990, p. 98).

     

    Keep in mind that these are all university students! It is interesting that despite so many (~5%) Africans scoring 59 none scored 60.

    Back to the bimodality question. Here is the interpretation given in the paper:


    The longer tail of low scores in the African distribution and the ceiling effect for both groups are clearly visible. The secondary peak of high scores for the Africans suggests a possible bimodal distribution.

     

    Rather weaker than "clearly shown." The secondary peak is interesting though. I wonder if that reproduces in other studies. It would be interesting to know more details about the 5% of Africans scoring 59.

    Worth noting:


    The African-White IQ differences were greatest on those items correlating most highly with the total test score, a good measure of g.
     
    P.S. Relevant to a recent thread, the last sentence of the abstract is: "A small sex difference favoring males was found in both the African and the White samples, but unrelated to g."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Malla says:
    @James Thompson
    Agree. Could be sampling differences, but no real explanation comes to mind.

    The answer is simple, the Indians who came to the UK are the intellectual/mercantile elites while most of the Pakistanis are the descendants of lower classes. Most of them Pakistanis are Mirpuris who came after the building of a dam in Pakistan and the British government ‘for some weird reason’ took in the village peoples displaced by the dam. Most of the Bangladeshis in the UK are descendants of Syletti (from North Bangladesh) peasants. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the west who are descendants of intellectual/mercantile elites perform exactly as the Indian populations.

    By my experience, as far as brown immigrants are concerned, the educated elites behave like Jews, out competing local average Whites, have low ‘low level’ crime rates but high amount of nepotism and ‘white collared crimes’. The peasants from these brown countries behave like gypsies at best and their neighbourhoods end up looking like gypsy neighborhoods with high street crime (but at a lower rate than blacks) . This is true for Hispanics, Middle Easterners and Subcontinentals and even South East Asians up to some extent. Akarlin called India a country of Gypsies rule by Jews. That is one of the best, most accurate description of Indian society I have ever come across and I am Indian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Malla, From your description, India sounds like the kind of multi-culti Hell that Thereason May, following in the footsteps of David Camoron, and Tony Bliar have worked to create in Britain.

    Perhaps, rather than worrying about trivial racial differences in IQ, folks here would do well to focus on the shattering of the cultural unity of the European nations by importation of people with mentalities, cultures and life-styles so contrary to the tradition of the European world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    Hopefully my comments will re-orientate the discussion away from focusing on the divisions that divide us and towards the unities that unite us.

    Obsessing about the 4 point IQ gender difference or the 15 point or less race differences is not reasonable in the context of the over 1 thousand points that will separate us from a genetically optimized humanoid. Current differences will soon only be considered rounding errors.

    Anyone big enough to bury the hatchet and have a kumbaya sing along?

    Obsessing about the 4 point IQ gender difference or the 15 point or less race differences is not reasonable in the context of the over 1 thousand points that will separate us from a genetically optimized humanoid.

    Does it actually make any sense to talk of IQ’s of more than one thousand? I thought IQ was a ranking on a standardized test. Presumably, those who are very bright answer every question correctly, which means they have the maximum possible score. Would that equate to an IQ of 1000, or is the notion of an IQ of one thousand nonsense?

    Also, why is it deemed desirable to breed a race of humans vastly superior to the present human population? How much do these IQ obsessives hate us? And why bother breeding IQ 1000 humans assuming that it means anything to talk of people with an IQ of one thousand? Why not just exterminate all humans and replace them with robots equipped with IQ 2000 AI?

    There is, I suggest something verging on insanity among the IQ crowd, which could well manifest itself in genocide of those they consider inferior. That is not such a stretch when you remember that (a) the Nazis did actually slaughter mental defectives, and (b) many British and American intellectuals were thinking along the same lines, until Hitler gave the idea such a bad name. But that idea could, it seems, be well on its way back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    One think i perceive

    More IQ-obsessed people tend to be, less they understand about intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Malla
    The answer is simple, the Indians who came to the UK are the intellectual/mercantile elites while most of the Pakistanis are the descendants of lower classes. Most of them Pakistanis are Mirpuris who came after the building of a dam in Pakistan and the British government 'for some weird reason' took in the village peoples displaced by the dam. Most of the Bangladeshis in the UK are descendants of Syletti (from North Bangladesh) peasants. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the west who are descendants of intellectual/mercantile elites perform exactly as the Indian populations.

    By my experience, as far as brown immigrants are concerned, the educated elites behave like Jews, out competing local average Whites, have low 'low level' crime rates but high amount of nepotism and 'white collared crimes'. The peasants from these brown countries behave like gypsies at best and their neighbourhoods end up looking like gypsy neighborhoods with high street crime (but at a lower rate than blacks) . This is true for Hispanics, Middle Easterners and Subcontinentals and even South East Asians up to some extent. Akarlin called India a country of Gypsies rule by Jews. That is one of the best, most accurate description of Indian society I have ever come across and I am Indian.

    Malla, From your description, India sounds like the kind of multi-culti Hell that Thereason May, following in the footsteps of David Camoron, and Tony Bliar have worked to create in Britain.

    Perhaps, rather than worrying about trivial racial differences in IQ, folks here would do well to focus on the shattering of the cultural unity of the European nations by importation of people with mentalities, cultures and life-styles so contrary to the tradition of the European world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. helena says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible. This is a very large
    shift in what the future might hold for us.
     
    Yes, as I discuss here, it's a shift to a technology based fascism, which is to say an end to individual liberty at any level. What you are advocating is an unbreakable technological totalitarianism, under which human DNA will be selected from, modified, and remixed to create a biological appendage to a system that ultimately will most probably be ruled by artificially intelligent robots. What you are promoting is the effective extinction of mankind, and certainly an end to any kind of human self-determination, independence, democracy or freedom.

    But that is what is coming don’t you think? I already think of the alt right like the escapees in brave new world living outside in nature, although nature has become the internet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I already think of the alt right like the escapees in brave new world living outside in nature, although nature has become the internet.
     
    But the Internet is a world where every word you utter is recorded in perpetuity and may at any time be used in evidence against you.

    It seems that technology has destroyed human freedom for ever, although one naturally seeks continually for means of escape.

    Some have argued that we need to explore space to create a new frontier. However, the exploration of space is such a high tech business that it is difficult to imagine space travelers and explorers having any freedom from oversight and top-down control.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @CanSpeccy

    Obsessing about the 4 point IQ gender difference or the 15 point or less race differences is not reasonable in the context of the over 1 thousand points that will separate us from a genetically optimized humanoid.
     
    Does it actually make any sense to talk of IQ's of more than one thousand? I thought IQ was a ranking on a standardized test. Presumably, those who are very bright answer every question correctly, which means they have the maximum possible score. Would that equate to an IQ of 1000, or is the notion of an IQ of one thousand nonsense?

    Also, why is it deemed desirable to breed a race of humans vastly superior to the present human population? How much do these IQ obsessives hate us? And why bother breeding IQ 1000 humans assuming that it means anything to talk of people with an IQ of one thousand? Why not just exterminate all humans and replace them with robots equipped with IQ 2000 AI?

    There is, I suggest something verging on insanity among the IQ crowd, which could well manifest itself in genocide of those they consider inferior. That is not such a stretch when you remember that (a) the Nazis did actually slaughter mental defectives, and (b) many British and American intellectuals were thinking along the same lines, until Hitler gave the idea such a bad name. But that idea could, it seems, be well on its way back.

    One think i perceive

    More IQ-obsessed people tend to be, less they understand about intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    They are similar to ''diversity''-obsessed...
    , @RaceRealist88

    less they understand about intelligence.
     
    Whatever that is. Ask 50 people what "intelligence" is, get 50 different answers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Santoculto
    One think i perceive

    More IQ-obsessed people tend to be, less they understand about intelligence.

    They are similar to ”diversity”-obsessed…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @anon
    Yes, the average Black IQ is literally less than that for the White. But is it meaningful?

    In Rushton's raw data for South Africa, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU at the 11:00 mark, it was clearly shown that the IQ for the Black was bimodal. Let us tentatively take the 'dip valley' between the two Black clusters as the cutoff for smart fraction. By inspection the average IQs of the Black and White fractions were the same, about half way between the cutoff and the top of the horizontal IQ scale. The vertical scale is frequency. Yes there are more white by percentage in the smart fraction but the average IQ of the two smart fractions are about the same. Thus the meaning of average here is different from that for the overall ethnic groups because the distribution was bimodal. The use of average is meaningless in this case.

    Now look at the chart more closely. At the right hand end, the IQ distribution for the White was on a downward trend while that for the Black was on an upward trend and hit the ceiling. If the test was a bit harder the Black might have a thicker right hand tail than that for the White. Just think about that.

    By forcing a unimodal bell curve, the contribution from the Black smart fraction was eliminated.

    Psychological traits are not normally distributed.

    http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf

    Sensory acuity, reaction time, memory word usage, basal metabolic rate, resting heart rate, and sentence lengths aren’t distributed in this way either. See Buzsaki and Mizuseki’s work.

    Physiological traits aren’t normally distributed. So if ‘g’ is physiological (it’s not), then it doesn’t fall on a normal distribution either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    G is not physiological, LITERALLY speaking, but express this.
    , @res
    Here is the underlying research paper if anyone wants more depth: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x/full

    What I see is they are looking at performance (not physiological) measures (e.g. baseball player ability). I find a truncated normal curve to be a parsimonious explanation for their observations. The issue when you look at baseball players or similar high performers in a particular area is the center and lower tail of the normal curve are not even playing. Visualize a normal curve truncated at +3 or +4 SD and you have a reasonable match to what they see--although there is some question about the fatness of the tail.

    I assume this is a reasonable representative of "Buzsaki and Mizuseki’s work"?
    http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n4/abs/nrn3687.html

    That is an interesting paper advocating a log-normal distribution for a variety of brain parameters. Seems pretty reasonable to me given how many physiological processes (e.g. sensory perception, reaction rates) show logarithmic behavior. It looks like a number of variables are also affected by physical limits applicable at the tails.

    One issue with the log-normal distribution is I think you really need a ratio scale with a true zero to calculate it properly: http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/scaling/levels.htm

    Your strong language like "Physiological traits aren’t normally distributed" is worse than anything I see IQ advocates say in research papers. Some are, some aren't, to varying degrees of accuracy. A simple look at laboratory blood test results will give a look at some very different distributions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Santoculto
    One think i perceive

    More IQ-obsessed people tend to be, less they understand about intelligence.

    less they understand about intelligence.

    Whatever that is. Ask 50 people what “intelligence” is, get 50 different answers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    If you don't know what intelligence is whatever that is, how you debate/write/think about it*

    get 50 different answers
     
    Because intelligence is basically the [succesfull] behavior applied into a multitude of different evolutionary contexts and at priori, it's basically the capacity to adapt, but intelligence concept as well many others concepts, can and evolve, it's expansible, following evolution. For ALMOST nonhuman animais intelligence is the capacity to adapt, but for humans the highest levels of inteligence is the capacity to think in abstract ways, and the highest PRACTICAL levels of intelligence is the capacity to think in abstract ways and applying in minimally correct ways our judgments/conclusions in the environment we are. Humans are the first who are capable to reach the ideality of behavior while for other species the ideal is not the ideal, but what they have available in their evolutionary contexts, for them ideal is always contextual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Factorize
    RaceRealist, I was unsure about your quote when you posted it previously.

    My interpretation is that this has more to do with selecting an embryo that will result in a healthy
    child than it has to do with specifically selecting for a specific genotype. If this is the intended meaning, then I would completely admit that this would be true.

    Perhaps a good way to re-frame the discussion {away from talking exclusively about IQ} is to consider the result from the September 19th blog about predicting height. The article referenced was able to predict human height within a few centimeters using genotypes alone. This is a very impressive achievement.

    Using the embryo selection idea, we have now already crossed over into a new genetic era with respect to height. Selecting embryos on the basis of polygenic height score should mean that substantial increases in population scale height is possible at this time. I would not understand an argument that attempted to refute this assertion. This might soon have real world confirmation if we start to see a generation of very tall Chinese.

    The article went on to note that they were also able to explain the genetics behind 9% of the variation in educational attainment. I would also be unclear if it were now asserted that what applied to height somehow might not now apply to EA/IQ. We are all anxiously waiting for the 1 million person Oslo EA GWAS which could further amplify the EA/IQ genetics question.

    The last quote was the most important:

    As we have already seen, though, what is assumed to be genetic is really the manifestation of whole developmental system. So, with the exception of rare disorders, the anxiety is probably unwarranted. And there is certainly no test for the genetic potential of eggs or sperm from different individuals, however much the idea inspires pipe dreams from behavioral geneticists. (Richardson, 2017: 157)

    It’s the whole of the developmental system (which is itself an intelligent system). Genes don’t direct development. Intelligent physiological systems use genes as slaves, genes are not the masters of human development.

    Using Dawkins’ gene/replicator body/vehicle analogy, the vehicle came before the replicators! Do you know what that means?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @RaceRealist88

    less they understand about intelligence.
     
    Whatever that is. Ask 50 people what "intelligence" is, get 50 different answers.

    If you don’t know what intelligence is whatever that is, how you debate/write/think about it*

    get 50 different answers

    Because intelligence is basically the [succesfull] behavior applied into a multitude of different evolutionary contexts and at priori, it’s basically the capacity to adapt, but intelligence concept as well many others concepts, can and evolve, it’s expansible, following evolution. For ALMOST nonhuman animais intelligence is the capacity to adapt, but for humans the highest levels of inteligence is the capacity to think in abstract ways, and the highest PRACTICAL levels of intelligence is the capacity to think in abstract ways and applying in minimally correct ways our judgments/conclusions in the environment we are. Humans are the first who are capable to reach the ideality of behavior while for other species the ideal is not the ideal, but what they have available in their evolutionary contexts, for them ideal is always contextual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    If you don’t know what intelligence is whatever that is, how you debate/write/think about it*
     
    In the context of the discussion.

    but what they have available in their evolutionary contexts, for them ideal is always contextual.
     
    The same holds true for us:

    If such a trend [increase in brain size leading to ‘intelligence’] in primates exists and it is driven, that is, if the trend is a direct result of concerted forces acting on most lineages across the intelligence spectrum, then the inference is justified. But if it is passive, that is, forces act only on lineages at the low-intelligence end, then most lineages will have no increasing tendency. In that case, most primate species—especially those out on the right tail of the distribution like ours—would be just as likely to lose intelligence as to gain it in subsequent evolution (if they change at all). (McShea, 1994: 1761)

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNDEwNTA1/10.2307%402410505.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @RaceRealist88
    Psychological traits are not normally distributed.

    http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf

    Sensory acuity, reaction time, memory word usage, basal metabolic rate, resting heart rate, and sentence lengths aren't distributed in this way either. See Buzsaki and Mizuseki's work.

    Physiological traits aren't normally distributed. So if 'g' is physiological (it's not), then it doesn't fall on a normal distribution either.

    G is not physiological, LITERALLY speaking, but express this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    So it's an analogy? Garbage.
    , @Santoculto
    No, it's a symbolic expression of something's physical or literal.
    Analogy is other thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Santoculto
    G is not physiological, LITERALLY speaking, but express this.

    So it’s an analogy? Garbage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    No, it’s a symbolic expression of something’s physical or literal as well the weight size number.
    Analogy is other thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Santoculto
    If you don't know what intelligence is whatever that is, how you debate/write/think about it*

    get 50 different answers
     
    Because intelligence is basically the [succesfull] behavior applied into a multitude of different evolutionary contexts and at priori, it's basically the capacity to adapt, but intelligence concept as well many others concepts, can and evolve, it's expansible, following evolution. For ALMOST nonhuman animais intelligence is the capacity to adapt, but for humans the highest levels of inteligence is the capacity to think in abstract ways, and the highest PRACTICAL levels of intelligence is the capacity to think in abstract ways and applying in minimally correct ways our judgments/conclusions in the environment we are. Humans are the first who are capable to reach the ideality of behavior while for other species the ideal is not the ideal, but what they have available in their evolutionary contexts, for them ideal is always contextual.

    If you don’t know what intelligence is whatever that is, how you debate/write/think about it*

    In the context of the discussion.

    but what they have available in their evolutionary contexts, for them ideal is always contextual.

    The same holds true for us:

    If such a trend [increase in brain size leading to ‘intelligence’] in primates exists and it is driven, that is, if the trend is a direct result of concerted forces acting on most lineages across the intelligence spectrum, then the inference is justified. But if it is passive, that is, forces act only on lineages at the low-intelligence end, then most lineages will have no increasing tendency. In that case, most primate species—especially those out on the right tail of the distribution like ours—would be just as likely to lose intelligence as to gain it in subsequent evolution (if they change at all). (McShea, 1994: 1761)

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNDEwNTA1/10.2307%402410505.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    No, because we can reach the ideality.

    Example, a spider can't reach the ideal behavior and often kill other individuals/beings because its [adapted] instincts. Nonhuman species are hyper- self-confident and pragmatic.

    We, at priori, can think more than one time before to behave, to act.

    Our instincts can say

    ''do it''

    Our self-awareness often say

    ''wait''

    Why*

    Because we are searching for the best available answer.

    Rapers, usually, behave in very sexual instinctive ways.

    Their sexual instincts says

    ''do it''

    As their self-awareness [specially about sex] is ridiculously ''little' they will meet the call of their instincts in acritical ways.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Santoculto
    G is not physiological, LITERALLY speaking, but express this.

    No, it’s a symbolic expression of something’s physical or literal.
    Analogy is other thing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @RaceRealist88

    If you don’t know what intelligence is whatever that is, how you debate/write/think about it*
     
    In the context of the discussion.

    but what they have available in their evolutionary contexts, for them ideal is always contextual.
     
    The same holds true for us:

    If such a trend [increase in brain size leading to ‘intelligence’] in primates exists and it is driven, that is, if the trend is a direct result of concerted forces acting on most lineages across the intelligence spectrum, then the inference is justified. But if it is passive, that is, forces act only on lineages at the low-intelligence end, then most lineages will have no increasing tendency. In that case, most primate species—especially those out on the right tail of the distribution like ours—would be just as likely to lose intelligence as to gain it in subsequent evolution (if they change at all). (McShea, 1994: 1761)

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNDEwNTA1/10.2307%402410505.pdf

    No, because we can reach the ideality.

    Example, a spider can’t reach the ideal behavior and often kill other individuals/beings because its [adapted] instincts. Nonhuman species are hyper- self-confident and pragmatic.

    We, at priori, can think more than one time before to behave, to act.

    Our instincts can say

    ”do it”

    Our self-awareness often say

    ”wait”

    Why*

    Because we are searching for the best available answer.

    Rapers, usually, behave in very sexual instinctive ways.

    Their sexual instincts says

    ”do it”

    As their self-awareness [specially about sex] is ridiculously ”little’ they will meet the call of their instincts in acritical ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    You completely missed the point. Reread the quotation provided.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @RaceRealist88
    So it's an analogy? Garbage.

    No, it’s a symbolic expression of something’s physical or literal as well the weight size number.
    Analogy is other thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    No, it’s a symbolic expression of something’s physical or literal as well the weight size number.
     
    No. We can physically measure height and weight. G is supposedly physiological. Which physiologic process in the body does it mimic? Heart rate? Basal metabolic rate? The supposed physiological nature of general intelligence does not fit any known physiologic process in the body!

    This is why HBDers need to understand basic physiology. I know you don't, for instance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Santoculto
    No, it’s a symbolic expression of something’s physical or literal as well the weight size number.
    Analogy is other thing.

    No, it’s a symbolic expression of something’s physical or literal as well the weight size number.

    No. We can physically measure height and weight. G is supposedly physiological. Which physiologic process in the body does it mimic? Heart rate? Basal metabolic rate? The supposed physiological nature of general intelligence does not fit any known physiologic process in the body!

    This is why HBDers need to understand basic physiology. I know you don’t, for instance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I already explain here. Do you remember???

    Because you're supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer) you want impose for people that your area of "expertise" is hugely important. Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.

    What is g??

    An??

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests. Primordially speaking, we can't find physiological aspects of the average of some organic thing. Brain waves is a example of this. The avg behavior of brain waves is calculated after the observation of this behavior during a given period.

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system. Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two...

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it's a straw man, as psychology wasn't capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Santoculto
    No, because we can reach the ideality.

    Example, a spider can't reach the ideal behavior and often kill other individuals/beings because its [adapted] instincts. Nonhuman species are hyper- self-confident and pragmatic.

    We, at priori, can think more than one time before to behave, to act.

    Our instincts can say

    ''do it''

    Our self-awareness often say

    ''wait''

    Why*

    Because we are searching for the best available answer.

    Rapers, usually, behave in very sexual instinctive ways.

    Their sexual instincts says

    ''do it''

    As their self-awareness [specially about sex] is ridiculously ''little' they will meet the call of their instincts in acritical ways.

    You completely missed the point. Reread the quotation provided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I wil don't read that confused quote. Translate it for us.
    I read your own words.
    , @Santoculto
    And I don't know where your quote refute my comment. Do you can develop your reasoning line?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @RaceRealist88

    No, it’s a symbolic expression of something’s physical or literal as well the weight size number.
     
    No. We can physically measure height and weight. G is supposedly physiological. Which physiologic process in the body does it mimic? Heart rate? Basal metabolic rate? The supposed physiological nature of general intelligence does not fit any known physiologic process in the body!

    This is why HBDers need to understand basic physiology. I know you don't, for instance.

    I already explain here. Do you remember???

    Because you’re supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer) you want impose for people that your area of “expertise” is hugely important. Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.

    What is g??

    An??

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests. Primordially speaking, we can’t find physiological aspects of the average of some organic thing. Brain waves is a example of this. The avg behavior of brain waves is calculated after the observation of this behavior during a given period.

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system. Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two…

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it’s a straw man, as psychology wasn’t capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    Because you’re supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer)
     
    No I'm a PT. Physiology is just part of my job and something I need to be knowledgeable about.

    Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.
     
    Correlations? I like causes. Halleys comment was correlated with inflation. Did inflation cause Halleys comet to come or did Halleys comet cause inflation? Hmm...

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests.
     
    So it's not an actual 'thing'?

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system.
     
    It's mediated by those processes!

    Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two…
     
    What? Weight and height are still part of the physiological system. Hormones and physiology go hand in hand. Please Crack open an intro to physiology textbook.

    Your last sentence is nonsensical.

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it’s a straw man, as psychology wasn’t capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.
     
    It's not my expertise. My expertise is training people and a bit of nutrition. It's not a strawman. Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it's physiological then it doesn't mimic any known physiologic process in the body. This is why I keep saying that hereditarians need to understand basic physiology. Get it now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @RaceRealist88
    You completely missed the point. Reread the quotation provided.

    I wil don’t read that confused quote. Translate it for us.
    I read your own words.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Psychological traits are not normally distributed.

    http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf

    Sensory acuity, reaction time, memory word usage, basal metabolic rate, resting heart rate, and sentence lengths aren't distributed in this way either. See Buzsaki and Mizuseki's work.

    Physiological traits aren't normally distributed. So if 'g' is physiological (it's not), then it doesn't fall on a normal distribution either.

    Here is the underlying research paper if anyone wants more depth: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x/full

    What I see is they are looking at performance (not physiological) measures (e.g. baseball player ability). I find a truncated normal curve to be a parsimonious explanation for their observations. The issue when you look at baseball players or similar high performers in a particular area is the center and lower tail of the normal curve are not even playing. Visualize a normal curve truncated at +3 or +4 SD and you have a reasonable match to what they see–although there is some question about the fatness of the tail.

    I assume this is a reasonable representative of “Buzsaki and Mizuseki’s work”?

    http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n4/abs/nrn3687.html

    That is an interesting paper advocating a log-normal distribution for a variety of brain parameters. Seems pretty reasonable to me given how many physiological processes (e.g. sensory perception, reaction rates) show logarithmic behavior. It looks like a number of variables are also affected by physical limits applicable at the tails.

    One issue with the log-normal distribution is I think you really need a ratio scale with a true zero to calculate it properly: http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/scaling/levels.htm

    Your strong language like “Physiological traits aren’t normally distributed” is worse than anything I see IQ advocates say in research papers. Some are, some aren’t, to varying degrees of accuracy. A simple look at laboratory blood test results will give a look at some very different distributions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . . suggesting that skewed . . . distributions are fundamental to structural and functional brain organization. This insight . . . has implications for how we should collect and analyze data."

    Quote from page 46 of Richardson's book.

    I assume this is a reasonable representative of “Buzsaki and Mizuseki’s work”?
     
    Yes, that's the paper I was referring to. The quote above is from that paper.

    Your strong language like “Physiological traits aren’t normally distributed” is worse than anything I see IQ advocates say in research papers. Some are, some aren’t, to varying degrees of accuracy. A simple look at laboratory blood test results will give a look at some very different distributions.
     
    Correct. People live normal lives well within a normal range of physiological variables which is my point in regards to g and physiology. Exact levels don't matter there is a wide range of variability within normal functioning.

    Should there be a rank order of individual differences on a scale of immunological competence? It wouldn't make sense due to the wide variation in physiological variables.

    Read this paper (PDF available, can't link pdf on my phone):

    The Unicorn, The Normal Curve, and Other Improbable Creatures
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Santoculto
    I already explain here. Do you remember???

    Because you're supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer) you want impose for people that your area of "expertise" is hugely important. Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.

    What is g??

    An??

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests. Primordially speaking, we can't find physiological aspects of the average of some organic thing. Brain waves is a example of this. The avg behavior of brain waves is calculated after the observation of this behavior during a given period.

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system. Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two...

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it's a straw man, as psychology wasn't capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.

    Because you’re supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer)

    No I’m a PT. Physiology is just part of my job and something I need to be knowledgeable about.

    Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.

    Correlations? I like causes. Halleys comment was correlated with inflation. Did inflation cause Halleys comet to come or did Halleys comet cause inflation? Hmm…

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests.

    So it’s not an actual ‘thing’?

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system.

    It’s mediated by those processes!

    Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two…

    What? Weight and height are still part of the physiological system. Hormones and physiology go hand in hand. Please Crack open an intro to physiology textbook.

    Your last sentence is nonsensical.

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it’s a straw man, as psychology wasn’t capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.

    It’s not my expertise. My expertise is training people and a bit of nutrition. It’s not a strawman. Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it’s physiological then it doesn’t mimic any known physiologic process in the body. This is why I keep saying that hereditarians need to understand basic physiology. Get it now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it’s physiological then it doesn’t mimic any known physiologic process in the body.
     
    I wouldn't be so confident that it doesn't... At any rate, my expectation is that because intelligence is a product of the brain, so some physical processes in the brain need to cause it. Or what is the alternative?
    , @Santoculto
    Do you like causes?? Great. Firstly you need learn how to differentiate cause from effect.
    , @Santoculto
    Jeesus....

    Because it's a expression of thing, like emotion. Because the WORD fear is not thing but a expression of thing it's not a thing?

    You already talked a lot about this single point: it's not physiological... So you need help "us" and provide some insights about how proceed..

    How brain and rest of nervous system is directly mediated by height and weight?? Explain to us.

    And HOW it's explain intelligence, whatever it is??

    Why my last sentence is nonsensical??

    They may propose that g is analogously physiological or that this psychometric property have a physiological property, for example, a great global integrity of brain/well functioning.

    Do you have sources about what you are saying?? Show me that g no have a physiological nature. Firstly define g.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @RaceRealist88
    You completely missed the point. Reread the quotation provided.

    And I don’t know where your quote refute my comment. Do you can develop your reasoning line?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Yea I can develop my reasoning line. I see no need to write more words that you'll ignore and ramble on and on abkht unrelated things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @CanSpeccy

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?
     
    Oh, so since humans don't have the highest brain to body weight ratio we have to consider some BS encephalization quotient. Sounds like bollocks to me. You might as well just stick to using a tape measure and measure the circumference of people's heads. I am sure that will prove whatever nonsense you want to prove.

    As for why humans have a larger cerebrum than apes, that's obvious: language.

    Language is highly resource demanding. People don't understand words based on definitions. Most people don't know the definitions of most of the words they use. What they do know is the context in which they have heard or seen particular words used: often thousands of contexts, contexts that include visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile sensations.

    Such knowledge takes a lot of memory, but it is worth it because it allows humans to share experience across families, tribes, and generations, and now across the globe with the Internet.

    Shared experience increases success in exploitation of the environment and thus pays back the metabolic cost of more brain tissue. But a larger cerebrum does not make humans more intelligent than other animals. Chimps are smarter than humans in many ways. But they don't have our knowledge gleaned through language use.

    Oh, so since humans don’t have the highest brain to body weight ratio

    There’s a rather easy to understand point that the ratio cannot be quite meaningful when we’re talking about very small animals. There are two ideas competing. One is the absolute brains size idea (probably useful within a species, and might be at least somewhat useful with comparisons between two or more different species), which can of course be measured in terms of brain mass or number of neurons in the cortex or some other way.

    The other idea is that absolute size of the brain needs to be adjusted by the body size of the animal in question. It’s quite easy to see why – bigger bodies need bigger brains to control them, bigger animals often receive more sensory input etc. The adjustment cannot be a simply brain-to-body mass ratio, because of course sensory inputs and control requirements have a floor – very small animals need to process some sensory inputs (like vision) often regardless of body size. So, the simple idea of EQ is that brain size doesn’t need to be compared to body size as such, but to how large a brain a similar sized animal might have.

    It’s well known that it punishes very big animals, severely underestimating their braininess. I find it possible that some whales (especially sperm whales) or dolphins might be smarter than humans (but cannot discover quantum mechanics due to a lack of hands and thus writing). Another criticism is that among primates it doesn’t seem to work (but then again, it doesn’t seem to work within species either, at least it doesn’t seem to work within humans). In any event, humans definitely have much larger brains than other primates (whether in absolute or relative terms, however measured) and they also have much larger brains than they had a couple millions of years ago.

    I seriously doubt that this increase has nothing to do with a growth in intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @RaceRealist88

    Because you’re supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer)
     
    No I'm a PT. Physiology is just part of my job and something I need to be knowledgeable about.

    Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.
     
    Correlations? I like causes. Halleys comment was correlated with inflation. Did inflation cause Halleys comet to come or did Halleys comet cause inflation? Hmm...

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests.
     
    So it's not an actual 'thing'?

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system.
     
    It's mediated by those processes!

    Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two…
     
    What? Weight and height are still part of the physiological system. Hormones and physiology go hand in hand. Please Crack open an intro to physiology textbook.

    Your last sentence is nonsensical.

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it’s a straw man, as psychology wasn’t capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.
     
    It's not my expertise. My expertise is training people and a bit of nutrition. It's not a strawman. Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it's physiological then it doesn't mimic any known physiologic process in the body. This is why I keep saying that hereditarians need to understand basic physiology. Get it now?

    Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it’s physiological then it doesn’t mimic any known physiologic process in the body.

    I wouldn’t be so confident that it doesn’t… At any rate, my expectation is that because intelligence is a product of the brain, so some physical processes in the brain need to cause it. Or what is the alternative?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    I wouldn’t be so confident that it doesn’t
     
    Which physiologic variable in the body does it mimic?

    At any rate, my expectation is that because intelligence is a product of the brain, so some physical processes in the brain need to cause it. Or what is the alternative?
     
    The whole intelligent system, not looking at an imaginary process that cannot be likened to any physiologic process in the body.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @RaceRealist88

    Because you’re supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer)
     
    No I'm a PT. Physiology is just part of my job and something I need to be knowledgeable about.

    Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.
     
    Correlations? I like causes. Halleys comment was correlated with inflation. Did inflation cause Halleys comet to come or did Halleys comet cause inflation? Hmm...

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests.
     
    So it's not an actual 'thing'?

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system.
     
    It's mediated by those processes!

    Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two…
     
    What? Weight and height are still part of the physiological system. Hormones and physiology go hand in hand. Please Crack open an intro to physiology textbook.

    Your last sentence is nonsensical.

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it’s a straw man, as psychology wasn’t capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.
     
    It's not my expertise. My expertise is training people and a bit of nutrition. It's not a strawman. Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it's physiological then it doesn't mimic any known physiologic process in the body. This is why I keep saying that hereditarians need to understand basic physiology. Get it now?

    Do you like causes?? Great. Firstly you need learn how to differentiate cause from effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. res says:
    @anon
    Yes, the average Black IQ is literally less than that for the White. But is it meaningful?

    In Rushton's raw data for South Africa, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU at the 11:00 mark, it was clearly shown that the IQ for the Black was bimodal. Let us tentatively take the 'dip valley' between the two Black clusters as the cutoff for smart fraction. By inspection the average IQs of the Black and White fractions were the same, about half way between the cutoff and the top of the horizontal IQ scale. The vertical scale is frequency. Yes there are more white by percentage in the smart fraction but the average IQ of the two smart fractions are about the same. Thus the meaning of average here is different from that for the overall ethnic groups because the distribution was bimodal. The use of average is meaningless in this case.

    Now look at the chart more closely. At the right hand end, the IQ distribution for the White was on a downward trend while that for the Black was on an upward trend and hit the ceiling. If the test was a bit harder the Black might have a thicker right hand tail than that for the White. Just think about that.

    By forcing a unimodal bell curve, the contribution from the Black smart fraction was eliminated.

    at the 11:00 mark, it was clearly shown that the IQ for the Black was bimodal.

    That is an interesting chart, but I think you might be treating it as a bit more definitive than it really is. Let’s take a look at the research paper which was the source of that plot, given as Figure 1 (this paper seems to have different DOIs and publication dates, I think these are the same content though): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289600000350

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    First observation is that this was a selected sample:

    The primary purpose was to examine performance on the Raven’s SPM in a sample likely to score at least 1 SD above the general South African population mean.

    The test used was Raven’s SPM. This paper has some norm information: http://eyeonsociety.co.uk/resources/RPMChangeAndStability.pdf
    Figure 3 is especially interesting showing 5/10/25/50/75/90/95 percentiles from age 6 to 15.5 in half year intervals for both the 1938 and 1979 Great Britain norming samples.

    To help put the scores in perspective, here are some 1986 percentiles for “Anglo”s in an unidentified US school district from Table 4. 95th percentile = 59, 50th percentile = 49. Raven’s SPM is not a high ceiling test.

    Here is a statistical summary for the plot data along with some additional information:

    Whites averaged higher scores than Africans (unweighted means = 54, 44; SD = 5, 9; Ranges = 42-60, 10-59, respectively)

    For the total score the African-White difference was 1.2 SD (based on Black SD), and 2.6 SD (based on the White SD).

    The 1993 US norms for 18- to 22-year-olds show that the White men, with 54 out of 60 correct responses, average at the 61st percentile; that the White women, with 53 correct responses, average at the 55th percentile; that the African men, with 46 correct responses, average at the 19th percentile; and the African women with 42 correct responses average at the 11th percentile (Raven et al., 1996, p. 65, Table SPM 12). These SPM grades and percentile points convert to IQ equivalents of 105 for White men, 102 for White women, 87 for African men, and 82 for African women (Raven et al., 1990, p. 98).

    Keep in mind that these are all university students! It is interesting that despite so many (~5%) Africans scoring 59 none scored 60.

    Back to the bimodality question. Here is the interpretation given in the paper:

    The longer tail of low scores in the African distribution and the ceiling effect for both groups are clearly visible. The secondary peak of high scores for the Africans suggests a possible bimodal distribution.

    Rather weaker than “clearly shown.” The secondary peak is interesting though. I wonder if that reproduces in other studies. It would be interesting to know more details about the 5% of Africans scoring 59.

    Worth noting:

    The African-White IQ differences were greatest on those items correlating most highly with the total test score, a good measure of g.

    P.S. Relevant to a recent thread, the last sentence of the abstract is: “A small sex difference favoring males was found in both the African and the White samples, but unrelated to g.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @res
    Here is the underlying research paper if anyone wants more depth: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x/full

    What I see is they are looking at performance (not physiological) measures (e.g. baseball player ability). I find a truncated normal curve to be a parsimonious explanation for their observations. The issue when you look at baseball players or similar high performers in a particular area is the center and lower tail of the normal curve are not even playing. Visualize a normal curve truncated at +3 or +4 SD and you have a reasonable match to what they see--although there is some question about the fatness of the tail.

    I assume this is a reasonable representative of "Buzsaki and Mizuseki’s work"?
    http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n4/abs/nrn3687.html

    That is an interesting paper advocating a log-normal distribution for a variety of brain parameters. Seems pretty reasonable to me given how many physiological processes (e.g. sensory perception, reaction rates) show logarithmic behavior. It looks like a number of variables are also affected by physical limits applicable at the tails.

    One issue with the log-normal distribution is I think you really need a ratio scale with a true zero to calculate it properly: http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/scaling/levels.htm

    Your strong language like "Physiological traits aren’t normally distributed" is worse than anything I see IQ advocates say in research papers. Some are, some aren't, to varying degrees of accuracy. A simple look at laboratory blood test results will give a look at some very different distributions.

    “at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . . suggesting that skewed . . . distributions are fundamental to structural and functional brain organization. This insight . . . has implications for how we should collect and analyze data.”

    Quote from page 46 of Richardson’s book.

    I assume this is a reasonable representative of “Buzsaki and Mizuseki’s work”?

    Yes, that’s the paper I was referring to. The quote above is from that paper.

    Your strong language like “Physiological traits aren’t normally distributed” is worse than anything I see IQ advocates say in research papers. Some are, some aren’t, to varying degrees of accuracy. A simple look at laboratory blood test results will give a look at some very different distributions.

    Correct. People live normal lives well within a normal range of physiological variables which is my point in regards to g and physiology. Exact levels don’t matter there is a wide range of variability within normal functioning.

    Should there be a rank order of individual differences on a scale of immunological competence? It wouldn’t make sense due to the wide variation in physiological variables.

    Read this paper (PDF available, can’t link pdf on my phone):

    The Unicorn, The Normal Curve, and Other Improbable Creatures

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @RaceRealist88

    Because you’re supposedly a physiologist (and not a personal trainer)
     
    No I'm a PT. Physiology is just part of my job and something I need to be knowledgeable about.

    Again already there physiological areas studying behavior as neuroscience. Again none, maybe only you, need understand physiology firstly to understand behavior/psychology.
     
    Correlations? I like causes. Halleys comment was correlated with inflation. Did inflation cause Halleys comet to come or did Halleys comet cause inflation? Hmm...

    General intelligence//cognition is the average of all subtests.
     
    So it's not an actual 'thing'?

    Stature or weight IS NOT brain/hormonal/peripheral nervous system.
     
    It's mediated by those processes!

    Stature, specially, and weight are: exterior features, less variable/reactive behavior, on avg, on healthy human organism. Stature is not a avg as well weight, is the totality of given feature. My avg height would be my total height divided by two…
     
    What? Weight and height are still part of the physiological system. Hormones and physiology go hand in hand. Please Crack open an intro to physiology textbook.

    Your last sentence is nonsensical.

    Your entire aggressive suggestion that only or fundamentally your expertise area that can found intelligence whatever it is, is wrong, it’s a straw man, as psychology wasn’t capable to understand and to measure intelligence, as if it failed completely.
     
    It's not my expertise. My expertise is training people and a bit of nutrition. It's not a strawman. Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it's physiological then it doesn't mimic any known physiologic process in the body. This is why I keep saying that hereditarians need to understand basic physiology. Get it now?

    Jeesus….

    Because it’s a expression of thing, like emotion. Because the WORD fear is not thing but a expression of thing it’s not a thing?

    You already talked a lot about this single point: it’s not physiological… So you need help “us” and provide some insights about how proceed..

    How brain and rest of nervous system is directly mediated by height and weight?? Explain to us.

    And HOW it’s explain intelligence, whatever it is??

    Why my last sentence is nonsensical??

    They may propose that g is analogously physiological or that this psychometric property have a physiological property, for example, a great global integrity of brain/well functioning.

    Do you have sources about what you are saying?? Show me that g no have a physiological nature. Firstly define g.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    Show me that g no have a physiological nature
     
    Case in point the rank order. Physiological traits aren't rank ordered since there is a ton of room for variation in what is considered 'normal'.

    Firstly define g.
     
    Mental power? Mental speed? Mental capacity? Those are all phrases to describe it. Those aren't scientific words. There is no 'definition' for g. Just like for 'intelligence', ask 50 people get 50 answers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @Santoculto
    And I don't know where your quote refute my comment. Do you can develop your reasoning line?

    Yea I can develop my reasoning line. I see no need to write more words that you’ll ignore and ramble on and on abkht unrelated things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    If you can why not...??

    I can't ignore your considerably economic words, but confused quotes that don't refute nothing in this context, I can, it's good for health.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @reiner Tor

    Hereditarians propose that g is physiological. If it’s physiological then it doesn’t mimic any known physiologic process in the body.
     
    I wouldn't be so confident that it doesn't... At any rate, my expectation is that because intelligence is a product of the brain, so some physical processes in the brain need to cause it. Or what is the alternative?

    I wouldn’t be so confident that it doesn’t

    Which physiologic variable in the body does it mimic?

    At any rate, my expectation is that because intelligence is a product of the brain, so some physical processes in the brain need to cause it. Or what is the alternative?

    The whole intelligent system, not looking at an imaginary process that cannot be likened to any physiologic process in the body.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    It's not a baseless imaginary process. I think you, instead say strong statements, sustain them, DEVELOP them....

    I think "physiologists" in the true today are those who works in medicine. Physiologist is a old term for health doctor as well health scientist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Factorize says:

    CanSpeccy, restriction of range is a problem with today’s IQ.

    There are few people currently with 1500 IQ, the upper end of the curve is not well described. It is quite humorous to think what a perfect score on an IQ might actually mean. For me it is more about a poorly conceived test than anything to be overly proud of.

    Probably every IQ test should have some question that is entirely open ended to see what responses might be generated. For example, a test might ask to provide a response to the topic “A Tale of Two Cities”. I might reply: ” ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.’ Great book greatly enjoyed reading it. Best that I can remember I think it had something to do with France.” If you were to ask a thousand random people that likely would not be far different from their response.

    However, when John von Neumann was asked, he began reciting it word for word. After 15 minutes, he was asked to stop. There is no reason to believe that he would not have continued until “they lived happily ever after”. This is how a 7 SD IQ human responded.

    There is no great need for elaborate quantitative analysis to perceive the difference between how he responded and the typical response.
    One could expect that such qualitative phase transitions would continue to be apparent as IQ was increased up to infinity.

    IQ tests would then cease being merely about multiple choice tests with a strict ceiling but an open ended measure of intellect.

    It will, of course, be extraordinarily fascinating to have a front row seat and watch this process unfold. Those with 10 SD will clearly have a very different range of ability compared with those of 0 SD or 20 SD or 100 SD.

    People currently choose to bring children into this world with the intellectual ability resulting from random genetic recombination. This is a fundamental human right that exists beyond the control of democratic interference. If people were to choose to bring children into this world with the intellectual ability resulting from non-random genetic recombination, then this too would be freedom protected as a fundamental human right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    For example, a test might ask to provide a response to the topic “A Tale of Two Cities”. I might reply: ” ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.’ Great book greatly enjoyed reading it. Best that I can remember I think it had something to do with France.” If you were to ask a thousand random people that likely would not be far different from their response.

    However, when John von Neumann was asked, he began reciting it word for word. After 15 minutes, he was asked to stop. There is no reason to believe that he would not have continued until “they lived happily ever after”. This is how a 7 SD IQ human responded.
     
    My father had an eidetic memory too, and could quote large chunks of his boyhood reading including Dickens, H.G. Wells, Sir Walter Scott. But it didn't make him an all round genius, although he was very smart, as were some of his cousins, all descendants of the same Scotch highland grandmother.

    The fact is, IQ is a nonsense, asserting quite falsely that intelligence is a single thing that can be measured on a linear scale, whereas, in reality, intelligence is any mental property, memory (think Mozart writing the score of Allegri's Miserere after a single hearing), wit (Shakespeare), imagination (Buckminster Fuller), analysis (Kurt Goedel), art (Michael Angelo), strategy (Sun Tzu), etc.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Further, you will discover, if your read Oliver Sachs, that the potential for perfect long-term recall is likely inherent in everyone, although in most, access is denied. This is apparent from people who due to brain damage or age suddenly acquire full recall of long forgotten events, stories, songs, etc. Such recall may be so realistic, in the case of music for example, as to be mistaken for real sound, the playing of a radio or whatever.

    Also consistent with the view that perfect memory is not proof of all-round genius, one of my siblings had some degree of eidetic memory, being able, during exams, to conjure up a vision of entire pages of text books. She scored all A's in math and physics in high school and went to university on a large state scholarship, but she had no interest in hard science, and, I believe, little real comprehension of physics. She likes flowers, the outdoors and painting and at university studied biology.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Santoculto
    Jeesus....

    Because it's a expression of thing, like emotion. Because the WORD fear is not thing but a expression of thing it's not a thing?

    You already talked a lot about this single point: it's not physiological... So you need help "us" and provide some insights about how proceed..

    How brain and rest of nervous system is directly mediated by height and weight?? Explain to us.

    And HOW it's explain intelligence, whatever it is??

    Why my last sentence is nonsensical??

    They may propose that g is analogously physiological or that this psychometric property have a physiological property, for example, a great global integrity of brain/well functioning.

    Do you have sources about what you are saying?? Show me that g no have a physiological nature. Firstly define g.

    Show me that g no have a physiological nature

    Case in point the rank order. Physiological traits aren’t rank ordered since there is a ton of room for variation in what is considered ‘normal’.

    Firstly define g.

    Mental power? Mental speed? Mental capacity? Those are all phrases to describe it. Those aren’t scientific words. There is no ‘definition’ for g. Just like for ‘intelligence’, ask 50 people get 50 answers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    You're doing a multi intersectional confusions here.

    I think I need re-ask the same question. Why G can't have a physiological nature??

    Are you ask me what G is or answering my question? It's what do you think G is?

    Mental power is not a phrase/sentence.

    Why this "phrases" are not "scientific words"???

    No there a definition for G, ok.

    Because "50" people MAY provide "50" different types of definition for intelligence (any source?? Maybe much less than "20" definitions written/talked in different ways but with the same meanings) this doesn't mean "intelligence no have a definition", what's no have a definition is what don't exist. It's mean intelligence is a complex and broader concept/a set of characteristic behaviors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @RaceRealist88
    Yea I can develop my reasoning line. I see no need to write more words that you'll ignore and ramble on and on abkht unrelated things.

    If you can why not…??

    I can’t ignore your considerably economic words, but confused quotes that don’t refute nothing in this context, I can, it’s good for health.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The quote does rebut what you're saying. Am on my phone. Don't like writing long comments on my phone. That's for my laptop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @RaceRealist88

    I wouldn’t be so confident that it doesn’t
     
    Which physiologic variable in the body does it mimic?

    At any rate, my expectation is that because intelligence is a product of the brain, so some physical processes in the brain need to cause it. Or what is the alternative?
     
    The whole intelligent system, not looking at an imaginary process that cannot be likened to any physiologic process in the body.

    It’s not a baseless imaginary process. I think you, instead say strong statements, sustain them, DEVELOP them….

    I think “physiologists” in the true today are those who works in medicine. Physiologist is a old term for health doctor as well health scientist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    DEVELOP them….
     
    I did. Reread my other comments.

    I think “physiologists” in the true today are those who works in medicine. Physiologist is a old term for health doctor as well health scientist.
     
    Physiology is the study of living things which deals with the normal functioning of organisms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Santoculto
    If you can why not...??

    I can't ignore your considerably economic words, but confused quotes that don't refute nothing in this context, I can, it's good for health.

    The quote does rebut what you’re saying. Am on my phone. Don’t like writing long comments on my phone. That’s for my laptop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Ok.

    I'm writing in my smartphone too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @Factorize
    Daniel, exactly.

    The unstated here is that many want to continue to live in a homocentric universe with all the implications that has for maintaining power, social structure etc. .

    Yet, this conception of reality is attacked on all fronts. Technology is offering us multiple routes to
    homo sapiens being on the periphery. A $1000 computer within the next ten years with human equivalent computational power? Would not that displace our place in the universe?

    There would also be less ethical angst in making a 1500 IQ 50 foot gorilla. For those who wish the future would just go away, would they really want to have to report to a big, hairy and might I say UGLY primate?

    What will it be? Genetic selection technology is very simple; it is fairly clear that in the near term
    it will roll out. Denial and attacking the messenger is not an effective rebuttal.

    Humans can either engage with the future or they can choose not to be part of it.
    It is their choice.

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible. This is a very large
    shift in what the future might hold for us. The future will be what we can imagine it to be.

    Those without such imaginations can continue to live with the primordial world.
    Others might want to experiment with a 1500 IQ lifestyle. Some might be interested in being
    50 foot tall; others might want 100 SD of happiness or longevity.

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible.

    50 foot humans are impossible, at least under Earth’s gravity. 1500 IQ is meaningless, or at least I’m not sure it means what you think it means. 115 IQ means that you are more intelligent than 68% of a given group (usually your country’s population or white Britons), 130 IQ that you’re smarter than 95% of them, and an IQ of 145 means you’re smarter than 99.7% of them. 1500 IQ would definitely mean that you were the most intelligent (not necessarily the smartest) person on the planet, but what does it mean beyond that? Probably nothing quantifiable. In any event, there are serious physiological limits to brain size or brain efficiency, I don’t think intelligence can be grown beyond a certain physiological limit unless you’re willing to create “humans” which look like League Navigators in Dune.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Hofmann argues that the theoretical limit for brain size is 3500 cc.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973910/

    Lol. Imagine what a woman's pelvis would look like to birth a baby with a huge head.

    It's not anatomically possible!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @RaceRealist88

    Show me that g no have a physiological nature
     
    Case in point the rank order. Physiological traits aren't rank ordered since there is a ton of room for variation in what is considered 'normal'.

    Firstly define g.
     
    Mental power? Mental speed? Mental capacity? Those are all phrases to describe it. Those aren't scientific words. There is no 'definition' for g. Just like for 'intelligence', ask 50 people get 50 answers.

    You’re doing a multi intersectional confusions here.

    I think I need re-ask the same question. Why G can’t have a physiological nature??

    Are you ask me what G is or answering my question? It’s what do you think G is?

    Mental power is not a phrase/sentence.

    Why this “phrases” are not “scientific words”???

    No there a definition for G, ok.

    Because “50″ people MAY provide “50″ different types of definition for intelligence (any source?? Maybe much less than “20″ definitions written/talked in different ways but with the same meanings) this doesn’t mean “intelligence no have a definition”, what’s no have a definition is what don’t exist. It’s mean intelligence is a complex and broader concept/a set of characteristic behaviors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Santoculto
    It's not a baseless imaginary process. I think you, instead say strong statements, sustain them, DEVELOP them....

    I think "physiologists" in the true today are those who works in medicine. Physiologist is a old term for health doctor as well health scientist.

    DEVELOP them….

    I did. Reread my other comments.

    I think “physiologists” in the true today are those who works in medicine. Physiologist is a old term for health doctor as well health scientist.

    Physiology is the study of living things which deals with the normal functioning of organisms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Physiology is just like scientific medicine/ a sub-discipline of biology, isn't* [* = now i'm writing in my computer].
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    CanSpeccy, restriction of range is a problem with today's IQ.

    There are few people currently with 1500 IQ, the upper end of the curve is not well described. It is quite humorous to think what a perfect score on an IQ might actually mean. For me it is more about a poorly conceived test than anything to be overly proud of.

    Probably every IQ test should have some question that is entirely open ended to see what responses might be generated. For example, a test might ask to provide a response to the topic "A Tale of Two Cities". I might reply: " 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.' Great book greatly enjoyed reading it. Best that I can remember I think it had something to do with France." If you were to ask a thousand random people that likely would not be far different from their response.

    However, when John von Neumann was asked, he began reciting it word for word. After 15 minutes, he was asked to stop. There is no reason to believe that he would not have continued until "they lived happily ever after". This is how a 7 SD IQ human responded.

    There is no great need for elaborate quantitative analysis to perceive the difference between how he responded and the typical response.
    One could expect that such qualitative phase transitions would continue to be apparent as IQ was increased up to infinity.

    IQ tests would then cease being merely about multiple choice tests with a strict ceiling but an open ended measure of intellect.

    It will, of course, be extraordinarily fascinating to have a front row seat and watch this process unfold. Those with 10 SD will clearly have a very different range of ability compared with those of 0 SD or 20 SD or 100 SD.

    People currently choose to bring children into this world with the intellectual ability resulting from random genetic recombination. This is a fundamental human right that exists beyond the control of democratic interference. If people were to choose to bring children into this world with the intellectual ability resulting from non-random genetic recombination, then this too would be freedom protected as a fundamental human right.

    For example, a test might ask to provide a response to the topic “A Tale of Two Cities”. I might reply: ” ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.’ Great book greatly enjoyed reading it. Best that I can remember I think it had something to do with France.” If you were to ask a thousand random people that likely would not be far different from their response.

    However, when John von Neumann was asked, he began reciting it word for word. After 15 minutes, he was asked to stop. There is no reason to believe that he would not have continued until “they lived happily ever after”. This is how a 7 SD IQ human responded.

    My father had an eidetic memory too, and could quote large chunks of his boyhood reading including Dickens, H.G. Wells, Sir Walter Scott. But it didn’t make him an all round genius, although he was very smart, as were some of his cousins, all descendants of the same Scotch highland grandmother.

    The fact is, IQ is a nonsense, asserting quite falsely that intelligence is a single thing that can be measured on a linear scale, whereas, in reality, intelligence is any mental property, memory (think Mozart writing the score of Allegri’s Miserere after a single hearing), wit (Shakespeare), imagination (Buckminster Fuller), analysis (Kurt Goedel), art (Michael Angelo), strategy (Sun Tzu), etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @helena
    But that is what is coming don't you think? I already think of the alt right like the escapees in brave new world living outside in nature, although nature has become the internet.

    I already think of the alt right like the escapees in brave new world living outside in nature, although nature has become the internet.

    But the Internet is a world where every word you utter is recorded in perpetuity and may at any time be used in evidence against you.

    It seems that technology has destroyed human freedom for ever, although one naturally seeks continually for means of escape.

    Some have argued that we need to explore space to create a new frontier. However, the exploration of space is such a high tech business that it is difficult to imagine space travelers and explorers having any freedom from oversight and top-down control.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @reiner Tor

    Notably, while others on the thread have called the 1500 IQ 50 foot humans a parody and imaginative, none have of yet dismissed such a possibility as impossible.
     
    50 foot humans are impossible, at least under Earth's gravity. 1500 IQ is meaningless, or at least I'm not sure it means what you think it means. 115 IQ means that you are more intelligent than 68% of a given group (usually your country's population or white Britons), 130 IQ that you're smarter than 95% of them, and an IQ of 145 means you're smarter than 99.7% of them. 1500 IQ would definitely mean that you were the most intelligent (not necessarily the smartest) person on the planet, but what does it mean beyond that? Probably nothing quantifiable. In any event, there are serious physiological limits to brain size or brain efficiency, I don't think intelligence can be grown beyond a certain physiological limit unless you're willing to create "humans" which look like League Navigators in Dune.

    Hofmann argues that the theoretical limit for brain size is 3500 cc.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973910/

    Lol. Imagine what a woman’s pelvis would look like to birth a baby with a huge head.

    It’s not anatomically possible!

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Well, we’d need to breed whales living in tanks like those League Navigators.
    , @CanSpeccy
    The larger the brain the longer it takes for impulses to travel from place to place, so processing speed declines with increasing brain volume. Impulse transmission speed is increased with axon diameter, but increased axon diameter further increases brain volume. So there may, in fact, be no way forward. The Human brain may process as much information as it is possible for a brain to do.

    In fact, unless greater intelligence than humans possess now is of no survival value, one has to suppose that the human brain has already achieved the optimum size.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @RaceRealist88
    Hofmann argues that the theoretical limit for brain size is 3500 cc.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973910/

    Lol. Imagine what a woman's pelvis would look like to birth a baby with a huge head.

    It's not anatomically possible!

    Well, we’d need to breed whales living in tanks like those League Navigators.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @RaceRealist88
    The quote does rebut what you're saying. Am on my phone. Don't like writing long comments on my phone. That's for my laptop.

    Ok.

    I’m writing in my smartphone too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @RaceRealist88

    DEVELOP them….
     
    I did. Reread my other comments.

    I think “physiologists” in the true today are those who works in medicine. Physiologist is a old term for health doctor as well health scientist.
     
    Physiology is the study of living things which deals with the normal functioning of organisms.

    Physiology is just like scientific medicine/ a sub-discipline of biology, isn’t* [* = now i'm writing in my computer].

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    CanSpeccy, restriction of range is a problem with today's IQ.

    There are few people currently with 1500 IQ, the upper end of the curve is not well described. It is quite humorous to think what a perfect score on an IQ might actually mean. For me it is more about a poorly conceived test than anything to be overly proud of.

    Probably every IQ test should have some question that is entirely open ended to see what responses might be generated. For example, a test might ask to provide a response to the topic "A Tale of Two Cities". I might reply: " 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.' Great book greatly enjoyed reading it. Best that I can remember I think it had something to do with France." If you were to ask a thousand random people that likely would not be far different from their response.

    However, when John von Neumann was asked, he began reciting it word for word. After 15 minutes, he was asked to stop. There is no reason to believe that he would not have continued until "they lived happily ever after". This is how a 7 SD IQ human responded.

    There is no great need for elaborate quantitative analysis to perceive the difference between how he responded and the typical response.
    One could expect that such qualitative phase transitions would continue to be apparent as IQ was increased up to infinity.

    IQ tests would then cease being merely about multiple choice tests with a strict ceiling but an open ended measure of intellect.

    It will, of course, be extraordinarily fascinating to have a front row seat and watch this process unfold. Those with 10 SD will clearly have a very different range of ability compared with those of 0 SD or 20 SD or 100 SD.

    People currently choose to bring children into this world with the intellectual ability resulting from random genetic recombination. This is a fundamental human right that exists beyond the control of democratic interference. If people were to choose to bring children into this world with the intellectual ability resulting from non-random genetic recombination, then this too would be freedom protected as a fundamental human right.

    Further, you will discover, if your read Oliver Sachs, that the potential for perfect long-term recall is likely inherent in everyone, although in most, access is denied. This is apparent from people who due to brain damage or age suddenly acquire full recall of long forgotten events, stories, songs, etc. Such recall may be so realistic, in the case of music for example, as to be mistaken for real sound, the playing of a radio or whatever.

    Also consistent with the view that perfect memory is not proof of all-round genius, one of my siblings had some degree of eidetic memory, being able, during exams, to conjure up a vision of entire pages of text books. She scored all A’s in math and physics in high school and went to university on a large state scholarship, but she had no interest in hard science, and, I believe, little real comprehension of physics. She likes flowers, the outdoors and painting and at university studied biology.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    Hofmann argues that the theoretical limit for brain size is 3500 cc.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973910/

    Lol. Imagine what a woman's pelvis would look like to birth a baby with a huge head.

    It's not anatomically possible!

    The larger the brain the longer it takes for impulses to travel from place to place, so processing speed declines with increasing brain volume. Impulse transmission speed is increased with axon diameter, but increased axon diameter further increases brain volume. So there may, in fact, be no way forward. The Human brain may process as much information as it is possible for a brain to do.

    In fact, unless greater intelligence than humans possess now is of no survival value, one has to suppose that the human brain has already achieved the optimum size.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    But qualitative size seems more expansible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Factorize says:

    CanSpeccy, consider someone with the memory of Mozart, the wit of Shakespeare, the imagination of Buckminster Fuller, the analysis of Kurt Goedel, the art of Michael Angelo, the strategy of Sun Tzu, the physical intuition of Albert Einstein, the insight of John von Neumann … .

    The problem when contemplating what might be is that all too often we assume that what already is would be a good guide. The future will not be the past. There is no great contradiction in proposing that someone could be genetically engineered to possess the full spectrum of genius. Genius of the future will be universal genius. What has manifest to date are only hints of the underlying human potential. Engineering humanity to have multiple dimensions of genius will have an overwhelming impact. It will be the Genetic Singularity.

    Why would we want to create such a socially disruptive event? We are “not fully awake”. I found this a highly descriptive term that some used to describe how the rest of humanity compared to von Neumann. The minimal human intelligence, that we have evolved in order to avoid large predators, turn on our televisions and mate, has resulted in a species that is “not fully awake”; we are essentially only semi-conscious. We trudge through our life and can only process a highly limited amount of the information that is presented to us.

    For proof, consider the very idea of 1500 IQ humans. As yet this idea remains largely unchallenged on this thread. It is not science fantasy; it directly follows from genetic logic. How is it possible that the processing power of 10 billion people somehow neglected to perceive such a possibility? No reference to this idea has yet to be found of it in science fiction.

    However, the polygenic architecture of human g, guarantees that it is valid. It has been sitting there in the open for at least the last century and no light bulbs went off. RA Fisher’s master’s thesis of 1918 skirted around the concept without ever identifying it. An idea of such overwhelming power would have stopped any conflict, would have given pause to any dictatorship, would have given us a guiding star to chart our way. No one noticed. We are asleep.

    Is this even living? Embracing a new eugenica lifestyle is about embracing life. It is about more fully
    processing and understanding the world that we live in. If we were to reject such a future, it would be as if we rejected life, rejected evolution. Social Darwinism would mean only applying pseudo-science when it served the interests of a select few. If it were not to serve the few, then all of humanity including the select few could sleep walk through their lives.

    The value of the highest tail of g is of such overwhelming economic significance that selection becomes entirely focused on this single attribute often without regards to other considerations. The future will be different. In a world where everyone has 1000 IQ, all the doctors would be compassionate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    There is no great contradiction in proposing that someone could be genetically engineered to possess the full spectrum of genius.
     
    That's because you don't know what gives rise to genius, but I suggest that an essential aspect of genius is lack of balance, which would mean that all-round genius is a contradiction in terms. Neural resources are limited and the genius is the one able to appropriate massive resources to a particular domain of mental activity.

    Again, I point to the Terman study, which managed to exclude in the selection of little geniuses the only two candidates who went on to win Nobel Prizes. Or look at the personalities of the best known, truly creative geniuses: Newton, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Darwin, Einstein, etc. These were quite unbalanced obsessives.

    But IQists never consider any arguments against their thesis that intelligence is a single thing measurable on a linear scale from zero to infinity, a view that in the light of the available evidence is totally unscientific and basically silly. But it serves the interests of the power seekers who pursue careers in psychology.

    , @Santoculto
    Firstly you would need give rationality for humans, most of them have just half of Prometheus gift.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. @CanSpeccy
    The larger the brain the longer it takes for impulses to travel from place to place, so processing speed declines with increasing brain volume. Impulse transmission speed is increased with axon diameter, but increased axon diameter further increases brain volume. So there may, in fact, be no way forward. The Human brain may process as much information as it is possible for a brain to do.

    In fact, unless greater intelligence than humans possess now is of no survival value, one has to suppose that the human brain has already achieved the optimum size.

    But qualitative size seems more expansible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize
    CanSpeccy, consider someone with the memory of Mozart, the wit of Shakespeare, the imagination of Buckminster Fuller, the analysis of Kurt Goedel, the art of Michael Angelo, the strategy of Sun Tzu, the physical intuition of Albert Einstein, the insight of John von Neumann … .

    The problem when contemplating what might be is that all too often we assume that what already is would be a good guide. The future will not be the past. There is no great contradiction in proposing that someone could be genetically engineered to possess the full spectrum of genius. Genius of the future will be universal genius. What has manifest to date are only hints of the underlying human potential. Engineering humanity to have multiple dimensions of genius will have an overwhelming impact. It will be the Genetic Singularity.

    Why would we want to create such a socially disruptive event? We are “not fully awake”. I found this a highly descriptive term that some used to describe how the rest of humanity compared to von Neumann. The minimal human intelligence, that we have evolved in order to avoid large predators, turn on our televisions and mate, has resulted in a species that is “not fully awake”; we are essentially only semi-conscious. We trudge through our life and can only process a highly limited amount of the information that is presented to us.

    For proof, consider the very idea of 1500 IQ humans. As yet this idea remains largely unchallenged on this thread. It is not science fantasy; it directly follows from genetic logic. How is it possible that the processing power of 10 billion people somehow neglected to perceive such a possibility? No reference to this idea has yet to be found of it in science fiction.

    However, the polygenic architecture of human g, guarantees that it is valid. It has been sitting there in the open for at least the last century and no light bulbs went off. RA Fisher’s master’s thesis of 1918 skirted around the concept without ever identifying it. An idea of such overwhelming power would have stopped any conflict, would have given pause to any dictatorship, would have given us a guiding star to chart our way. No one noticed. We are asleep.

    Is this even living? Embracing a new eugenica lifestyle is about embracing life. It is about more fully
    processing and understanding the world that we live in. If we were to reject such a future, it would be as if we rejected life, rejected evolution. Social Darwinism would mean only applying pseudo-science when it served the interests of a select few. If it were not to serve the few, then all of humanity including the select few could sleep walk through their lives.

    The value of the highest tail of g is of such overwhelming economic significance that selection becomes entirely focused on this single attribute often without regards to other considerations. The future will be different. In a world where everyone has 1000 IQ, all the doctors would be compassionate.

    There is no great contradiction in proposing that someone could be genetically engineered to possess the full spectrum of genius.

    That’s because you don’t know what gives rise to genius, but I suggest that an essential aspect of genius is lack of balance, which would mean that all-round genius is a contradiction in terms. Neural resources are limited and the genius is the one able to appropriate massive resources to a particular domain of mental activity.

    Again, I point to the Terman study, which managed to exclude in the selection of little geniuses the only two candidates who went on to win Nobel Prizes. Or look at the personalities of the best known, truly creative geniuses: Newton, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Darwin, Einstein, etc. These were quite unbalanced obsessives.

    But IQists never consider any arguments against their thesis that intelligence is a single thing measurable on a linear scale from zero to infinity, a view that in the light of the available evidence is totally unscientific and basically silly. But it serves the interests of the power seekers who pursue careers in psychology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    You know most of IQistics as well "creativity experts" invented that the correlation between creativity and mental issues vulnerability is a myth. So we have Greek, Nordic, Mayan, Babylonian and many others mythology. And now we have a genius x madness romantic MYTHOLOGY. The same way there was/is Jesus, Mohammed. Tink winky, Athena and Thor, we already have this metaphysical correlation between genius and madness.


    This days we have two psychiatric labels for very unbalanced cognitive/and psychological profiles: twice exceptional and learning disabilities.
    , @reiner Tor
    I have always thought that g correlates very well with any specific talents or even personality traits like conscientiousness. But I have always thought that somewhere around 130 IQ g loses its significance, and domain-specific talent becomes more important. The “low IQ” physics Nobelist Feynman had an IQ of 125, which puts him in the top decile of the population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @CanSpeccy

    There is no great contradiction in proposing that someone could be genetically engineered to possess the full spectrum of genius.
     
    That's because you don't know what gives rise to genius, but I suggest that an essential aspect of genius is lack of balance, which would mean that all-round genius is a contradiction in terms. Neural resources are limited and the genius is the one able to appropriate massive resources to a particular domain of mental activity.

    Again, I point to the Terman study, which managed to exclude in the selection of little geniuses the only two candidates who went on to win Nobel Prizes. Or look at the personalities of the best known, truly creative geniuses: Newton, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Darwin, Einstein, etc. These were quite unbalanced obsessives.

    But IQists never consider any arguments against their thesis that intelligence is a single thing measurable on a linear scale from zero to infinity, a view that in the light of the available evidence is totally unscientific and basically silly. But it serves the interests of the power seekers who pursue careers in psychology.

    You know most of IQistics as well “creativity experts” invented that the correlation between creativity and mental issues vulnerability is a myth. So we have Greek, Nordic, Mayan, Babylonian and many others mythology. And now we have a genius x madness romantic MYTHOLOGY. The same way there was/is Jesus, Mohammed. Tink winky, Athena and Thor, we already have this metaphysical correlation between genius and madness.

    This days we have two psychiatric labels for very unbalanced cognitive/and psychological profiles: twice exceptional and learning disabilities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @Factorize
    CanSpeccy, consider someone with the memory of Mozart, the wit of Shakespeare, the imagination of Buckminster Fuller, the analysis of Kurt Goedel, the art of Michael Angelo, the strategy of Sun Tzu, the physical intuition of Albert Einstein, the insight of John von Neumann … .

    The problem when contemplating what might be is that all too often we assume that what already is would be a good guide. The future will not be the past. There is no great contradiction in proposing that someone could be genetically engineered to possess the full spectrum of genius. Genius of the future will be universal genius. What has manifest to date are only hints of the underlying human potential. Engineering humanity to have multiple dimensions of genius will have an overwhelming impact. It will be the Genetic Singularity.

    Why would we want to create such a socially disruptive event? We are “not fully awake”. I found this a highly descriptive term that some used to describe how the rest of humanity compared to von Neumann. The minimal human intelligence, that we have evolved in order to avoid large predators, turn on our televisions and mate, has resulted in a species that is “not fully awake”; we are essentially only semi-conscious. We trudge through our life and can only process a highly limited amount of the information that is presented to us.

    For proof, consider the very idea of 1500 IQ humans. As yet this idea remains largely unchallenged on this thread. It is not science fantasy; it directly follows from genetic logic. How is it possible that the processing power of 10 billion people somehow neglected to perceive such a possibility? No reference to this idea has yet to be found of it in science fiction.

    However, the polygenic architecture of human g, guarantees that it is valid. It has been sitting there in the open for at least the last century and no light bulbs went off. RA Fisher’s master’s thesis of 1918 skirted around the concept without ever identifying it. An idea of such overwhelming power would have stopped any conflict, would have given pause to any dictatorship, would have given us a guiding star to chart our way. No one noticed. We are asleep.

    Is this even living? Embracing a new eugenica lifestyle is about embracing life. It is about more fully
    processing and understanding the world that we live in. If we were to reject such a future, it would be as if we rejected life, rejected evolution. Social Darwinism would mean only applying pseudo-science when it served the interests of a select few. If it were not to serve the few, then all of humanity including the select few could sleep walk through their lives.

    The value of the highest tail of g is of such overwhelming economic significance that selection becomes entirely focused on this single attribute often without regards to other considerations. The future will be different. In a world where everyone has 1000 IQ, all the doctors would be compassionate.

    Firstly you would need give rationality for humans, most of them have just half of Prometheus gift.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Factorize says:

    Santoculto, they are obviously now approaching at light speed. Behind all the denials there must be a fear. We will soon touch infinity. How will we cope with this?

    Are people truly going to ignore this until g entirely saturates our planet?

    The genius that will exist will be more all encompassing. Amplifying potential by combining extreme memory ability and mathematical ability and communication skills and on and on will create a nearly unstoppable force.

    The genius that we have known to date is a more human form of genius. Spearman moved us one step forward as did many others. The approaching genius will not move us forward only a step.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    But seems you're forgetting the evil geniuses...
    , @Santoculto
    Mad scientist troll.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. English people had a couple head starts – being European, they had all the advantages of Classical civilization, Christian civilization, and the hardworking genius Medieval/Renaissance intellectuals of Europe: being on an island, they had all the advantages of however many divisions worth of free military labor the Channel was worth (my guess is 40 divisions – basically the entire military strength of the ten largest cities of England and Scotland and Wales,if each of those cities gave up every single male of military age to a life of soldiering – sad to think about), and that is a lot of free manpower, allowing for an awful lot of peaceful intellectual labor in exchange (For the free Gift of the Channel): and being blessed with a beautiful country created God knows how and a beautiful language that not one in a million of them could describe from, not just not even from its origins, but not even from the decadent post-Roman days: well, with those head starts, they are better at lots of collective things than other countries with more reasons not to be collectively smart. And, because where intelligence flourishes, there also flourishes the easy and popular simulacra of intelligence, they are better at being collectively stupid, and collectively slanderous. It is in their nature in a way that most of them don’t understand, never having lived differently. For example, they often rejoice at receiving a “white paper” or “Parliamentary Report” of some sort that tells then what they want to hear, and allows them to think they have “put paid” to those who do not seek retribution in the same places they collectively do. In other countries these collective pronouncements are viewed with scorn, in poor England the riffraff rejoice. If they were all just a little smarter, on average, it would not be so sad. But they aren’t, and all their advantages therefore continually devolve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  236. Check out my new article on cranial capacity in West Africa. New data seems to vindicate the hypothesis that variation in brain size is linked to low light environments.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/17/the-harmattan-season/

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That is an interesting hypothesis. Has anyone tried to look at it quantitatively with world wide data?

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria): http://solargis.com/assets/graphic/free-map/DNI/Solargis-World-DNI-solar-resource-map-en.png

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:


    New data seems to vindicate the hypothesis that variation in brain size is linked to low light environments.
     
    with the language in your linked blog post:

    I acknowledge that this post is somewhat speculative and based on poor data.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Factorize says:

    Afrosapiens,

    Do you think Africa will get on board the IQ enhancement light ship?
    Asia looks as though it perhaps has already started up.
    How far back will Europe have to be before there is panic?

    Increasing intelligence by several SDs in short order would radically transform life.
    As I noted on the previous thread, those who might feel that they are some disadvantage in life are highly motivated to correct such disadvantages. In your view, might we expect to see an African race
    to high IQ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    No, factorize, no place in the world will embrace the myth of IQ enhancing genetic engineering.

    For two reasons:

    -1st: the promises of the GWAS technology are largely overblown in my opinion. It's only correlational evidence without understanding of underlying physiological processes. Further, 74% of human proteins and likely as many genes are expressed in the brain with a probably high degree of pleitropy. It means modifying the brain-expressed alleles could potentially be harmful for other body functions.

    https://www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/brain

    -2nd: What would be the nutritional needs of such IQ enhanced persons, could a human womb carry them and deliver them properly? I doubt.

    those who might feel that they are some disadvantage in life are highly motivated to correct such disadvantages.

    Not even close. In fact, very few people feel intellectually disadvantaged in the way so many feel bad about their looks. People don't care how smart they are. Those who fail in school seldom seek help and are just fine with it, same with those who aren't efficient at work. And at the same time, many people with high IQs, like those in MENSA, actually don't excel in any notable domain and probably wouldn't be worse off with 40 IQ points removed. So no one cares.

    In your view, might we expect to see an African race
    to high IQ?


    I don't know about IQ, I don't think it's relevant, IQ is not a thing in the real world. But there clearly are economically and educationally successful subsaharan subpopulations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @Factorize
    Afrosapiens,

    Do you think Africa will get on board the IQ enhancement light ship?
    Asia looks as though it perhaps has already started up.
    How far back will Europe have to be before there is panic?


    Increasing intelligence by several SDs in short order would radically transform life.
    As I noted on the previous thread, those who might feel that they are some disadvantage in life are highly motivated to correct such disadvantages. In your view, might we expect to see an African race
    to high IQ?

    No, factorize, no place in the world will embrace the myth of IQ enhancing genetic engineering.

    For two reasons:

    -1st: the promises of the GWAS technology are largely overblown in my opinion. It’s only correlational evidence without understanding of underlying physiological processes. Further, 74% of human proteins and likely as many genes are expressed in the brain with a probably high degree of pleitropy. It means modifying the brain-expressed alleles could potentially be harmful for other body functions.

    https://www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/brain

    -2nd: What would be the nutritional needs of such IQ enhanced persons, could a human womb carry them and deliver them properly? I doubt.

    those who might feel that they are some disadvantage in life are highly motivated to correct such disadvantages.

    Not even close. In fact, very few people feel intellectually disadvantaged in the way so many feel bad about their looks. People don’t care how smart they are. Those who fail in school seldom seek help and are just fine with it, same with those who aren’t efficient at work. And at the same time, many people with high IQs, like those in MENSA, actually don’t excel in any notable domain and probably wouldn’t be worse off with 40 IQ points removed. So no one cares.

    In your view, might we expect to see an African race
    to high IQ?

    I don’t know about IQ, I don’t think it’s relevant, IQ is not a thing in the real world. But there clearly are economically and educationally successful subsaharan subpopulations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar

    I don’t know about IQ, I don’t think it’s relevant, IQ is not a thing in the real world. But there clearly are economically and educationally successful subsaharan subpopulations.
     
    Translation: I don’t know about what is smart and what is stupid, I don’t think they're relevant, Being smart or stupid is not a thing in the real world. But there clearly are smart subsaharan subpopulations.

    Welcome to Planet of the Apes 2.0
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @CanSpeccy

    There is no great contradiction in proposing that someone could be genetically engineered to possess the full spectrum of genius.
     
    That's because you don't know what gives rise to genius, but I suggest that an essential aspect of genius is lack of balance, which would mean that all-round genius is a contradiction in terms. Neural resources are limited and the genius is the one able to appropriate massive resources to a particular domain of mental activity.

    Again, I point to the Terman study, which managed to exclude in the selection of little geniuses the only two candidates who went on to win Nobel Prizes. Or look at the personalities of the best known, truly creative geniuses: Newton, Shakespeare, Michael Angelo, Darwin, Einstein, etc. These were quite unbalanced obsessives.

    But IQists never consider any arguments against their thesis that intelligence is a single thing measurable on a linear scale from zero to infinity, a view that in the light of the available evidence is totally unscientific and basically silly. But it serves the interests of the power seekers who pursue careers in psychology.

    I have always thought that g correlates very well with any specific talents or even personality traits like conscientiousness. But I have always thought that somewhere around 130 IQ g loses its significance, and domain-specific talent becomes more important. The “low IQ” physics Nobelist Feynman had an IQ of 125, which puts him in the top decile of the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Not what Lubinski and Benbow find. Linear all the way up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @Factorize
    Santoculto, they are obviously now approaching at light speed. Behind all the denials there must be a fear. We will soon touch infinity. How will we cope with this?

    Are people truly going to ignore this until g entirely saturates our planet?

    The genius that will exist will be more all encompassing. Amplifying potential by combining extreme memory ability and mathematical ability and communication skills and on and on will create a nearly unstoppable force.

    The genius that we have known to date is a more human form of genius. Spearman moved us one step forward as did many others. The approaching genius will not move us forward only a step.

    But seems you’re forgetting the evil geniuses…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. @Afrosapiens
    No, factorize, no place in the world will embrace the myth of IQ enhancing genetic engineering.

    For two reasons:

    -1st: the promises of the GWAS technology are largely overblown in my opinion. It's only correlational evidence without understanding of underlying physiological processes. Further, 74% of human proteins and likely as many genes are expressed in the brain with a probably high degree of pleitropy. It means modifying the brain-expressed alleles could potentially be harmful for other body functions.

    https://www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/brain

    -2nd: What would be the nutritional needs of such IQ enhanced persons, could a human womb carry them and deliver them properly? I doubt.

    those who might feel that they are some disadvantage in life are highly motivated to correct such disadvantages.

    Not even close. In fact, very few people feel intellectually disadvantaged in the way so many feel bad about their looks. People don't care how smart they are. Those who fail in school seldom seek help and are just fine with it, same with those who aren't efficient at work. And at the same time, many people with high IQs, like those in MENSA, actually don't excel in any notable domain and probably wouldn't be worse off with 40 IQ points removed. So no one cares.

    In your view, might we expect to see an African race
    to high IQ?


    I don't know about IQ, I don't think it's relevant, IQ is not a thing in the real world. But there clearly are economically and educationally successful subsaharan subpopulations.

    I don’t know about IQ, I don’t think it’s relevant, IQ is not a thing in the real world. But there clearly are economically and educationally successful subsaharan subpopulations.

    Translation: I don’t know about what is smart and what is stupid, I don’t think they’re relevant, Being smart or stupid is not a thing in the real world. But there clearly are smart subsaharan subpopulations.

    Welcome to Planet of the Apes 2.0

    Read More
    • Troll: Afrosapiens
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @Factorize
    Santoculto, they are obviously now approaching at light speed. Behind all the denials there must be a fear. We will soon touch infinity. How will we cope with this?

    Are people truly going to ignore this until g entirely saturates our planet?

    The genius that will exist will be more all encompassing. Amplifying potential by combining extreme memory ability and mathematical ability and communication skills and on and on will create a nearly unstoppable force.

    The genius that we have known to date is a more human form of genius. Spearman moved us one step forward as did many others. The approaching genius will not move us forward only a step.

    Mad scientist troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Panda, are you aware of a study showing that East Asians—Han Chinese specifically—have higher frequencies of a brain regulating gene called CASC5 which is related to gray matter? This is evidence for Natural Selection in recent human evolution.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/18/evidence-for-natural-selection-in-humans-east-asians-have-higher-frequency-of-casc5-brain-size-regulator-gene/

    1 amino acid polymorphic site in Europeans, 5 in East Asians and 0 in Africans. Maybe it’s related to “IQ/intelligence”? A better explanation imo is that it’s related to climate and vision.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  244. @reiner Tor
    I have always thought that g correlates very well with any specific talents or even personality traits like conscientiousness. But I have always thought that somewhere around 130 IQ g loses its significance, and domain-specific talent becomes more important. The “low IQ” physics Nobelist Feynman had an IQ of 125, which puts him in the top decile of the population.

    Not what Lubinski and Benbow find. Linear all the way up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I think a big part of the disconnect between the real numbers (Lubinski and Benbow) and perceptions is caused by the steep decline of the normal curve population frequency in the high IQ tail. Even if +3 SD individuals are five times as likely to achieve some particular accomplishment as +2 SD (130 IQ) individuals because there are twenty times as many +2 SD individuals then it is likely the +2 SD people will seem overrepresented. The effect is even more pronounced if the achievement likelihood difference is less than five times which seems more reasonable.

    This sounds like a topic for Gerd Gigerenzer. Has he discussed it anywhere? Anyone else?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. @CanSpeccy

    So here we are. Now back to #105. Humans have the largest encephalization quotient on the planet. Why?
     
    Oh, so since humans don't have the highest brain to body weight ratio we have to consider some BS encephalization quotient. Sounds like bollocks to me. You might as well just stick to using a tape measure and measure the circumference of people's heads. I am sure that will prove whatever nonsense you want to prove.

    As for why humans have a larger cerebrum than apes, that's obvious: language.

    Language is highly resource demanding. People don't understand words based on definitions. Most people don't know the definitions of most of the words they use. What they do know is the context in which they have heard or seen particular words used: often thousands of contexts, contexts that include visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile sensations.

    Such knowledge takes a lot of memory, but it is worth it because it allows humans to share experience across families, tribes, and generations, and now across the globe with the Internet.

    Shared experience increases success in exploitation of the environment and thus pays back the metabolic cost of more brain tissue. But a larger cerebrum does not make humans more intelligent than other animals. Chimps are smarter than humans in many ways. But they don't have our knowledge gleaned through language use.

    You may have all referenced this link, but if not, here are some comments

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-makes-brains-brainy

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson,

    Terrence Deacon has two 1990 papers showing that when allometry and functional specialization is taken into account, that so-called progress in brain size evolution dissappears.

    Fallacies of Progression in Theories
    of Brain-Size Evolution

    By failing to analyze the effects of allometry at many levels of structure, comparative anatomists have mistaken methodological artifacts for progressive evolutionary trends. Many structural changes, which are assumed to demonstrate progression of brain structure from primitive to advanced forms, are the result of allometric processes. Increased brain size turns out to have some previously unappreciated functional disadvantages.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwNy9iZjAyMTkyODY5/10.1007%40bf02192869.pdf

    Confusing size-correlated differences in phyiogenetic "progression" in brain evolution

    The study of brain evolution is one of the last×refuges for theories of progressive evolution in biology, but in this field its influence is still pervasive. To a great extent the apparent "progress" of mammalian brain evolution vanishes when the effects of brain size and functional specialization are taken into account.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNy9zMDE0MDUyNXgwMDA3ODI1MA==/10.1017%40s0140525x00078250.pdf

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. res says:
    @Afrosapiens
    Check out my new article on cranial capacity in West Africa. New data seems to vindicate the hypothesis that variation in brain size is linked to low light environments.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/17/the-harmattan-season/

    That is an interesting hypothesis. Has anyone tried to look at it quantitatively with world wide data?

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria):

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:

    New data seems to vindicate the hypothesis that variation in brain size is linked to low light environments.

    with the language in your linked blog post:

    I acknowledge that this post is somewhat speculative and based on poor data.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Studies on neanderthal brains lend credence to the idea too. Inuit as well. This could explain the so-called Inuit exception in regards to brain size and IQ (and as I have argued, expertise capacity). Climatological factors explain these size differences which I don't think are related to "IQ/intelligence", welcome to be damn wrong of course.
    , @Afrosapiens

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria):
     
    These are annual means though, although the northern part receive more sunlight throughout the year because of its drier climate, its Harmattan season is more severe. Also, I suspect that dusty haze poses more visibility issues than simple clouds.

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.
     
    I doubt it, first I can't access the article. secondly, an increase over 5 years just indicates that this phenomenon highly fluctuates in intensity, instead of being recent.

    Wikipedia says:

    The Harmattan blows during the dry season, which occurs during the lowest-sun months, when the subtropical ridge of high pressure stays over the central Sahara Desert and when the low-pressure Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) stays over the Gulf of Guinea. On its passage over the Sahara, it picks up fine dust and sand particles (between 0.5 and 10 microns).

    So the Harmattan must have existed since the Sahara, the subtropical ridge, the intertropical convergence zone and the Gulf of Guinea have been at their current location.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:
    with the language in your linked blog post:
     
    Yes, this comment is advertisement, the blog post is a more serious effort. As for this post being speculative, yes it is, I won't claim I did extensive field research. As for the data being poor, yes it is. All craniometric data is poor, but the data I use is still much better than Lynn & cie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. @James Thompson
    You may have all referenced this link, but if not, here are some comments

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-makes-brains-brainy

    Dr. Thompson,

    Terrence Deacon has two 1990 papers showing that when allometry and functional specialization is taken into account, that so-called progress in brain size evolution dissappears.

    Fallacies of Progression in Theories
    of Brain-Size Evolution

    By failing to analyze the effects of allometry at many levels of structure, comparative anatomists have mistaken methodological artifacts for progressive evolutionary trends. Many structural changes, which are assumed to demonstrate progression of brain structure from primitive to advanced forms, are the result of allometric processes. Increased brain size turns out to have some previously unappreciated functional disadvantages.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwNy9iZjAyMTkyODY5/10.1007%40bf02192869.pdf

    Confusing size-correlated differences in phyiogenetic “progression” in brain evolution

    The study of brain evolution is one of the last×refuges for theories of progressive evolution in biology, but in this field its influence is still pervasive. To a great extent the apparent “progress” of mammalian brain evolution vanishes when the effects of brain size and functional specialization are taken into account.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNy9zMDE0MDUyNXgwMDA3ODI1MA==/10.1017%40s0140525x00078250.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Do you really fail to notice all the rhetoric and strawmanning in articles like those?

    The rhetoric is notable in the titles (fallacies, confusing), and just continues in the paper bodies. There is a nice strawman in the abstract of your first link:

    Theories that purport to establish a linear scale for this presumed correlation between brain size and intelligence
     
    The papers I have seen do not propose a linear relationship. The correlation is not "presumed." It exists.

    In your second link they include the original authors' response to Deacon. I think this serves as a decent example of calling out a strawman:

    As for Deacon's comments about the eight "wellestablished evolutionary concepts," we put these forward as rough and approximate road-maps since It is essential to develop major parameters by which we can compare different brains In a comparative series. Instead oflooking at these as points ofreference and approximation, Deacon seems to think ofthem as etched in stone (which they are not and, In addition, there are exceptions to each of them).
     
    and this:

    We are totally puzzled about what Deacon means when he states that we ignore the influence of unique peripheral and functional specializations of dolphins on structure-function relations that are likely to be crucial in the explanation of many unique features of dolphin cortex. We refer Deacon to the many papers we cite here that fully describe our views on these matters. They have not been neglected in our studies; we hope that our many papers in the field will attest to that.
     
    P.S. An added treat in that second link is the excerpt at the end criticizing some SMPY findings of sex differences in SAT-M results because of inadequate attention to socialization. The more things change...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Not what Lubinski and Benbow find. Linear all the way up.

    I think a big part of the disconnect between the real numbers (Lubinski and Benbow) and perceptions is caused by the steep decline of the normal curve population frequency in the high IQ tail. Even if +3 SD individuals are five times as likely to achieve some particular accomplishment as +2 SD (130 IQ) individuals because there are twenty times as many +2 SD individuals then it is likely the +2 SD people will seem overrepresented. The effect is even more pronounced if the achievement likelihood difference is less than five times which seems more reasonable.

    This sounds like a topic for Gerd Gigerenzer. Has he discussed it anywhere? Anyone else?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. @res
    That is an interesting hypothesis. Has anyone tried to look at it quantitatively with world wide data?

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria): http://solargis.com/assets/graphic/free-map/DNI/Solargis-World-DNI-solar-resource-map-en.png

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:


    New data seems to vindicate the hypothesis that variation in brain size is linked to low light environments.
     
    with the language in your linked blog post:

    I acknowledge that this post is somewhat speculative and based on poor data.
     

    Studies on neanderthal brains lend credence to the idea too. Inuit as well. This could explain the so-called Inuit exception in regards to brain size and IQ (and as I have argued, expertise capacity). Climatological factors explain these size differences which I don’t think are related to “IQ/intelligence”, welcome to be damn wrong of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. @res
    That is an interesting hypothesis. Has anyone tried to look at it quantitatively with world wide data?

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria): http://solargis.com/assets/graphic/free-map/DNI/Solargis-World-DNI-solar-resource-map-en.png

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:


    New data seems to vindicate the hypothesis that variation in brain size is linked to low light environments.
     
    with the language in your linked blog post:

    I acknowledge that this post is somewhat speculative and based on poor data.
     

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria):

    These are annual means though, although the northern part receive more sunlight throughout the year because of its drier climate, its Harmattan season is more severe. Also, I suspect that dusty haze poses more visibility issues than simple clouds.

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.

    I doubt it, first I can’t access the article. secondly, an increase over 5 years just indicates that this phenomenon highly fluctuates in intensity, instead of being recent.

    Wikipedia says:

    The Harmattan blows during the dry season, which occurs during the lowest-sun months, when the subtropical ridge of high pressure stays over the central Sahara Desert and when the low-pressure Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) stays over the Gulf of Guinea. On its passage over the Sahara, it picks up fine dust and sand particles (between 0.5 and 10 microns).

    So the Harmattan must have existed since the Sahara, the subtropical ridge, the intertropical convergence zone and the Gulf of Guinea have been at their current location.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:
    with the language in your linked blog post:

    Yes, this comment is advertisement, the blog post is a more serious effort. As for this post being speculative, yes it is, I won’t claim I did extensive field research. As for the data being poor, yes it is. All craniometric data is poor, but the data I use is still much better than Lynn & cie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Here is a map of sunshine duration.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_duration#/media/File:Sunshine.png
    , @res

    These are annual means though, although the northern part receive more sunlight throughout the year because of its drier climate, its Harmattan season is more severe. Also, I suspect that dusty haze poses more visibility issues than simple clouds.

     

    Right about the means. Unclear to me whether means or minimum light/visibility would matter more. Either seems plausible to me.

    The paper is at libgen with DOI 10.1002/j.1477-8696.1979.tb03389.x

    Thanks for the Wikipedia mention. Do you have a sense for when all those conditions started being true? Looking just at the Sahara I see onset of desertification at 9500 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Nubians

    That is later than out of Africa. Which appears to have been order 50k-80k years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-dna-human-history.html
    Giving less time for evolution to act than e.g. cold winters, but more than for e.g. agriculture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson,

    Terrence Deacon has two 1990 papers showing that when allometry and functional specialization is taken into account, that so-called progress in brain size evolution dissappears.

    Fallacies of Progression in Theories
    of Brain-Size Evolution

    By failing to analyze the effects of allometry at many levels of structure, comparative anatomists have mistaken methodological artifacts for progressive evolutionary trends. Many structural changes, which are assumed to demonstrate progression of brain structure from primitive to advanced forms, are the result of allometric processes. Increased brain size turns out to have some previously unappreciated functional disadvantages.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwNy9iZjAyMTkyODY5/10.1007%40bf02192869.pdf

    Confusing size-correlated differences in phyiogenetic "progression" in brain evolution

    The study of brain evolution is one of the last×refuges for theories of progressive evolution in biology, but in this field its influence is still pervasive. To a great extent the apparent "progress" of mammalian brain evolution vanishes when the effects of brain size and functional specialization are taken into account.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNy9zMDE0MDUyNXgwMDA3ODI1MA==/10.1017%40s0140525x00078250.pdf

    Do you really fail to notice all the rhetoric and strawmanning in articles like those?

    The rhetoric is notable in the titles (fallacies, confusing), and just continues in the paper bodies. There is a nice strawman in the abstract of your first link:

    Theories that purport to establish a linear scale for this presumed correlation between brain size and intelligence

    The papers I have seen do not propose a linear relationship. The correlation is not “presumed.” It exists.

    In your second link they include the original authors’ response to Deacon. I think this serves as a decent example of calling out a strawman:

    As for Deacon’s comments about the eight “wellestablished evolutionary concepts,” we put these forward as rough and approximate road-maps since It is essential to develop major parameters by which we can compare different brains In a comparative series. Instead oflooking at these as points ofreference and approximation, Deacon seems to think ofthem as etched in stone (which they are not and, In addition, there are exceptions to each of them).

    and this:

    We are totally puzzled about what Deacon means when he states that we ignore the influence of unique peripheral and functional specializations of dolphins on structure-function relations that are likely to be crucial in the explanation of many unique features of dolphin cortex. We refer Deacon to the many papers we cite here that fully describe our views on these matters. They have not been neglected in our studies; we hope that our many papers in the field will attest to that.

    P.S. An added treat in that second link is the excerpt at the end criticizing some SMPY findings of sex differences in SAT-M results because of inadequate attention to socialization. The more things change…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    And here is the rest of the quote of the first abstract:

    and intelligence are undermined by the absence of an unbiased allometric baseline for estimating differences in encephalization, by the incompatibility of allometric analyses at different taxonomic levels, by the nonlinearity of the "criterion of subtraction" used to partition the somatic and cognitive components of encephalization, and by the failure to independently demonstrate any cognitive basis for the regularity of brain~body allometry

    In your second link they include the original authors’ response to Deacon. I think this serves as a decent example of calling out a strawman
     
    I don't think that's a misrepresentation. If you read the first paper he goes through functional specialization and allometry and shows that when controlled, the so-called 'progress' in brain size vanishes. Deacon also has a paper "Rethinking mammalian brain evolution" that is relevant here as well.

    In regards to the second quote, Deacon shows that once these functional specializations are accounted for that this "progress" disappears.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. @res
    Do you really fail to notice all the rhetoric and strawmanning in articles like those?

    The rhetoric is notable in the titles (fallacies, confusing), and just continues in the paper bodies. There is a nice strawman in the abstract of your first link:

    Theories that purport to establish a linear scale for this presumed correlation between brain size and intelligence
     
    The papers I have seen do not propose a linear relationship. The correlation is not "presumed." It exists.

    In your second link they include the original authors' response to Deacon. I think this serves as a decent example of calling out a strawman:

    As for Deacon's comments about the eight "wellestablished evolutionary concepts," we put these forward as rough and approximate road-maps since It is essential to develop major parameters by which we can compare different brains In a comparative series. Instead oflooking at these as points ofreference and approximation, Deacon seems to think ofthem as etched in stone (which they are not and, In addition, there are exceptions to each of them).
     
    and this:

    We are totally puzzled about what Deacon means when he states that we ignore the influence of unique peripheral and functional specializations of dolphins on structure-function relations that are likely to be crucial in the explanation of many unique features of dolphin cortex. We refer Deacon to the many papers we cite here that fully describe our views on these matters. They have not been neglected in our studies; we hope that our many papers in the field will attest to that.
     
    P.S. An added treat in that second link is the excerpt at the end criticizing some SMPY findings of sex differences in SAT-M results because of inadequate attention to socialization. The more things change...

    And here is the rest of the quote of the first abstract:

    and intelligence are undermined by the absence of an unbiased allometric baseline for estimating differences in encephalization, by the incompatibility of allometric analyses at different taxonomic levels, by the nonlinearity of the “criterion of subtraction” used to partition the somatic and cognitive components of encephalization, and by the failure to independently demonstrate any cognitive basis for the regularity of brain~body allometry

    In your second link they include the original authors’ response to Deacon. I think this serves as a decent example of calling out a strawman

    I don’t think that’s a misrepresentation. If you read the first paper he goes through functional specialization and allometry and shows that when controlled, the so-called ‘progress’ in brain size vanishes. Deacon also has a paper “Rethinking mammalian brain evolution” that is relevant here as well.

    In regards to the second quote, Deacon shows that once these functional specializations are accounted for that this “progress” disappears.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    And here is the rest of the quote of the first abstract:
     
    Right. First you set up the strawman, then you knock it down. That's how strawmanning works. It would not be a good strawman if you lacked a decent argument against it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. @Afrosapiens

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria):
     
    These are annual means though, although the northern part receive more sunlight throughout the year because of its drier climate, its Harmattan season is more severe. Also, I suspect that dusty haze poses more visibility issues than simple clouds.

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.
     
    I doubt it, first I can't access the article. secondly, an increase over 5 years just indicates that this phenomenon highly fluctuates in intensity, instead of being recent.

    Wikipedia says:

    The Harmattan blows during the dry season, which occurs during the lowest-sun months, when the subtropical ridge of high pressure stays over the central Sahara Desert and when the low-pressure Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) stays over the Gulf of Guinea. On its passage over the Sahara, it picks up fine dust and sand particles (between 0.5 and 10 microns).

    So the Harmattan must have existed since the Sahara, the subtropical ridge, the intertropical convergence zone and the Gulf of Guinea have been at their current location.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:
    with the language in your linked blog post:
     
    Yes, this comment is advertisement, the blog post is a more serious effort. As for this post being speculative, yes it is, I won't claim I did extensive field research. As for the data being poor, yes it is. All craniometric data is poor, but the data I use is still much better than Lynn & cie.

    Here is a map of sunshine duration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. res says:
    @Afrosapiens

    This plot of direct normal irradiance (DNI, see https://firstgreenconsulting.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/differentiate-between-the-dni-dhi-and-ghi/ for definition of DNI and comparison to other solar measures) seems suggestive (note southern Nigeria):
     
    These are annual means though, although the northern part receive more sunlight throughout the year because of its drier climate, its Harmattan season is more severe. Also, I suspect that dusty haze poses more visibility issues than simple clouds.

    Is there any evidence for the long term (millenia) trend in the Harmattan Haze? This paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258898775_Harmattan_Haze
    shows a significant increase in hazy days from 1962 to 1973 which makes it appear possible it is more a modern phenomenon.
     
    I doubt it, first I can't access the article. secondly, an increase over 5 years just indicates that this phenomenon highly fluctuates in intensity, instead of being recent.

    Wikipedia says:

    The Harmattan blows during the dry season, which occurs during the lowest-sun months, when the subtropical ridge of high pressure stays over the central Sahara Desert and when the low-pressure Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) stays over the Gulf of Guinea. On its passage over the Sahara, it picks up fine dust and sand particles (between 0.5 and 10 microns).

    So the Harmattan must have existed since the Sahara, the subtropical ridge, the intertropical convergence zone and the Gulf of Guinea have been at their current location.

    It is interesting to contrast the language in your comment here:
    with the language in your linked blog post:
     
    Yes, this comment is advertisement, the blog post is a more serious effort. As for this post being speculative, yes it is, I won't claim I did extensive field research. As for the data being poor, yes it is. All craniometric data is poor, but the data I use is still much better than Lynn & cie.

    These are annual means though, although the northern part receive more sunlight throughout the year because of its drier climate, its Harmattan season is more severe. Also, I suspect that dusty haze poses more visibility issues than simple clouds.

    Right about the means. Unclear to me whether means or minimum light/visibility would matter more. Either seems plausible to me.

    The paper is at libgen with DOI 10.1002/j.1477-8696.1979.tb03389.x

    Thanks for the Wikipedia mention. Do you have a sense for when all those conditions started being true? Looking just at the Sahara I see onset of desertification at 9500 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Nubians

    That is later than out of Africa. Which appears to have been order 50k-80k years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-dna-human-history.html
    Giving less time for evolution to act than e.g. cold winters, but more than for e.g. agriculture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Right about the means. Unclear to me whether means or minimum light/visibility would matter more. Either seems plausible to me.
     
    I assume sight has to adapt to short days. That's why the arctic, with its endless winter nights selected for improved sight in order to still hunt and gather during these long months. And although the day is endless in the summer which balances the annual average, it's really the minimum that matters.

    In the tropics, the day lasts 12 hours (6am - 6pm) every month of the year, but the haze can significantly reduce visibility and result in several days without actual sunrise.
    http://jalta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MosqueinAbuja-1280x640.jpg

    That is later than out of Africa. Which appears to have been order 50k-80k years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-dna-human-history.html
    Giving less time for evolution to act than e.g. cold winters, but more than for e.g. agriculture.
     
    Irrelevant. Malaria adaptations started 10K years ago too, yet they are fixated in concerned populations. "Cold winter" genes aren't, there are some physiological adaptations though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_malaria#Origin_and_prehistoric_period
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_and_heat_adaptations_in_humans

    Anyway, those +1350cc West African samples exist in a number that is sufficient to contradict the cold winter theory. So they may exist for no particular reason, or they may vindicate another theory. The issue is I can't find eye characteristics data to see if their is concordance with cranial capacity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    And here is the rest of the quote of the first abstract:

    and intelligence are undermined by the absence of an unbiased allometric baseline for estimating differences in encephalization, by the incompatibility of allometric analyses at different taxonomic levels, by the nonlinearity of the "criterion of subtraction" used to partition the somatic and cognitive components of encephalization, and by the failure to independently demonstrate any cognitive basis for the regularity of brain~body allometry

    In your second link they include the original authors’ response to Deacon. I think this serves as a decent example of calling out a strawman
     
    I don't think that's a misrepresentation. If you read the first paper he goes through functional specialization and allometry and shows that when controlled, the so-called 'progress' in brain size vanishes. Deacon also has a paper "Rethinking mammalian brain evolution" that is relevant here as well.

    In regards to the second quote, Deacon shows that once these functional specializations are accounted for that this "progress" disappears.

    And here is the rest of the quote of the first abstract:

    Right. First you set up the strawman, then you knock it down. That’s how strawmanning works. It would not be a good strawman if you lacked a decent argument against it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. @res

    These are annual means though, although the northern part receive more sunlight throughout the year because of its drier climate, its Harmattan season is more severe. Also, I suspect that dusty haze poses more visibility issues than simple clouds.

     

    Right about the means. Unclear to me whether means or minimum light/visibility would matter more. Either seems plausible to me.

    The paper is at libgen with DOI 10.1002/j.1477-8696.1979.tb03389.x

    Thanks for the Wikipedia mention. Do you have a sense for when all those conditions started being true? Looking just at the Sahara I see onset of desertification at 9500 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Nubians

    That is later than out of Africa. Which appears to have been order 50k-80k years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-dna-human-history.html
    Giving less time for evolution to act than e.g. cold winters, but more than for e.g. agriculture.

    Right about the means. Unclear to me whether means or minimum light/visibility would matter more. Either seems plausible to me.

    I assume sight has to adapt to short days. That’s why the arctic, with its endless winter nights selected for improved sight in order to still hunt and gather during these long months. And although the day is endless in the summer which balances the annual average, it’s really the minimum that matters.

    In the tropics, the day lasts 12 hours (6am – 6pm) every month of the year, but the haze can significantly reduce visibility and result in several days without actual sunrise.

    That is later than out of Africa. Which appears to have been order 50k-80k years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/science/ancient-dna-human-history.html
    Giving less time for evolution to act than e.g. cold winters, but more than for e.g. agriculture.

    Irrelevant. Malaria adaptations started 10K years ago too, yet they are fixated in concerned populations. “Cold winter” genes aren’t, there are some physiological adaptations though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_malaria#Origin_and_prehistoric_period

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

    Anyway, those +1350cc West African samples exist in a number that is sufficient to contradict the cold winter theory. So they may exist for no particular reason, or they may vindicate another theory. The issue is I can’t find eye characteristics data to see if their is concordance with cranial capacity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. The Chinese results are only that high because of the large percentage of Chinese students that hail from rich and relatively well-educated parents (who, of course, are generally considerably smarter than the average person in China) in China who did everything within their power to make sure their children got to attend school in a Western country or who had the good sense to try to study and work hard to get themselves into a Western country (and then succeeded in doing so), where they then had children who, of course, tend to share these positive traits with them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  258. Sean says:

    .. race as a “now you see it, now you don’t” variable.

    Quite, but they WANT you to give all those biological explanations. Because they but not you can win by talking about race .

    Terms like “Whites” or “Blacks” have no meaning because race does not exist . The people who know better than to accept such essentialist categories as white or black can nonetheless use them to condemn whites as such, but no-one is going to be listened to who uses the same categories as part of the case for the defence.

    A plaintiff demanding damages for a broken leg cannot ask at the same time that his leg not be talked about, nor take offense when the defendant presents evidence that the injury was congenital. By claiming harm he opens the question of why his leg is game. Claiming racial harm has opened the topic of race differences.”

    Yes, and anti-racists want that topic talked about, because mentioning those biological differences is a trap, one there is no way out of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    One lie repeated thousand times...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. Factorize says:

    Afrosapiens, is it true that Africa has no nerds?

    I am sure that if you have been in the Euroasia environment you have encountered the phenotype.
    Somewhere I encountered the comment that Africa is a nerd free zone.
    Is this true?

    Surely something so inexplicable deserves in-depth exploration in a blog post.

    How could there be none of my people there?
    African Nerd Homeland NOW!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Lol!

    Africa has very few people who own computers and various other high tech products, few people who live in their basement, spending days reading books which are unavailable to most.

    But like the rest of the world, it has many introverts who are socially awkward, which is the common denominator of all nerds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. dux.ie says: