The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ron Unz ArchiveBlogview
When Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman Still Had an IQ of 260
Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman.  Credit: Wikimedia Creative Commons
Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman. Credit: Wikimedia Creative Commons
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

For months the business headlines of America’s leading media outlets have been charting the looming downfall of Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, now on the verge of losing control of his enormous media company to Shari Redstone, the once-estranged daughter of controlling shareholder Sumner Redstone. Just a few years ago, he was America’s highest-paid chief executive, with his rise to power chronicled in a massive 4,000 word New York Times profile, which absorbed much of the front page of the Business Section. And now he is seemingly more focused on negotiating his exit package, with his fall partly matching the decline in his corporate share price.

But even more remarkable than his fall in business stature has been the new-found silence on his tested intelligence, which for years had been described as corresponding to an IQ in the range of 260, very possibly the highest ever recorded in the history of the human species.

What’s that? Doesn’t that woman who has for decades provided a “Dear Abby” type letter-column in Parade Magazine have the world’s highest IQ? Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of God and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen years back? And weren’t their IQs merely in the low 200s at most, so surely everyone would have heard if America’s highest-paid CEO were also its greatest national genius, thereby confirming the financial reward-structure of our strictly-meritocratic economy? How did our flawless elite media somehow manage to miss the story?

The facts were hardly buried in the small print. For years, his fawning media profiles, at least going back to a 1995 Forbes cover story, have emphasized his exceptional youthful brilliance by noting that he scored a perfect 1600 on the SATs at the tender age of thirteen, a personal detail that his publicists ensured was repeated in numerous other MSM outlets over the years, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters.

Now as it happens, scoring a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT is hardly a trivial achievement at any age. The overwhelming majority of high-performing high school seniors had taken the exam, and most years those scoring 1600 numbered only in the single digits, occasionally reaching a dozen or so. The exam also had a very high correlation with IQ test results, and indeed the late Henry Harpending once noted that a reasonable case could be made that the old SAT constituted the best high-end intelligence test in the world, being normed on such an enormous population group. Considering that only a small handful of our brightest 17-year-olds annually got a perfect score, an individual who casually achieved that same remarkable feat at the age of 13 must possess an almost superhuman intellect.

By contrast, consider a far lesser mortal such as mathematician Jordan Ellenberg, whose mundane achievements are summarized in his unadorned Wikipedia page. As a child prodigy, he taught himself to read at the age of two, and by fourth grade was a champion in high school math competitions. He went on to win Gold Medals with perfect scores in two different International Math Olympiads, took second place in the national Intel/Westinghouse Science Talent Search, and twice achieved the remarkable honor of being a Putnam Fellow in math at Harvard, where he earned both his A.B. and Ph.D.; later, he also wrote a novel that was a finalist in a national fiction prize. These are hardly intellectual distinctions to sneeze at, and his perfect 1600 on the SAT was fully in keeping with his obvious ability. Indeed, since he got that perfect score as a high school junior, he was very possibly the youngest such student that year in the entire country. However, that last achievement likely came at the age of 16, while his scores at an earlier age were far lower. Indeed, if we exclude young Dauman, I’m not sure there’s ever been a single student under the age of 15 or 16 who ever got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 exam.

I have little doubt that if American journalists were a bit more conversant with the higher reaches of academic testing, Dauman’s remarkable test scores would have constituted the headline focus of each of his media profiles, easily eclipsing his wealth or his corporate position. After all, if an individual selected as the new CEO of some large company had also invented a functioning teleportation device as a teenager, which achievement would receive greater national recognition?

In 1985 Harvard’s Robert Klitgaard published his influential book Choosing Elites on our meritocratic methods of college admissions, with a significant focus on academic tests such as the SAT. In a long, extended footnote (pp. 234-235), he provided a intriguing table presenting the rough equivalency between V+M SAT results and Stanford-Binet childhood IQ scores. While I can’t say whether the estimates are correct, they don’t seem unreasonable to me, and I’m not aware of anything better elsewhere. Although the paucity of data causes the actual table to end at IQ=190, it seems pretty clear that a pre-1995 V+M SAT score of 1600 taken at the usual age of 17 would roughly correspond to an IQ=200. When individuals score beyond the validity of tests, we are faced with problems of extrapolation, and perhaps the least-bad approach would be to apply the old-fashioned age-ratio-method of intelligence-testing, suggesting that Dauman’s score of 1600 at the age of 13 corresponded to an IQ of over 260.

ORDER IT NOW

Dauman may be as modest as he is brilliant, and it’s intriguing that after his stupendous SAT scores were mentioned in that glowing 2012 NYT profile, they seem to have disappeared from subsequent media mention despite nearly two decades of emphasis, and I very much doubt that my short item characterizing him as “The Third Greatest Genius in Human History” was the primary cause. A cynical observer might even suspect that he had been slightly “embellishing” his scores for all those years, and his lawyers and publicists finally persuaded him to stop doing so.

But this could not possibly be the case. After all, consider the case of poor Scott Thompson, a PayPal executive appointed Yahoo CEO in early 2012. He claimed that decades earlier he had earned his undergraduate degree at obscure Stonehill College, majoring in accounting and computer science, but when it was revealed that his major had solely been in accounting, the controversy forced his immediate resignation.

Meanwhile, Dauman has been locked in an exceptionally bitter battle for control against his mentor’s daughter over Viacom, a media empire worth tens of billions of dollars. If there were even the slightest possibility that he had actually spent decades making utterly preposterous claims about his academic ability, casually assuming that these would never be noticed by the totally credulous and ignorant journalists of the mainstream media, her crack teams of researchers would surely have already uncovered that fact and used it to destroy him. Thus, Dauman’s IQ surely must be in the 260 range, and if he does ultimately lose his control over MTV and Comedy Central, the world might be the beneficiary, if he chooses to focus his vast intellect on finding an immortality serum or a means of traveling faster than light.

 

On an entirely different matter, I just spent a couple of days reading yet another POW book, Kiss the Boys Goodbye by Monika Jensen-Stevenson and William Stevenson, which left me rather puzzled. Published in 1990 at a point when nearly 70% of the American public believed that there were live POWs still held in Southeast Asia, this text provided remarkable claims of US government involvement in a massive cover-up, along with the sordid motives supposedly responsible. In various later anti-POW books, several former military men who said that they had directly seen imprisoned POWs were dismissed in a few paragraphs as obvious con-men or liars, mostly based on official records; here, those same individuals were discussed and interviewed for pages and finally judged to be credible, while accusations were made that the government was organizing a massive smear campaign against them, including the fabrication of false testimony aimed at destroying their reputations.

The book itself is written in a rather breezy style, and given its shocking claims, I would normally have extreme doubts about its credibility. But the primary author was an award-winning producer at Sixty Minutes, who spent over five years working on the POW project, while her husband and co-author had considerable expertise in intelligence and military matters, especially related to Southeast Asia, and had written a sheaf of books on those topics, including the best-seller A Man Called Intrepid. Many of the charges of government cover-up and conspiracy are based on direct personal experience, so unless we assume that she is a liar or a lunatic, they would seem likely to be correct. And if even merely 10% of the book’s claims are correct, then the POWs almost certainly did exist. So my overall verdict on this new material is “I just don’t know.” Unfortunately, these days I do take this sort of “conspiracy book” much more seriously than I might have six or seven years ago.

Finally, one of John McCain’s wartime propaganda broadcasts for the Communists has now been unearthed and released, exactly confirming some of the material I described in my article last year.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, IQ, McCain/POW 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen

    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I've known Ron use the careful Jewish "G-d" so I infer that he was not, on this occasion, conceding that the high IQ loon he was referring to had any claim at all to be able to say anything valid about the Abrahamic deity which is, I presume, the one you want to honour with name capitaization.

    Which gods do you think should be capitalised and why? Do you think it proper to avoid El or Jahweh when referring to the Hebrew G/god of the Torah? Should Malaysian Christians be allowed to refer to their G/god as Allah?

    Should our host Ron Unz even bother to reply to an anonymous boor who thinks it acceptable to call him an "asshole"?
    , @oh its just me too
    "In not capitalizing God,"
    Do you know what "[sic]" means?
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Who knew that idiots could learn to troll.
    , @dearieme
    I took it that the existence of god had been proved, rather than the existence of the Jehovah chappy often referred to as "God".
    , @anon
    obvious zionist plot
    , @Anonymous
    Some people would say that people capitalizing the word "God" are disrespectful. Words are labels for thoughts and ideas. Capitalizing "God" limits the ideas and thoughts to the Christian god--which could alienate readers. While you would be happy, some other reader would leave a snarky reply in the space occupied by yours. Anyway, God really doesn't care if you capitalize her name or not.
    , @Hibernian
    A god whose existence can be proved mathematically is not God.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1521448
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. In college I was friends with one of America’s semi-famous high IQs, someone you probably have at least seen or heard of in passing. He was a decent enough person to know and talk to, but the long-term arc of his eccentric life actually makes him look stupid.

    I’m merely a poorly educated 99th percentile schmoe, but my honest take on my super genius friend is that he is good at figuring out IQ problems and nothing else.

    Read More
    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I’m merely a poorly educated 99th percentile schmoe, but my honest take on my super genius friend is that he is good at figuring out IQ problems and nothing else.
     
    SAT, as an example, has nothing to do with math (a real one), it is merely a collection of cascading "smart-ass" tests within a very narrow required knowledge field. IQ and knowledge are not the same. No matter IQ but if one doesn't know basic trigonometric identities or what real physics is, no IQ will help. Of course, there are also always advanced placement tests but in any case, I am sure that all those 1600 SAT kids, if they are products of run-of-the-mill US public school, they will have a lot of trouble passing entrance exams into serious STEM schools in Europe. E.G. some Russian top notch universities retained the right to mandate entrance exams. Good luck to 1600 SAT kids taking those exams, which do require actual serious knowledge in mathematics and physics, not just IQ.
  3. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    No such a thing as a IQ above about maybe 160… that’s my input.duh… 260…? not possible!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well there do seem to be supervening interface problems once the brain achieves the speeds necessary for very high IQ scores. How much can you take in and process if you are listening to a lecture delivered at 140 words a minute? How much more than the thoroughly prepared student with an IQ of 120? And so on?
  4. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    You have to have some base… to figure, a way to gauge it.You know one of the funny things about IQ is, that we, Me and maybe you, suffer from problems of emotional nature. These problems of an emotional nature, severly impair our abilities of intellegence Quotients. I know, I am severly impaired by emotional stresses. It is a thing that most folks and many of color, suffer from… Emotional volitility… it kills your ability to channel your brain… to focus.. no small problem.

    You know they say we only use a small % of the potential of the Brain… and even the dumbest dambed Black dude probably has a pretty good breain, if he cauld use some of it…!

    What a waste and that is something that should be rectified… No I don’t mean be nice to murderers.. I mean find some way to channel the muferfuckes brain.. get the dambed thiln working for good, instead of baddness!

    Read More
  5. Inheriting vast sums of money that goes on for generations is wrong.

    These vast sums should not be accumulated in the first place – they are NOT deserved in the first place. But that is something that must be talked about.

    The Walton family may be the nicest people on the Earth (and I hope they are) but they absolutely do not deserve their wealth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What has deserts in your, or anyone else's opinion, got to do with it?

    Apart from ensuring that people have the incentive to make businesses profitable and grow do you not need to provide legal stability and predictability as well as banks that aren't raided arbitrarily by tyrants (rather as happened to Jews in the Middle Ages) if you are to have a flourishing economy?
    , @Clyde

    The Walton family may be the nicest people on the Earth (and I hope they are) but they absolutely do not deserve their wealth.
     
    When they are in need of an anti-Semitic obsessive they will put you on their hasbara payroll. For you the world revolves around Jews and Israel.
    , @Kyle a
    My opinion is the opposite....inheriting vast sums of money and then giving it away though altruistic endeavors... Crazy.
    , @Sherman
    Hi Little Art

    You owe a debt of gratitude to the Walton family.

    If it wasn't for Walmart where would you buy your favorite food - canned PORK and beans?

    Sherm
  6. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Well just to recant.. I’m not much of a believer in so called IQ even though I test rather high… I just don’t trust the concept…

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Life is an IQ test...the only one that really matters, no?

    I'm a member of Colloquy Society and can say authoritatively that not all high IQ people can actually connect reality's dots.
  7. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    what machete in Belgium…. I didn’t realize they had plantations in Belgium… you know where they need Machete’s… to cut the sugur cane and other stuff.

    Read More
  8. @Anonymous

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen
     
    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    I’ve known Ron use the careful Jewish “G-d” so I infer that he was not, on this occasion, conceding that the high IQ loon he was referring to had any claim at all to be able to say anything valid about the Abrahamic deity which is, I presume, the one you want to honour with name capitaization.

    Which gods do you think should be capitalised and why? Do you think it proper to avoid El or Jahweh when referring to the Hebrew G/god of the Torah? Should Malaysian Christians be allowed to refer to their G/god as Allah?

    Should our host Ron Unz even bother to reply to an anonymous boor who thinks it acceptable to call him an “asshole”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle a
    Didn't you get the memo from a century ago? Gods dead.
    , @Jonathan Revusky
    How recursive. A troll getting trolled by another troll.
    , @JamesG
    Believing as I do that diversity can solve all our problems, I make a point of sometimes referring to G-d as "-od" or "Go-."
  9. @edNels


    No such a thing as a IQ above about maybe 160... that's my input.duh... 260...? not possible!

    Well there do seem to be supervening interface problems once the brain achieves the speeds necessary for very high IQ scores. How much can you take in and process if you are listening to a lecture delivered at 140 words a minute? How much more than the thoroughly prepared student with an IQ of 120? And so on?

    Read More
  10. @Art
    Inheriting vast sums of money that goes on for generations is wrong.

    These vast sums should not be accumulated in the first place – they are NOT deserved in the first place. But that is something that must be talked about.

    The Walton family may be the nicest people on the Earth (and I hope they are) but they absolutely do not deserve their wealth.

    What has deserts in your, or anyone else’s opinion, got to do with it?

    Apart from ensuring that people have the incentive to make businesses profitable and grow do you not need to provide legal stability and predictability as well as banks that aren’t raided arbitrarily by tyrants (rather as happened to Jews in the Middle Ages) if you are to have a flourishing economy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    "...banks that aren’t raided arbitrarily by tyrants (rather as happened to Jews in the Middle Ages) if you are to have a flourishing economy?"


    ...Sure, let's let Goldman Sachs continue their revolving door policy at the Treasury and at all levels of the R and D machine, so they can skew legislation to guarantee profits and form "tax- free charitable foundations" whereby they can fund various think-tanks and fund university endowments so their money-grubbing inter-generational skimming and fleecing operations can provide you with a reality that we live "in a flourishing economy."
  11. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It’s impressive that Dauman has demonstrated such great capability. However, glancing at his Wikipedia profile it appears he spent most of his life in material accumulation for himself, climbing the career ladder. Only later in life did he involve himself in philanthropy as many well off people do. The great minds of history have made contributions to the world whereas he busied himself becoming chairman of Viacom, something hardly anyone who is not personally involved with would care about. This reminds me of that ridiculous ad campaign ‘a mind is a terrible thing to waste’, he and the genius bartender both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Most philanthropy of wealthy people just spreads leftist misery. The foundations set up by Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, etc., are all run by leftist ideologues sowing evil everywhere they touch.
  12. Ron

    Could you please post a transcript of the McCain broadcast tht you regard as accurate and complete. I found the audio too difficult to hear and my searches for a transcript only turned up one said to be “revised”.

    It seems extraordinary that only one such recording has turned up if there were several broadcasts. How could that be? There apppear to be plenty of interviews.

    Read More
  13. Maybe Philippe Dauman like UK’s ‘tabloid king’ Mazher Mahmood needs to look into some of his dirty laundry for his downfall.

    For over 20 years Mazher Mahmood was one of the most famous journalists in United Kingdom. He won multiple awards for a string of exclusives mostly obtained in his persona as the Fake Sheikh when he pretended to be a rich Middle Eastern businessman to fool the unsuspecting into revealing secrets or revealing crimes. He has secured the criminal convictions of over 94 people during his association with the News of the World and the Sun tabloid.

    Mahmood’s trouble started when he dragged singer and former X Factor judge Tulisa Contostavlos (Jewish) into court on charges of brokering a cocaine deal in July 2014. Judge Alistair McCreath threw out the case against Tulisa Contostavlos based on secret filming by Mahmood’s team. As result, Mahmood was fired by Rupert Murdoch owned the Sun.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/08/07/british-fake-sheikh-and-the-jews/

    Read More
  14. @Anonymous

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen
     
    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    “In not capitalizing God,”
    Do you know what “[sic]” means?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Are you suggesting that Ron had used it so that Anonymous had either ignored it or didn't know what meant? If so, you should have checked and found yhat you had no premise to your argument.
  15. @Art
    Inheriting vast sums of money that goes on for generations is wrong.

    These vast sums should not be accumulated in the first place – they are NOT deserved in the first place. But that is something that must be talked about.

    The Walton family may be the nicest people on the Earth (and I hope they are) but they absolutely do not deserve their wealth.

    The Walton family may be the nicest people on the Earth (and I hope they are) but they absolutely do not deserve their wealth.

    When they are in need of an anti-Semitic obsessive they will put you on their hasbara payroll. For you the world revolves around Jews and Israel.

    Read More
  16. @Art
    Inheriting vast sums of money that goes on for generations is wrong.

    These vast sums should not be accumulated in the first place – they are NOT deserved in the first place. But that is something that must be talked about.

    The Walton family may be the nicest people on the Earth (and I hope they are) but they absolutely do not deserve their wealth.

    My opinion is the opposite….inheriting vast sums of money and then giving it away though altruistic endeavors… Crazy.

    Read More
  17. @Wizard of Oz
    I've known Ron use the careful Jewish "G-d" so I infer that he was not, on this occasion, conceding that the high IQ loon he was referring to had any claim at all to be able to say anything valid about the Abrahamic deity which is, I presume, the one you want to honour with name capitaization.

    Which gods do you think should be capitalised and why? Do you think it proper to avoid El or Jahweh when referring to the Hebrew G/god of the Torah? Should Malaysian Christians be allowed to refer to their G/god as Allah?

    Should our host Ron Unz even bother to reply to an anonymous boor who thinks it acceptable to call him an "asshole"?

    Didn’t you get the memo from a century ago? Gods dead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It was redundant. My great-grandfather killed Him and bequeathed those in the senior male line His head on a wall plaque.
  18. The 260 number is preposterous. A 1600 SAT for a 13-year-old is not. Calculating using the “age ratio” method and combining that with the standard deviation is simply innumerate.

    I know Ron is very smart and knows how IQ works, but his tomfoolery here falls flat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Well such a number as 260 (more than 10 standard deviations above the mean of a sd15 test) probably implies that no human who ever lived (say, 10 billion) could have it.

    As an age ratio it may have been a best guess when he was a kid. We know that such outstanding results from childhood tend to revert somewhat to the mean -- but only somewhat. And he never even pursued STEM where the analytical and spatial abilities are exercised. So what number do you like? 250? 220?

    If 1600 is an IQ of 200 at age 17, which is not far from adulthood in testing terms (though not really there for the most gifted) then he's got to be well over 200.
  19. Unz,

    Nice missives.

    I may write in Ron Paul for Pres & Ron Unz for VP – in November, unless the Decembrists come to our rescue.

    About IQ: I graduated in the top 90% of my class.

    Additionally: My girlfriend is not interested in my IQ.

    For the Democratic Republic!

    Read More
  20. @Wizard of Oz
    I've known Ron use the careful Jewish "G-d" so I infer that he was not, on this occasion, conceding that the high IQ loon he was referring to had any claim at all to be able to say anything valid about the Abrahamic deity which is, I presume, the one you want to honour with name capitaization.

    Which gods do you think should be capitalised and why? Do you think it proper to avoid El or Jahweh when referring to the Hebrew G/god of the Torah? Should Malaysian Christians be allowed to refer to their G/god as Allah?

    Should our host Ron Unz even bother to reply to an anonymous boor who thinks it acceptable to call him an "asshole"?

    How recursive. A troll getting trolled by another troll.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And so recursion recurses? Are you one of the tortoises all the way down?
    , @Clyde

    How recursive. A troll getting trolled by another troll.
     
    So sayeth the master of false flag trolling.
  21. He “seem to have disappeared from subsequent media mention despite nearly two decades of emphasis”

    That alone in my opinion indicates high intelligence AND common sense.

    Read More
  22. That Philipe is one rare bird. If we were to accept for argument the simplifications that average IQ is 100 and that IQ has a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of 15, then by my calculation with 130 million humans being born every year, we can expect a Philippe Dauman with an IQ of 260 to be born about once every 1 billion years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    There is one flaw in your argument (not that I disagree fundamentally). There is also the assumption in your reasoning that there is only one population to which the Gaussian distribution applies.

    To illustrate the point the much maligned (Sir) Cyril Burt found there to be a number of English schoolboys with IQs over 170 that was completely inconsistent with there being one intermarrying English population of average IQ 100. The answer is of course to be found in Greg Clark's "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World". The smart and successful are still breeding with the smart but alas their fertility has crashed.

    The equal or bigger lump at the left end of the Bell Curve could of course have other causes such as illness in pregnancy.

    , @FKA Max
    Plus, Philippe Dauman is only around maybe 5'8'' to 5'9'' tall/short. I couldn't find his height exactly, but in the following photo he stands next to rapper Kendrick Lamar, who is said to be around 5'5'' tall/short: http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Philippe+Dauman/2016+MTV+Upfront+Skylight+Moynihan+Station/r8X1nKLiYAD

    In analyzing data from the study, the team found what they describe as a "significant genetic correlation" between IQ and height—between taller and shorter people. Those that were shorter were on average, found to be slightly less intelligent than their taller counterparts. It's important to note that the researchers are not suggesting that all short people are less intelligent, or that all tall people are more intelligent. Instead they are pointing out averages across a population. Also important to note is that the Family Health Study did not use standard IQ tests to measure intelligence.
     

    - http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-genetic-link-height-iq.html

    If Philippe Dauman was in the 6'2''+ height range, I would believe the tall tale more readily.

    But I agree with Mr. Unz:


    ... the world might be the beneficiary, if he chooses to focus his vast intellect on finding an immortality serum or a means of traveling faster than light.
     
  23. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Buzz Mohawk
    In college I was friends with one of America's semi-famous high IQs, someone you probably have at least seen or heard of in passing. He was a decent enough person to know and talk to, but the long-term arc of his eccentric life actually makes him look stupid.

    I'm merely a poorly educated 99th percentile schmoe, but my honest take on my super genius friend is that he is good at figuring out IQ problems and nothing else.

    I’m merely a poorly educated 99th percentile schmoe, but my honest take on my super genius friend is that he is good at figuring out IQ problems and nothing else.

    SAT, as an example, has nothing to do with math (a real one), it is merely a collection of cascading “smart-ass” tests within a very narrow required knowledge field. IQ and knowledge are not the same. No matter IQ but if one doesn’t know basic trigonometric identities or what real physics is, no IQ will help. Of course, there are also always advanced placement tests but in any case, I am sure that all those 1600 SAT kids, if they are products of run-of-the-mill US public school, they will have a lot of trouble passing entrance exams into serious STEM schools in Europe. E.G. some Russian top notch universities retained the right to mandate entrance exams. Good luck to 1600 SAT kids taking those exams, which do require actual serious knowledge in mathematics and physics, not just IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @grey enlightenment2
    SAT, as an example, has nothing to do with math (a real one), it is merely a collection of cascading “smart-ass” tests within a very narrow required knowledge field. IQ and knowledge are not the same. No matter IQ but if one doesn’t know basic trigonometric identities or what real physics is, no IQ will help. Of course, there are also always advanced placement tests but in any case, I am sure that all those 1600 SAT kids, if they are products of run-of-the-mill US public school, they will have a lot of trouble passing entrance exams into serious STEM schools in Europe. E.G. some Russian top notch universities retained the right to mandate entrance exams. Good luck to 1600 SAT kids taking those exams, which do require actual serious knowledge in mathematics and physics, not just IQ.

    I keep hearing that argument 'the SAT /IQ tests only measure 'puzzle skills', not hard problems' . lol but it just so happens that those kids who score well on the SAT also have the potential to do well at the harder stuff too, while those who score poorly tend to do crappy service sector jobs when the grow up (although there are always exceptions) . While not every high scorer will produce original scientific research, all successful researchers scored well on the SAT
  24. I’m not very good with math but here’s what I get from excel’s normdist function. A 220 IQ is 0.999999999999999 (that’s 15 “9’s) and the calculated rarity one in 1,501,199,875,790,170 ( I think that’s 1.5 quadrillion ?). It won’t even calculate the number for a 260 IQ. It’ just gives “1” for percentile and div/0 for rarity.

    Read More
  25. @Kyle a
    Didn't you get the memo from a century ago? Gods dead.

    It was redundant. My great-grandfather killed Him and bequeathed those in the senior male line His head on a wall plaque.

    Read More
  26. @Jonathan Revusky
    How recursive. A troll getting trolled by another troll.

    And so recursion recurses? Are you one of the tortoises all the way down?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    And so recursion recurses? Are you one of the tortoises all the way down?
     
    To troll who trolls a troll is known as a metatroll. In this case you were the metatroll. Revusky then was metatrolling the metatroll. Etc...
  27. @oh its just me too
    "In not capitalizing God,"
    Do you know what "[sic]" means?

    Are you suggesting that Ron had used it so that Anonymous had either ignored it or didn’t know what meant? If so, you should have checked and found yhat you had no premise to your argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "what *it* meant" of course i.e. what "sic" meant....
  28. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    A cynical observer might even suspect that he had been slightly “embellishing” his scores for all those years, and his lawyers and publicists finally persuaded him to stop doing so

    West in general (USA faster, Europe slower) is in the process of rejecting knowledge and ability to use it, which also comes with the upbringing and knowledge bearer’s character, as the criterion of professional and human adequacy. Yet, it seems to embrace “high IQ” psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing. Whole US public education system is rigged for that–it stopped giving systemic knowledge in any field long ago and substituted it with indoctrination and “informing” students precisely for performance within confines of IQ-driven SAT or whatever other tests there are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    In your trenchant and justified remarks you still omitted some glories of US academia, such as recommendation letters and application essays.
    , @artichoke
    Public school per se didn't prepare a student to do really well on the old SAT. You had to read literate stuff and be a bit clever on math. Maybe more rigorous math (super-accelerated) would help a bit, because it does teach rigorous thinking if the student knuckles down and does it. That can help the highly gifted appear a bit more highly gifted.

    Now the SAT is supposedly less g-intensive, but the intention was never to match exactly the school curriculum. Until the new SAT as of last year, the "common core" SAT, which is supposed to match common core. It definitely requires less literacy (or, only literacy and not high level linguistic or literary skill) if it sticks to common core standards. I blame the testing industry. Teachers can only work with what they've got, and part of it is that the teachers themselves can't teach kids who are vastly brighter than they are very effectively. Sometimes also, it must be said, they hate those kids.

    It is true that the testing industry is in a conspiracy to prevent the recognition of g. I wonder if colleges are going to start being interested in alternatives like IQ test results. They already accept proxies like math olympiad results and the like, but what if you're not into that field or aren't quite to that level?
    , @rod1963
    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers, not citizens with critical thinking capabilities. And with Common Core it will produce helots. Even without CC, it's quite possible to graduate HS without really knowing much of anything or having any skills to help a graduating student in life.

    The people from the Ivies were supposed to be their masters and tell them what to think.

    Yet, it seems to embrace “high IQ” psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing

     

    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.
  29. @Alfa158
    That Philipe is one rare bird. If we were to accept for argument the simplifications that average IQ is 100 and that IQ has a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of 15, then by my calculation with 130 million humans being born every year, we can expect a Philippe Dauman with an IQ of 260 to be born about once every 1 billion years.

    There is one flaw in your argument (not that I disagree fundamentally). There is also the assumption in your reasoning that there is only one population to which the Gaussian distribution applies.

    To illustrate the point the much maligned (Sir) Cyril Burt found there to be a number of English schoolboys with IQs over 170 that was completely inconsistent with there being one intermarrying English population of average IQ 100. The answer is of course to be found in Greg Clark’s “A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World”. The smart and successful are still breeding with the smart but alas their fertility has crashed.

    The equal or bigger lump at the left end of the Bell Curve could of course have other causes such as illness in pregnancy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Correct, this was a simplification to illustrate the absurdity of the 260 claim.
    Human IQ is not an abstract mathematical function because the factors that determine intelligence and the physical limitations on IQ are not entirely random scatter points.

    One real world tabulation of IQ test scores is this famous one from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth :
    http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec24.htm

    The plots of real scores are:
    - asymmetrical and lumpy,
    - the calculated standard deviation for Blacks and Whites are respectively 9.4 and 10.2 instead of 15.
    - The curves terminates at the left end around IQ 50 where the subjects would no longer even be able to take the test, and seem to stretch out at the right more than would be expected from the SD.
    - The only thing that really matches is that the average IQs come in pretty close to the usual accepted numbers.

    Using a SD of 10.2 would make an IQ claim of 260 even more outlandish unless you assume IQ scores have a non-linear relationship to intelligence.
  30. @Wizard of Oz
    Are you suggesting that Ron had used it so that Anonymous had either ignored it or didn't know what meant? If so, you should have checked and found yhat you had no premise to your argument.

    “what *it* meant” of course i.e. what “sic” meant….

    Read More
  31. @BCB2
    I’m not very good with math but here’s what I get from excel’s normdist function. A 220 IQ is 0.999999999999999 (that’s 15 “9’s) and the calculated rarity one in 1,501,199,875,790,170 ( I think that’s 1.5 quadrillion ?). It won’t even calculate the number for a 260 IQ. It’ just gives “1” for percentile and div/0 for rarity.

    See my #29

    Read More
  32. @Alfa158
    That Philipe is one rare bird. If we were to accept for argument the simplifications that average IQ is 100 and that IQ has a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of 15, then by my calculation with 130 million humans being born every year, we can expect a Philippe Dauman with an IQ of 260 to be born about once every 1 billion years.

    Plus, Philippe Dauman is only around maybe 5’8” to 5’9” tall/short. I couldn’t find his height exactly, but in the following photo he stands next to rapper Kendrick Lamar, who is said to be around 5’5” tall/short: http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Philippe+Dauman/2016+MTV+Upfront+Skylight+Moynihan+Station/r8X1nKLiYAD

    In analyzing data from the study, the team found what they describe as a “significant genetic correlation” between IQ and height—between taller and shorter people. Those that were shorter were on average, found to be slightly less intelligent than their taller counterparts. It’s important to note that the researchers are not suggesting that all short people are less intelligent, or that all tall people are more intelligent. Instead they are pointing out averages across a population. Also important to note is that the Family Health Study did not use standard IQ tests to measure intelligence.

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-genetic-link-height-iq.html

    If Philippe Dauman was in the 6’2”+ height range, I would believe the tall tale more readily.

    But I agree with Mr. Unz:

    … the world might be the beneficiary, if he chooses to focus his vast intellect on finding an immortality serum or a means of traveling faster than light.

    Read More
  33. 260 IQ? haahah :) thanks for the laugh :)

    damn, if only ron can run for president. instant win imo. he could do alot of good with that power.

    Read More
  34. @Art
    Inheriting vast sums of money that goes on for generations is wrong.

    These vast sums should not be accumulated in the first place – they are NOT deserved in the first place. But that is something that must be talked about.

    The Walton family may be the nicest people on the Earth (and I hope they are) but they absolutely do not deserve their wealth.

    Hi Little Art

    You owe a debt of gratitude to the Walton family.

    If it wasn’t for Walmart where would you buy your favorite food – canned PORK and beans?

    Sherm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Hi Sherm,

    You are making me hungry man. I hide extra cans of PORK n beans in my room here at the home.

    I am not too popular with the folks – if you know what I mean?

    Moshe thinks it’s really funny – what a guy.

    Art

    p.s. How are the Palestinian’s beaches?
  35. Given the number and diversity of comments and my somewhat elliptical writing style, perhaps I should clarify what I was actually suggesting in my column…

    (1) I think it’s been well-established that neither IQ scores nor SAT scores are Gaussian at the very high end, having much fatter tails than would be expected.

    (2) Despite this, I think it’s exceptionally unlikely that anyone has ever gotten an IQ score as high as 260 on the Stanford-Binet test. But I also think it’s exceptionally unlikely that any 13-year-old ever got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT.

    (3) Instead, I believe it’s virtually certain that the story of Dauman’s astonishing score is merely a hoax, one which he probably originally fabricated to impress his mentor, Sumner Redstone, and then was simply repeated over and over again by the gullible media. Perhaps Dauman’s true SAT scores were quite good or perhaps they weren’t—I don’t have a clue.

    (4) Probably the main reason the media fell for such a ridiculous claim is that relatively few high-scoring students become professional journalists, so presumably most of the journalists involved had no idea that scoring 1600 at age 13 was so utterly implausible. Similarly, I’d suspect that most of the other ultra-high-IQ stories promoted by the MSM (e.g. that Montana bar-bouncer) are also more-or-less hoaxes, accepted by the MSM for similar reasons.

    (5) I’d guess that very few of the individuals in Shari Redstone’s anti-Dauman camp had very high SAT scores, so they probably also failed to notice Dauman’s ridiculous claims for exactly the same reason.

    (6) The central point of my column was less about IQ scores, and more about the tremendous gullibility of the MSM on all sorts of issues, with hoaxes sometimes taking on a life of their own and being propagated for decades. The reason I focused on Dauman’s SAT scores was (A) they were so wildly implausible and (B) even with the “opp research” due to tens of billions of dollars at stake in the Viacom control battle, his bitter opponents also hadn’t noticed the issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Someone seven years old or less, surely, could perfectly well be judged to have an IQ of 260, which would mean only that he had a calendar age of x and a mental age of 2.6x. But once 2.6x exceeded 18, such a statement would be meaningless.
    , @Daniel H
    You're making us feel small here.
  36. Guess I’m ignorant as to how IQ tests are scored. How can you even score that high on Stanford-Binet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen


    So far as I know the reliability of most IQ tests fade out at 140. A professor of IQ 120 (the average professor in the US) will find it difficult to devise a realistic test for someone of "150" IQ, although it is tried. The best that can be done is a speed trial. A lot of relatively easy questions answered quickly.
  37. … “far lesser mortal”…”took second place in the national Intel/Westinghouse Science Talent Search”…

    So, Ron, how would you characterize someone who won first place? And after only, say, four days of work?

    I know you’re making a serious point, but this follow-up to “The Third Greatest Genius in Human History” is hilarious! I couldn’t stop laughing ;)

    Read More
  38. @Jonathan Revusky
    How recursive. A troll getting trolled by another troll.

    How recursive. A troll getting trolled by another troll.

    So sayeth the master of false flag trolling.

    Read More
  39. @Anonymous

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen
     
    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    Who knew that idiots could learn to troll.

    Read More
  40. The average mental age stops increasing around age 15, I believe (as measured by fluid intelligence). The estimated IQ from the ratio should then be 15/13*200 = 230, according to the estimates in the piece.

    Oh, and one more thing. Since the SAT is multiple choice, there will be error bars on the actual score. In many cases, the test taker can eliminate some alternatives and just guess. Incidentally, the fewer guesses the test taker has to make, the higher his chances of making a perfect score by chance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I don't think it makes sense to say that someone who knew every question except one cold and correctly guessed the one remaining question, especially if it was an educated guess, made "a perfect score by chance."
  41. @Wizard of Oz
    There is one flaw in your argument (not that I disagree fundamentally). There is also the assumption in your reasoning that there is only one population to which the Gaussian distribution applies.

    To illustrate the point the much maligned (Sir) Cyril Burt found there to be a number of English schoolboys with IQs over 170 that was completely inconsistent with there being one intermarrying English population of average IQ 100. The answer is of course to be found in Greg Clark's "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World". The smart and successful are still breeding with the smart but alas their fertility has crashed.

    The equal or bigger lump at the left end of the Bell Curve could of course have other causes such as illness in pregnancy.

    Correct, this was a simplification to illustrate the absurdity of the 260 claim.
    Human IQ is not an abstract mathematical function because the factors that determine intelligence and the physical limitations on IQ are not entirely random scatter points.

    One real world tabulation of IQ test scores is this famous one from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth :

    http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec24.htm

    The plots of real scores are:
    – asymmetrical and lumpy,
    – the calculated standard deviation for Blacks and Whites are respectively 9.4 and 10.2 instead of 15.
    – The curves terminates at the left end around IQ 50 where the subjects would no longer even be able to take the test, and seem to stretch out at the right more than would be expected from the SD.
    - The only thing that really matches is that the average IQs come in pretty close to the usual accepted numbers.

    Using a SD of 10.2 would make an IQ claim of 260 even more outlandish unless you assume IQ scores have a non-linear relationship to intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    There are so many factors to take into account when it comes to IQ, SAT, etc. test scores and test taking in general besides test prepping, inherited intelligence, etc.

    - Testosterone levels https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/high-testosterone-linked-to-lowered-iq/

    - Vitamin D deficiency due to high melanin levels in the skin when living far away from the equator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Darker_skin_color

    - Iodine deficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Nutrition

    - Light eye pigmentation is favorable in higher latitudes and in the winter (Influence of eye colors of Caucasians and Asians on suppression of melatonin secretion by light.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11816051 ( and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332164 )

    Darker-eyed patients were significantly more depressed and fatigued than blue-eyed patients.
     
    To truly standardize testing, all tests would have to be taken in the same location during the same time of year, etc. I bet African-Americans, and even Whites for that matter, though they would be less affected due to their lighter skin and eye pigmentation, taking their tests in Detroit or Chicago in the winter, score lower than African-Americans being tested in Miami, San Diego, or Houston during the summer.

    Is one of the reasons Asian-Americans, besides being test taking/prepping machines, score so high on tests, because so many of them live in SoCal?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_Americans#Distribution

    If we forced all Asian-Americans (most of whom are dark-eyed) to live in Minnesota or Maine and ask them to take their tests only in the winter, would this lower their average test scores, even if all other controls/factors remain the same?

    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height:

    Few men would proudly proclaim their IQ is 109, even though men value their height just as much as their intelligence, if not more so. So why the double standard? I believe it’s because unlike height, no one can directly observe our intelligence so it’s extremely tempting to lie about it, and since everyone else is lying or very selectively and disingenuously reporting their IQ’s, massive IQ inflation occurs, and we have to greatly inflate our IQ’s just to keep them in the same rank order as everyone else’s self-reported IQ’s. [...]

    The above chart shows that a seven foot tall man has an HQ 139 points higher than a five foot tall man. Since height and IQ are correlated, does this mean seven footers are 139 IQ points smarter than five footers. No. Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.

    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher.
     
    - https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/
    , @artichoke
    The population SD on an IQ scale is essentially arbitrary when it comes to adult IQ. But maybe it's trying to match childhood (age ratio) IQ, where it is not arbitrary. What sort of IQ is on their graphs?

    By the way the page is politically correct nonsense when it claims there's no evidence for black IQ being genetically lower than white. They may demonstrate that the proof is not 100% certain, but it is 99.99% certain, well beyond what's needed to convict in criminal court for example.
  42. Reports of 260 IQ are mathematically guaranteed to be garbage.

    Either we just observed an over 8 standard deviation event (relative to any plausible value of parents’ average IQ) or the distribution is so fat-tailed that we would have seen huge numbers of IQ 200+ children from average parents.

    A list of record IQs would have many similar performances near the top, not one fellow who is multiple standard deviations ahead of everyone else. There are other prodigies who have done things by age 13 that are at least as impressive as perfect scores on the old SAT, and for many of those the recognition as prodigy at some point involves taking SAT or IQ tests. Yet we do not hear of a lot of IQ’s over 200, and when we do it is not from the people with other evidence of accomplishment. Cheating or luck or simple fabrication of results are more believable for most cases of over-200 IQ measurements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    ...except for the case of one RK Unz - though the poor old chap will.probably have gone a bit off the boil by now :-)
  43. @Ron Unz
    Given the number and diversity of comments and my somewhat elliptical writing style, perhaps I should clarify what I was actually suggesting in my column...

    (1) I think it's been well-established that neither IQ scores nor SAT scores are Gaussian at the very high end, having much fatter tails than would be expected.

    (2) Despite this, I think it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone has ever gotten an IQ score as high as 260 on the Stanford-Binet test. But I also think it's exceptionally unlikely that any 13-year-old ever got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT.

    (3) Instead, I believe it's virtually certain that the story of Dauman's astonishing score is merely a hoax, one which he probably originally fabricated to impress his mentor, Sumner Redstone, and then was simply repeated over and over again by the gullible media. Perhaps Dauman's true SAT scores were quite good or perhaps they weren't---I don't have a clue.

    (4) Probably the main reason the media fell for such a ridiculous claim is that relatively few high-scoring students become professional journalists, so presumably most of the journalists involved had no idea that scoring 1600 at age 13 was so utterly implausible. Similarly, I'd suspect that most of the other ultra-high-IQ stories promoted by the MSM (e.g. that Montana bar-bouncer) are also more-or-less hoaxes, accepted by the MSM for similar reasons.

    (5) I'd guess that very few of the individuals in Shari Redstone's anti-Dauman camp had very high SAT scores, so they probably also failed to notice Dauman's ridiculous claims for exactly the same reason.

    (6) The central point of my column was less about IQ scores, and more about the tremendous gullibility of the MSM on all sorts of issues, with hoaxes sometimes taking on a life of their own and being propagated for decades. The reason I focused on Dauman's SAT scores was (A) they were so wildly implausible and (B) even with the "opp research" due to tens of billions of dollars at stake in the Viacom control battle, his bitter opponents also hadn't noticed the issue.

    Someone seven years old or less, surely, could perfectly well be judged to have an IQ of 260, which would mean only that he had a calendar age of x and a mental age of 2.6x. But once 2.6x exceeded 18, such a statement would be meaningless.

    Read More
  44. @Andrei Martyanov

    A cynical observer might even suspect that he had been slightly “embellishing” his scores for all those years, and his lawyers and publicists finally persuaded him to stop doing so
     
    West in general (USA faster, Europe slower) is in the process of rejecting knowledge and ability to use it, which also comes with the upbringing and knowledge bearer's character, as the criterion of professional and human adequacy. Yet, it seems to embrace "high IQ" psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing. Whole US public education system is rigged for that--it stopped giving systemic knowledge in any field long ago and substituted it with indoctrination and "informing" students precisely for performance within confines of IQ-driven SAT or whatever other tests there are.

    In your trenchant and justified remarks you still omitted some glories of US academia, such as recommendation letters and application essays.

    Read More
  45. Just as Robert Wadlow wasn’t very healthy, I expect that the person with the highest IQ in human history would have experienced undesirable side effects., and so perhaps William James Sidis really did read the New York Times when he was 18 months old.

    I should think hype on the bandwagon of unspoken assumptions is a big part of the success of a company like Viacom and if the CEO uses the method for his own personal aggrandizement don’t be surprised. Aristotle was not the least of human minds :-

    According to Aristotle, logic is concerned with reasoning to reach scientific certainty while dialectic and rhetoric are concerned with probability and, thus, are the branches of philosophy that are best suited to human affairs. Dialectic is a tool for philosophical debate; it is a means for skilled audiences to test probable knowledge in order to learn. Conversely, rhetoric is a tool for practical debate; it is a means for persuading a general audience using probable knowledge to resolve practical issues. Dialectic and rhetoric create a partnership for a system of persuasion based on knowledge instead of upon manipulation and omission.

    Re the POW book, it had some things to say about Richard Armitage as I recall. I saw Kissinger interviewed about the issue, and he said there was no doubt that the Vietnamese secretly held US POWs for years after the war’s end, although there were none still alive by the late 80′s.

    Read More
  46. @Alfa158
    Correct, this was a simplification to illustrate the absurdity of the 260 claim.
    Human IQ is not an abstract mathematical function because the factors that determine intelligence and the physical limitations on IQ are not entirely random scatter points.

    One real world tabulation of IQ test scores is this famous one from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth :
    http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec24.htm

    The plots of real scores are:
    - asymmetrical and lumpy,
    - the calculated standard deviation for Blacks and Whites are respectively 9.4 and 10.2 instead of 15.
    - The curves terminates at the left end around IQ 50 where the subjects would no longer even be able to take the test, and seem to stretch out at the right more than would be expected from the SD.
    - The only thing that really matches is that the average IQs come in pretty close to the usual accepted numbers.

    Using a SD of 10.2 would make an IQ claim of 260 even more outlandish unless you assume IQ scores have a non-linear relationship to intelligence.

    There are so many factors to take into account when it comes to IQ, SAT, etc. test scores and test taking in general besides test prepping, inherited intelligence, etc.

    - Testosterone levels https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/high-testosterone-linked-to-lowered-iq/

    - Vitamin D deficiency due to high melanin levels in the skin when living far away from the equator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Darker_skin_color

    - Iodine deficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Nutrition

    - Light eye pigmentation is favorable in higher latitudes and in the winter (Influence of eye colors of Caucasians and Asians on suppression of melatonin secretion by light.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11816051 ( and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332164 )

    Darker-eyed patients were significantly more depressed and fatigued than blue-eyed patients.

    To truly standardize testing, all tests would have to be taken in the same location during the same time of year, etc. I bet African-Americans, and even Whites for that matter, though they would be less affected due to their lighter skin and eye pigmentation, taking their tests in Detroit or Chicago in the winter, score lower than African-Americans being tested in Miami, San Diego, or Houston during the summer.

    Is one of the reasons Asian-Americans, besides being test taking/prepping machines, score so high on tests, because so many of them live in SoCal?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_Americans#Distribution

    If we forced all Asian-Americans (most of whom are dark-eyed) to live in Minnesota or Maine and ask them to take their tests only in the winter, would this lower their average test scores, even if all other controls/factors remain the same?

    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height:

    Few men would proudly proclaim their IQ is 109, even though men value their height just as much as their intelligence, if not more so. So why the double standard? I believe it’s because unlike height, no one can directly observe our intelligence so it’s extremely tempting to lie about it, and since everyone else is lying or very selectively and disingenuously reporting their IQ’s, massive IQ inflation occurs, and we have to greatly inflate our IQ’s just to keep them in the same rank order as everyone else’s self-reported IQ’s. [...]

    The above chart shows that a seven foot tall man has an HQ 139 points higher than a five foot tall man. Since height and IQ are correlated, does this mean seven footers are 139 IQ points smarter than five footers. No. Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.

    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher.

    https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Why then are our greatest universities mostly in the north? They got to greatness by having great students and great faculty doing great work, and I think less of that work gets done when you're sweating on the paper and would rather go have a nice iced tea or go for a swim, or golfing, or whatever.
    , @Sean
    Are you not aware that Mesolithic Europeans had dark skin?
  47. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wizard of Oz
    And so recursion recurses? Are you one of the tortoises all the way down?

    And so recursion recurses? Are you one of the tortoises all the way down?

    To troll who trolls a troll is known as a metatroll. In this case you were the metatroll. Revusky then was metatrolling the metatroll. Etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And you???
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    Trolling a troll is necessary but insufficient to be a metatroll. To be a metatroll, you must troll the troll with reference to the troll's trolling.
  48. @Polymath
    The 260 number is preposterous. A 1600 SAT for a 13-year-old is not. Calculating using the "age ratio" method and combining that with the standard deviation is simply innumerate.

    I know Ron is very smart and knows how IQ works, but his tomfoolery here falls flat.

    Well such a number as 260 (more than 10 standard deviations above the mean of a sd15 test) probably implies that no human who ever lived (say, 10 billion) could have it.

    As an age ratio it may have been a best guess when he was a kid. We know that such outstanding results from childhood tend to revert somewhat to the mean — but only somewhat. And he never even pursued STEM where the analytical and spatial abilities are exercised. So what number do you like? 250? 220?

    If 1600 is an IQ of 200 at age 17, which is not far from adulthood in testing terms (though not really there for the most gifted) then he’s got to be well over 200.

    Read More
  49. @Andrei Martyanov

    A cynical observer might even suspect that he had been slightly “embellishing” his scores for all those years, and his lawyers and publicists finally persuaded him to stop doing so
     
    West in general (USA faster, Europe slower) is in the process of rejecting knowledge and ability to use it, which also comes with the upbringing and knowledge bearer's character, as the criterion of professional and human adequacy. Yet, it seems to embrace "high IQ" psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing. Whole US public education system is rigged for that--it stopped giving systemic knowledge in any field long ago and substituted it with indoctrination and "informing" students precisely for performance within confines of IQ-driven SAT or whatever other tests there are.

    Public school per se didn’t prepare a student to do really well on the old SAT. You had to read literate stuff and be a bit clever on math. Maybe more rigorous math (super-accelerated) would help a bit, because it does teach rigorous thinking if the student knuckles down and does it. That can help the highly gifted appear a bit more highly gifted.

    Now the SAT is supposedly less g-intensive, but the intention was never to match exactly the school curriculum. Until the new SAT as of last year, the “common core” SAT, which is supposed to match common core. It definitely requires less literacy (or, only literacy and not high level linguistic or literary skill) if it sticks to common core standards. I blame the testing industry. Teachers can only work with what they’ve got, and part of it is that the teachers themselves can’t teach kids who are vastly brighter than they are very effectively. Sometimes also, it must be said, they hate those kids.

    It is true that the testing industry is in a conspiracy to prevent the recognition of g. I wonder if colleges are going to start being interested in alternatives like IQ test results. They already accept proxies like math olympiad results and the like, but what if you’re not into that field or aren’t quite to that level?

    Read More
  50. @Anonymous

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen
     
    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    I took it that the existence of god had been proved, rather than the existence of the Jehovah chappy often referred to as “God”.

    Read More
  51. @FKA Max
    There are so many factors to take into account when it comes to IQ, SAT, etc. test scores and test taking in general besides test prepping, inherited intelligence, etc.

    - Testosterone levels https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/high-testosterone-linked-to-lowered-iq/

    - Vitamin D deficiency due to high melanin levels in the skin when living far away from the equator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Darker_skin_color

    - Iodine deficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Nutrition

    - Light eye pigmentation is favorable in higher latitudes and in the winter (Influence of eye colors of Caucasians and Asians on suppression of melatonin secretion by light.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11816051 ( and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332164 )

    Darker-eyed patients were significantly more depressed and fatigued than blue-eyed patients.
     
    To truly standardize testing, all tests would have to be taken in the same location during the same time of year, etc. I bet African-Americans, and even Whites for that matter, though they would be less affected due to their lighter skin and eye pigmentation, taking their tests in Detroit or Chicago in the winter, score lower than African-Americans being tested in Miami, San Diego, or Houston during the summer.

    Is one of the reasons Asian-Americans, besides being test taking/prepping machines, score so high on tests, because so many of them live in SoCal?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_Americans#Distribution

    If we forced all Asian-Americans (most of whom are dark-eyed) to live in Minnesota or Maine and ask them to take their tests only in the winter, would this lower their average test scores, even if all other controls/factors remain the same?

    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height:

    Few men would proudly proclaim their IQ is 109, even though men value their height just as much as their intelligence, if not more so. So why the double standard? I believe it’s because unlike height, no one can directly observe our intelligence so it’s extremely tempting to lie about it, and since everyone else is lying or very selectively and disingenuously reporting their IQ’s, massive IQ inflation occurs, and we have to greatly inflate our IQ’s just to keep them in the same rank order as everyone else’s self-reported IQ’s. [...]

    The above chart shows that a seven foot tall man has an HQ 139 points higher than a five foot tall man. Since height and IQ are correlated, does this mean seven footers are 139 IQ points smarter than five footers. No. Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.

    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher.
     
    - https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/

    Why then are our greatest universities mostly in the north? They got to greatness by having great students and great faculty doing great work, and I think less of that work gets done when you’re sweating on the paper and would rather go have a nice iced tea or go for a swim, or golfing, or whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Because Nordics/Northern Europeans are on average the tallest humans on the planet (but this is not the only reason), and therefore have on average slightly higher IQs. You are correct temperature plays a significant role in the adaption to taller heights in colder, northern climates/latitudes, but it is not the only selection pressure/motivation, in my opinion:

    Tests of ecogeographical relationships in a non-native species: what rules avian morphology?


    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann's and Allen's rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.
     
    - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936361

    Establishing and maintaining a great university and university environment, or just getting accepted into a great university by way of high test scores (which my above comment was mostly about) are two completely different things, in my opinion. In order for a university to be great it needs to be run by intelligent people, who have certain cultural and genetic attributes, which are the most prevalent in Nordics/Northern Europeans at this time. High intelligence being just one of several factors/attributes/traits required for the long-lasting success and high quality of such an idealistic undertaking to manifest.

    Just being tall and intelligent is not enough.

    I cannot go into all the details, but there are a couple of clues in the following quote, which might give you some clarity and hints on why many of the great institutions of higher learning and teaching of today, can be found in the regions traditionally inhabited by Nordic/Northern European peoples (this includes North America):


    that’s all i’ve got for you today. the short of it is: i wonder if the reformations were a product of several tippining points in the selection for certain behavioral traits in northwestern europeans, among them individualism, universalism, and anti-corruption sentiments. and i don’t think the selection for any of these stopped at the reformation — northwest “core” europeans continued down that evolutionary pathway until we see at least one other big watershed moment in their biohistory: the enlightenment.
     
    - https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/some-very-random-thoughts-on-the-reformation/

    I am confident, that Nordics/Northern Europeans could even establish and run successful and high-quality institutes of higher learning in the tropical/sweaty/hot regions of the world. Who would attend such a school and how this would manifest itself in either high or low average test scores/achievements of the student body, is another matter and discussion altogether. In my opinion the quality of the faculty is of greater importance than the quality of the student body. But of course, the ideal scenario would be to have a high-quality faculty teach a high-quality student body.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I can testify from current experience that the energy of an ageing Anglo-Celtic male is much diminished by the uppermost two or three degrees Celsius in the Equstorial tropics with roof fans but no aitcon. A week ago ot was fine but now the typical Google report for the nearby coastal town is 31 degrees ("feels 35 degrees") humidity 63 per cent.

    It confirms my view formed from a trip to and along the Amazon 15 years ago that the Equatorial tropics is just 3 degrees too hot (maybe more: we had aircon at night on the Amazon and for an hour's siesta).

  52. @FKA Max
    There are so many factors to take into account when it comes to IQ, SAT, etc. test scores and test taking in general besides test prepping, inherited intelligence, etc.

    - Testosterone levels https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/high-testosterone-linked-to-lowered-iq/

    - Vitamin D deficiency due to high melanin levels in the skin when living far away from the equator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_deficiency#Darker_skin_color

    - Iodine deficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Nutrition

    - Light eye pigmentation is favorable in higher latitudes and in the winter (Influence of eye colors of Caucasians and Asians on suppression of melatonin secretion by light.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11816051 ( and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17332164 )

    Darker-eyed patients were significantly more depressed and fatigued than blue-eyed patients.
     
    To truly standardize testing, all tests would have to be taken in the same location during the same time of year, etc. I bet African-Americans, and even Whites for that matter, though they would be less affected due to their lighter skin and eye pigmentation, taking their tests in Detroit or Chicago in the winter, score lower than African-Americans being tested in Miami, San Diego, or Houston during the summer.

    Is one of the reasons Asian-Americans, besides being test taking/prepping machines, score so high on tests, because so many of them live in SoCal?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_Americans#Distribution

    If we forced all Asian-Americans (most of whom are dark-eyed) to live in Minnesota or Maine and ask them to take their tests only in the winter, would this lower their average test scores, even if all other controls/factors remain the same?

    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height:

    Few men would proudly proclaim their IQ is 109, even though men value their height just as much as their intelligence, if not more so. So why the double standard? I believe it’s because unlike height, no one can directly observe our intelligence so it’s extremely tempting to lie about it, and since everyone else is lying or very selectively and disingenuously reporting their IQ’s, massive IQ inflation occurs, and we have to greatly inflate our IQ’s just to keep them in the same rank order as everyone else’s self-reported IQ’s. [...]

    The above chart shows that a seven foot tall man has an HQ 139 points higher than a five foot tall man. Since height and IQ are correlated, does this mean seven footers are 139 IQ points smarter than five footers. No. Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.

    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher.
     
    - https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/

    Are you not aware that Mesolithic Europeans had dark skin?

    Read More
  53. No, even 1600 on the old SAT was only about five Sigma. And it’s not an IQ test, the five Sigma people on that aren’t necessarily the five sigma people on IQ, the best estimate would be an IQ more like 4 or 4.5 Sigma.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    But what IQ are you talking about then? Those measured by boutique high-end tests don't correlate highly with each other. They probably correlate more with old SAT than with other such tests.

    Naturally if you pick people who've knocked it out of the park on any particular IQ test, they will tend to do a bit worse on other tests.

    If two tests (t1 and t2) claim to measure g, and we assume that each test result is the sum of the test taker's g plus a zero-mean random additive that's statistically independent of everything else,

    then it takes about two lines to show that the correlation of either test with g is not much greater than their correlation with each other:

    corr (g, t1) = corr (t1, t2) * std(t2) / std(g) and symmetrically
    corr (g, t2) = corr (t1, t2) * std(t1) / std(g)

    so tests that correlate 0.3 with each other cannot be expected to correlate much more than 0.3 with g -- unless their correlation is being knocked down by much greater standard deviations in test results than exists in IQ. This is a sort of best-case for correlation with g given the correlation between tests, where the tests contain independent random factors, rather than a common element that is not g.

  54. @Alfa158
    Correct, this was a simplification to illustrate the absurdity of the 260 claim.
    Human IQ is not an abstract mathematical function because the factors that determine intelligence and the physical limitations on IQ are not entirely random scatter points.

    One real world tabulation of IQ test scores is this famous one from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth :
    http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec24.htm

    The plots of real scores are:
    - asymmetrical and lumpy,
    - the calculated standard deviation for Blacks and Whites are respectively 9.4 and 10.2 instead of 15.
    - The curves terminates at the left end around IQ 50 where the subjects would no longer even be able to take the test, and seem to stretch out at the right more than would be expected from the SD.
    - The only thing that really matches is that the average IQs come in pretty close to the usual accepted numbers.

    Using a SD of 10.2 would make an IQ claim of 260 even more outlandish unless you assume IQ scores have a non-linear relationship to intelligence.

    The population SD on an IQ scale is essentially arbitrary when it comes to adult IQ. But maybe it’s trying to match childhood (age ratio) IQ, where it is not arbitrary. What sort of IQ is on their graphs?

    By the way the page is politically correct nonsense when it claims there’s no evidence for black IQ being genetically lower than white. They may demonstrate that the proof is not 100% certain, but it is 99.99% certain, well beyond what’s needed to convict in criminal court for example.

    Read More
  55. @edNels


    Well just to recant.. I'm not much of a believer in so called IQ even though I test rather high... I just don't trust the concept...

    Life is an IQ test…the only one that really matters, no?

    I’m a member of Colloquy Society and can say authoritatively that not all high IQ people can actually connect reality’s dots.

    Read More
  56. @anonymous
    It's impressive that Dauman has demonstrated such great capability. However, glancing at his Wikipedia profile it appears he spent most of his life in material accumulation for himself, climbing the career ladder. Only later in life did he involve himself in philanthropy as many well off people do. The great minds of history have made contributions to the world whereas he busied himself becoming chairman of Viacom, something hardly anyone who is not personally involved with would care about. This reminds me of that ridiculous ad campaign 'a mind is a terrible thing to waste', he and the genius bartender both.

    Most philanthropy of wealthy people just spreads leftist misery. The foundations set up by Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, etc., are all run by leftist ideologues sowing evil everywhere they touch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Thanks I was going to make a similar comment. It seems that as soon as they have made their millions and billions the ultra wealthy give the money to some anti White Marxists with the object of destroying civilization


    The foundations should all be closed down. And the donors should be forced to pay taxes like the proles and peasants do.
  57. Given the considerable number of comments above, I should probably further clarify the point I was trying to make.

    Scoring 1600 on the old pre-1995 SAT was certainly not impossible, but it was very rare, perhaps something like being over 7 feet tall.

    Although it’s possible that a 13-year-old achieved that result, it seems extremely unlikely to me, just like I doubt there’s ever been an American 13-year-old who was over 7 feet tall.

    Why would anyone think that Philippe Dauman achieved such an astonishing result? Well, that’s what it said in Forbes, the NYT, the WSJ, Reuters, and various other MSM publications. But why did they think that? Well, because that’s what he (or his publicists) apparently told them or they’d read it elsewhere.

    But it seems extremely unlikely to me, and it’s a negative sign of their credibility that they never recognized the implausibility of that claim or asked him for any proof during the two decades it was in circulation. Since over the last few years, the claim stopped being repeated, I’d assume he quietly abandoned it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Sorry, Mr. Unz, but you lose again:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow#Height_chart
    , @JackOH
    Ron, thanks for clarifying what you were getting at.

    I just want to offer a top-of-the-head thought from this reader who's skeptical that HBD/IQ has political legs. Wouldn't it make some sense for proponents of HBD/IQ ideas to challenge, as you've done, all claims of extraordinary IQ, inapposite or faux claims of intellectuality, etc.? The purpose would be narrow down what we actually mean when we say HBD/IQ ideas are important.
  58. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    IQ tests that are normed at 100 are problematic for the very gifted, and people who create these tests say the results are unreliable if you’re getting scores above 160. What we really need is a new test solely for the very gifted that is normed at around 180 or so, but the problem is we don’t have enough of the very gifted to test to decide what the ‘norm’ is for the gifted–what questions you should choose for the test and what weighting to give to math vs. verbal vs. spatial questions, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You also have the problem of motivation, sometimes rooted in early experience of what got you attention from teachers or parents, maybe what little No. 6 did to stand out at a table with eight siblings. Or of course the motivation not to be seen as standing out.
  59. @Polymath
    No, even 1600 on the old SAT was only about five Sigma. And it's not an IQ test, the five Sigma people on that aren't necessarily the five sigma people on IQ, the best estimate would be an IQ more like 4 or 4.5 Sigma.

    But what IQ are you talking about then? Those measured by boutique high-end tests don’t correlate highly with each other. They probably correlate more with old SAT than with other such tests.

    Naturally if you pick people who’ve knocked it out of the park on any particular IQ test, they will tend to do a bit worse on other tests.

    If two tests (t1 and t2) claim to measure g, and we assume that each test result is the sum of the test taker’s g plus a zero-mean random additive that’s statistically independent of everything else,

    then it takes about two lines to show that the correlation of either test with g is not much greater than their correlation with each other:

    corr (g, t1) = corr (t1, t2) * std(t2) / std(g) and symmetrically
    corr (g, t2) = corr (t1, t2) * std(t1) / std(g)

    so tests that correlate 0.3 with each other cannot be expected to correlate much more than 0.3 with g — unless their correlation is being knocked down by much greater standard deviations in test results than exists in IQ. This is a sort of best-case for correlation with g given the correlation between tests, where the tests contain independent random factors, rather than a common element that is not g.

    Read More
  60. Ron, this is a somewhat o/t, but not really, considering the American Pravda take.

    The evidence is really starting to mount that Hillary has a significant medical, specifically neurological, problem. Epileptic seizures strongly appear to be part of it. Have a look at Cernovich on this. The MSM would be all over this if our Republic was functioning properly, but of course they are Problem Central, not Solution.

    Unz.com should consider joining the forces that will sleuth this one out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Today, 8/7 I read articles on drudge and freerepublic that Hildabeast has a Dr hovering a few feet away with a syringe

    It might just be wishful thinking. Kennedy was comatose with pain pills before and after he was elected and the media never mentioned it
  61. @Ron Unz
    Given the considerable number of comments above, I should probably further clarify the point I was trying to make.

    Scoring 1600 on the old pre-1995 SAT was certainly not impossible, but it was very rare, perhaps something like being over 7 feet tall.

    Although it's possible that a 13-year-old achieved that result, it seems extremely unlikely to me, just like I doubt there's ever been an American 13-year-old who was over 7 feet tall.

    Why would anyone think that Philippe Dauman achieved such an astonishing result? Well, that's what it said in Forbes, the NYT, the WSJ, Reuters, and various other MSM publications. But why did they think that? Well, because that's what he (or his publicists) apparently told them or they'd read it elsewhere.

    But it seems extremely unlikely to me, and it's a negative sign of their credibility that they never recognized the implausibility of that claim or asked him for any proof during the two decades it was in circulation. Since over the last few years, the claim stopped being repeated, I'd assume he quietly abandoned it.
    Read More
  62. Sorry, Mr. Unz, but you lose again:

    Touche! Though from the Wikipedia page, it’s not entirely clear that the 13-year-old who stood over 7 feet tall was an American, though it’s very possible. And I doubt he ever became the CEO of a major media corporation…

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    He was from Alton, Illinois-- the same as James Earl Ray! Sadly, he died at only 22 years of age-- so Jimmy outlived him by quite a few years, as he did Michael King, Jr.
    , @grey enlightenment2
    There are surprisingly many brilliant people who could have scored very high on the SAT at an early age, examples of individuals include anyone with a PHD in algebraic geometry or post-WW2 theoretical physics (quite possibly the two hardest subjects ever), a total of probably a couple hundred people minimum. This probably implies an IQ of at least 180
    , @CanSpeccy
    Seven feet at age 13? That ain't nuthin'. The Romanian, Robert Bobroczky, was 7' 4" at age 13.

    The story about him to which I have linked above states:


    Robert grows approximately 10 cm per year. [which] means Robert will be 11 feet tall by the time he’s 18.
     
    It is the same logic that infers that a 13-year old with a perfect SAT score, will have an IQ of 260 by the time he's 18. But more likely, they're just precocious. Certainly those who develop fastest, usually finish developing earliest.

    But in any case, is there any compelling evidence of a correlation between IQ and achievement? Richard Feynman is said to have had an IQ of 123, which is OK, but not exactly astronomical, yet he was one of America’s greatest theoretical physicists. The Termites, on the other hand, with IQs of around 150, never did anything of the slightest interest, so I understand. Amusingly, William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, was among the elementary school children tested by Terman's researchers in the 20s. His IQ was not high enough to be a "Termite", so he was shut out of the experiment and was not deemed "gifted".

    Anyhow, given the Flynn Effect, which demonstrates the existence of important cultural or environmental components to intelligence, what is the point of comparing, say, Australian Abos with Harvard graduates, or adherents of Black Lives Matter? All that such comparisons seem to show is that different groups differ in both culture and environment, which we knew already.

  63. @Sherman
    Hi Little Art

    You owe a debt of gratitude to the Walton family.

    If it wasn't for Walmart where would you buy your favorite food - canned PORK and beans?

    Sherm

    Hi Sherm,

    You are making me hungry man. I hide extra cans of PORK n beans in my room here at the home.

    I am not too popular with the folks – if you know what I mean?

    Moshe thinks it’s really funny – what a guy.

    Art

    p.s. How are the Palestinian’s beaches?

    Read More
  64. @artichoke
    Why then are our greatest universities mostly in the north? They got to greatness by having great students and great faculty doing great work, and I think less of that work gets done when you're sweating on the paper and would rather go have a nice iced tea or go for a swim, or golfing, or whatever.

    Because Nordics/Northern Europeans are on average the tallest humans on the planet (but this is not the only reason), and therefore have on average slightly higher IQs. You are correct temperature plays a significant role in the adaption to taller heights in colder, northern climates/latitudes, but it is not the only selection pressure/motivation, in my opinion:

    Tests of ecogeographical relationships in a non-native species: what rules avian morphology?

    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936361

    Establishing and maintaining a great university and university environment, or just getting accepted into a great university by way of high test scores (which my above comment was mostly about) are two completely different things, in my opinion. In order for a university to be great it needs to be run by intelligent people, who have certain cultural and genetic attributes, which are the most prevalent in Nordics/Northern Europeans at this time. High intelligence being just one of several factors/attributes/traits required for the long-lasting success and high quality of such an idealistic undertaking to manifest.

    Just being tall and intelligent is not enough.

    I cannot go into all the details, but there are a couple of clues in the following quote, which might give you some clarity and hints on why many of the great institutions of higher learning and teaching of today, can be found in the regions traditionally inhabited by Nordic/Northern European peoples (this includes North America):

    that’s all i’ve got for you today. the short of it is: i wonder if the reformations were a product of several tippining points in the selection for certain behavioral traits in northwestern europeans, among them individualism, universalism, and anti-corruption sentiments. and i don’t think the selection for any of these stopped at the reformation — northwest “core” europeans continued down that evolutionary pathway until we see at least one other big watershed moment in their biohistory: the enlightenment.

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/some-very-random-thoughts-on-the-reformation/

    I am confident, that Nordics/Northern Europeans could even establish and run successful and high-quality institutes of higher learning in the tropical/sweaty/hot regions of the world. Who would attend such a school and how this would manifest itself in either high or low average test scores/achievements of the student body, is another matter and discussion altogether. In my opinion the quality of the faculty is of greater importance than the quality of the student body. But of course, the ideal scenario would be to have a high-quality faculty teach a high-quality student body.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I just read Mr. Sailer's latest blog post:

    A big advantage that British West Indies countries had in the 20th Century over West Africa was that, due to the healthier climate, they kept a larger leadership caste of whites and middle class mulattos. During the opening ceremonies “Parade of Nations” you’ll notice that a striking proportion of the middle-aged sports bureaucrats representing third world countries in the West Indies and East Africa are white, even in 2016. But that’s not true of sweaty West Africa, which produces a lot of talent but not very well organized teams (as seen in soccer, where West African players make a lot of money in Europe, but West African countries haven’t progressed much in the World Cup since Cameroon’s peak a generation ago). [...] Anyway, as we see here, explanations that integrate nature and nurture are usually better than ones that try to explain everything away by nurture.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-the-secret-of-jamaicas-runners-its-about-culture-not-genetics/

    After I found out about the child prodigy Ryan Leslie and his unbelievable SAT feat through this discussion, I did some more research on him:

    But did he get a perfect 1600 on the SAT in 1992 at the age of 14? Count me exceptionally skeptical. Indeed, it’s more likely that he shared the same “imaginative” publicist with Philippe Dauman.
     
    - Excerpt from Ron Unz's comment #73 on this thread

    I found Ryan's most recent music video, which was filmed on Jamaica, and offers some beautiful vistas of the island:
    Ryan Leslie - "The Wonderful Ones" (Official Music Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltLJf9QJVK0

    Whatever ultimately led to his early academic success (luck, genuine genius/talent, cheating, etc.), much, I am sure, can be attributed to him having very dedicated, ambitious and/or well-connected nurturers and mentors around him from early on in life.

    His name was Sandy Green [ I think this is him: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sandyg1 ], a graduate student at Harvard Business School, and he took it upon himself to advise and guide me through perhaps the most formative decisions of my early career.

    Torn between music and academics, Sandy helped me to balance the two and even served as a strong advocate on my behalf when the administrative board at Harvard placed me on academic probation for missing too many classes.

    His investment in me, combined with reluctant but unwavering support from my parents, groomed me to achieve the success that I have enjoyed to date as both a creator and an entrepreneur.
     
    - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-leslie/ryan-leslie-mentorship_b_894674.html
  65. Ryan Leslie, a black man, got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT at age 14. He skipped his senior year of high school and started Harvard at age 15, graduating at 19. He was also accepted to Yale and 4 of the Universities of California. His parents were Salvation Army officers and Leslie grew up playing the cornet. He is a singer, rapper, songwriter, and producer, like Dr. Dre but less successful, however Dr. Dre was never a good student.

    In 2010 Leslie lost his laptop in Germany and offered a $1 million reward. When the laptop was returned he refused to pay the reward. He was sued and lost a $1.1 million judgement. Leslie filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2013.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Ryan Leslie, a black man, got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT at age 14. He skipped his senior year of high school and started Harvard at age 15, graduating at 19.
     
    Well, I'll admit I'd never heard of that particular black rap singer fellow you mentioned, who later went bankrupt. He certainly does seem quite an unusual character.

    Checking a bit, it's apparently true that he was admitted to Harvard at 15 and did graduate at 19, though only barely since he admits he was placed on academic probation three times (it's virtually impossible to flunk out from Harvard). Here's his 2010 interview with the Harvard Crimson, in which he discusses some of these things:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/4/1/nbsp-fm-arl-believe/

    I don't doubt that he's a pretty smart fellow, and his varied talents may have attracted the attention of Harvard's admissions office, at least relative to the other competing black applicants, and gotten him a slot. But did he get a perfect 1600 on the SAT in 1992 at the age of 14? Count me exceptionally skeptical. Indeed, it's more likely that he shared the same "imaginative" publicist with Philippe Dauman. Among other things, he never mentions that claim in his Crimson interview, since the Harvard student interviewing him probably would have probably exploded the likely hoax, unlike an entertainment journalist. It's also interesting that near the very end of the interview he states that "Perhaps I live in a fantasy world..."

    Just out of curiosity, doesn't it seem a little suspicious that all these perfect 1600 SATs at astonishingly young ages happen to have gone to individuals in the entertainment industry? And aren't entertainment people notorious for hiring publicists who make up all sorts of ridiculous stories about their achievements and foist them on totally ignorant entertainment journalists?
  66. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    If IQ is genetically determined, why can’t we swab a cup Dauman was drinking from and run tests on the DNA sample. I think Ron Unz and Razib could go under cover at some posh restaurant for this operation. And at what point is the SAT test just giving a saliva sample?

    Read More
  67. You wrote:

    If IQ is genetically determined,

    It is not genetically determined.
    Genes play important role, but to say “determined” is incorrect.

    If grandmother had dick, she would be grandfather.

    Read More
  68. @Ron Unz

    Sorry, Mr. Unz, but you lose again:
     
    Touche! Though from the Wikipedia page, it's not entirely clear that the 13-year-old who stood over 7 feet tall was an American, though it's very possible. And I doubt he ever became the CEO of a major media corporation...

    He was from Alton, Illinois– the same as James Earl Ray! Sadly, he died at only 22 years of age– so Jimmy outlived him by quite a few years, as he did Michael King, Jr.

    Read More
  69. @Wizard of Oz
    What has deserts in your, or anyone else's opinion, got to do with it?

    Apart from ensuring that people have the incentive to make businesses profitable and grow do you not need to provide legal stability and predictability as well as banks that aren't raided arbitrarily by tyrants (rather as happened to Jews in the Middle Ages) if you are to have a flourishing economy?

    “…banks that aren’t raided arbitrarily by tyrants (rather as happened to Jews in the Middle Ages) if you are to have a flourishing economy?”

    …Sure, let’s let Goldman Sachs continue their revolving door policy at the Treasury and at all levels of the R and D machine, so they can skew legislation to guarantee profits and form “tax- free charitable foundations” whereby they can fund various think-tanks and fund university endowments so their money-grubbing inter-generational skimming and fleecing operations can provide you with a reality that we live “in a flourishing economy.”

    Read More
  70. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen
     
    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    obvious zionist plot

    Read More
  71. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Let’s say that of the 6M 17 y.o. students per grade in the US, 10 get a 1600 on the SAT, so that’s equivalent to an IQ (normal distribution with mean=100, std. dev.=15) of 177, or on the more accurate log-normal distribution 212 (for spreadsheet function, mean=4.594, std. dev. = 0.1492).

    Using the chart here and reading the increase in intelligence from age 13 to 17 for average people to be 1/3 std. dev. (relative to age 17), and 2/3 std. dev. for the top 1 in 740 (+3 std. dev.), so the increase for the sort of fellow who gets 1600 on the SAT at age 13 will be at least 2/3 std. dev., and possibly much more. Two-thirds of a standard deviation is 10 IQ points, but 15 or 20 is more likely correct. Adding that to the scores inferred from the rarity of 1600 scorers at age 17, then:

    the IQ equivalent for a perfect pre-1995 SAT score at age 13 is 187 – 197 IQ for the normal distribution
    and for the log-normal distribution it is 222 – 232 IQ .

    These would be equivalent to rarities of top 1 in 302M – 20B for the normal distribution or 34M-184M for the log-normal distribution. The last number is closest to my best guess of roughly top 1 in 100M.

    The chance that he isn’t lying would seem to be quite small, even if he is extremely, top 1 in many, many thousands bright.

    Read More
  72. Ron,

    Keep blogging on a regular basis w/articles of your typical caliber and you’ll be wiping the floor with iSteve.

    iSteve fans know what a compliment I mean by this…

    Anyhow, I know lotsa folks who nailed various g measuring tests and have had highly unorthodox lives. It is the way to fly rather than being a canary in a gilded cage striving for a Nobel, IMO.

    Cheers!

    p.s. As much as I love the commenting paradigm here, you contribute more to the commonwealth by your blogging than by innovative commenting software for a niche political audience. But I will admit to being short-sighted sometimes….

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    you contribute more to the commonwealth by your blogging than by innovative commenting software
     
    the comment software is certainly brilliant. It would be good to see it generally available by way of a blog platform.
  73. @Triumph104
    Ryan Leslie, a black man, got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT at age 14. He skipped his senior year of high school and started Harvard at age 15, graduating at 19. He was also accepted to Yale and 4 of the Universities of California. His parents were Salvation Army officers and Leslie grew up playing the cornet. He is a singer, rapper, songwriter, and producer, like Dr. Dre but less successful, however Dr. Dre was never a good student.

    In 2010 Leslie lost his laptop in Germany and offered a $1 million reward. When the laptop was returned he refused to pay the reward. He was sued and lost a $1.1 million judgement. Leslie filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2013.


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

    Ryan Leslie, a black man, got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT at age 14. He skipped his senior year of high school and started Harvard at age 15, graduating at 19.

    Well, I’ll admit I’d never heard of that particular black rap singer fellow you mentioned, who later went bankrupt. He certainly does seem quite an unusual character.

    Checking a bit, it’s apparently true that he was admitted to Harvard at 15 and did graduate at 19, though only barely since he admits he was placed on academic probation three times (it’s virtually impossible to flunk out from Harvard). Here’s his 2010 interview with the Harvard Crimson, in which he discusses some of these things:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/4/1/nbsp-fm-arl-believe/

    I don’t doubt that he’s a pretty smart fellow, and his varied talents may have attracted the attention of Harvard’s admissions office, at least relative to the other competing black applicants, and gotten him a slot. But did he get a perfect 1600 on the SAT in 1992 at the age of 14? Count me exceptionally skeptical. Indeed, it’s more likely that he shared the same “imaginative” publicist with Philippe Dauman. Among other things, he never mentions that claim in his Crimson interview, since the Harvard student interviewing him probably would have probably exploded the likely hoax, unlike an entertainment journalist. It’s also interesting that near the very end of the interview he states that “Perhaps I live in a fantasy world…”

    Just out of curiosity, doesn’t it seem a little suspicious that all these perfect 1600 SATs at astonishingly young ages happen to have gone to individuals in the entertainment industry? And aren’t entertainment people notorious for hiring publicists who make up all sorts of ridiculous stories about their achievements and foist them on totally ignorant entertainment journalists?

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. Unz:
    I was reading the book by C. H. Papas “Theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation”,
    and found there a reference to the publication

    H. Unz, Linear Arrays with Arbitrarily Distributed Elements, Electronics Research Lab., series 60, issue 168 University of California, Berkeley, Nov. 2, 1956.

    Since it is dated 4 years before you were born, I do not assume it is your work. Are you somehow related to the author of that publication ?

    Most respectfully, I.f.f.U.
  74. As I recall almost all the captured US airmen were forced to make propaganda broadcasts. Those that didn’t were exceptional, such as James Stockdale, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his resistance.

    McCain has written himself about the propaganda broadcast, which he made made after several days of beatings. Several highly decorated POWs vouch for his behavior in captivity, including Stockdale, and McCain is often described as a leader in the POW resistance.

    I think McCain is a lousy Senator and would have made a lousy President. But criticizing his behavior as a POW is off-base.

    Read More
  75. How could anyone write a book about merit college admissions in 1985? In 1985 college admission by merit has been outlawed by the Supreme Court and the civil rights act of 1968 for 12 years

    College admissions nowadays is on race and the poor, poor pitiful me essay.
    The low IQ races are admitted, the intelligent race discriminated against and the country turns into Mexico

    Read More
  76. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Thus, Dauman’s IQ surely must be in the 260 range, and if he does ultimately lose his control over MTV and Comedy Central….”

    How depressing that so much talent and intelligence are involved in the creation and distribution of such stupid cultural rot.
    But then, intelligence feels on stupidity. Most people are stupid and want stupid stuff, not smart stuff. So, intelligent people work at creating smartly crafted stupid stuff for the stupid masses.
    It’s like a smart person makes the perfect pig slop for the pigs to become rich.

    Read More
  77. @dc.sunsets
    Most philanthropy of wealthy people just spreads leftist misery. The foundations set up by Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, etc., are all run by leftist ideologues sowing evil everywhere they touch.

    Thanks I was going to make a similar comment. It seems that as soon as they have made their millions and billions the ultra wealthy give the money to some anti White Marxists with the object of destroying civilization

    The foundations should all be closed down. And the donors should be forced to pay taxes like the proles and peasants do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The foundations should all be closed down. And the donors should be forced to pay taxes like the proles and peasants do.
     
    A capital tax, applicable to all and sundry, including trusts and foundations, would be a step in the right direction. At a rate of one to one and a half percent, as in Switzerland, it would just about cover the current Federal budget deficit, while satisfying Warren Buffet's wish for higher taxes on himself.
  78. @Jack Highlands
    Ron, this is a somewhat o/t, but not really, considering the American Pravda take.

    The evidence is really starting to mount that Hillary has a significant medical, specifically neurological, problem. Epileptic seizures strongly appear to be part of it. Have a look at Cernovich on this. The MSM would be all over this if our Republic was functioning properly, but of course they are Problem Central, not Solution.

    Unz.com should consider joining the forces that will sleuth this one out.

    Today, 8/7 I read articles on drudge and freerepublic that Hildabeast has a Dr hovering a few feet away with a syringe

    It might just be wishful thinking. Kennedy was comatose with pain pills before and after he was elected and the media never mentioned it

    Read More
  79. @Andrei Martyanov

    A cynical observer might even suspect that he had been slightly “embellishing” his scores for all those years, and his lawyers and publicists finally persuaded him to stop doing so
     
    West in general (USA faster, Europe slower) is in the process of rejecting knowledge and ability to use it, which also comes with the upbringing and knowledge bearer's character, as the criterion of professional and human adequacy. Yet, it seems to embrace "high IQ" psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing. Whole US public education system is rigged for that--it stopped giving systemic knowledge in any field long ago and substituted it with indoctrination and "informing" students precisely for performance within confines of IQ-driven SAT or whatever other tests there are.

    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers, not citizens with critical thinking capabilities. And with Common Core it will produce helots. Even without CC, it’s quite possible to graduate HS without really knowing much of anything or having any skills to help a graduating student in life.

    The people from the Ivies were supposed to be their masters and tell them what to think.

    Yet, it seems to embrace “high IQ” psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing

    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.
     
    We have to "thank" these types and Ivy League "economists" for imposing on all of us a pseudo-utopia of "post-industrialism" under the cover of which US economy was thoroughly not only de-industrialized but failed to produce a labor force even remotely capable of operating in modern industrial environments. Well, as it turned out, we still live in industrial society where high quality skills from avionics specialists to G-code CNC programmers are in a huge deficit, unlike it is with a vast army of app-coders and iPhone "specialists".

    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers
     
    Exactly--docile. Ah, running 5-axis machining center is so not cool or glamorous, running complex calibration procedures on some million dollar technological marvel is so not iPhone, if you know what I mean. Real productive labor has been discredited and we have an army of what can only be described as office plankton--people without any particular skills.
    , @grey enlightenment2
    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.



    The problem is the winner-take-all nature of media that tends to focus on only a handful of brilliant people such as Einstein and ignoring others like Witten, who is much smarter. So that creates the illusion that the majority brilliant people don't produce much (because they are held up to the standard of Einstein), when they do.

    Also, science advances in increments, but often a handful of people get the credit. Einstein gets the credit but he had many other, possibly more brilliant people (like Hilbert, Grossmann , Palitini) helping him or who contributed to the mathematics but who got less credit or attention . A single result is analogous to the stone of a winding path, and these brilliant people are quietly creating the path, setting stones, but the media only focuses on those who lay the final stone.

    Also, as mentioned before, while not all high-scorers produce genius-caliber work, pretty much all great work is produced by very smart people.
    , @K
    i have seen people with far less talent having much bigger egos than them. Any person in their place would have the same ego they supposedly have.
  80. @academic gossip
    Reports of 260 IQ are mathematically guaranteed to be garbage.

    Either we just observed an over 8 standard deviation event (relative to any plausible value of parents' average IQ) or the distribution is so fat-tailed that we would have seen huge numbers of IQ 200+ children from average parents.

    A list of record IQs would have many similar performances near the top, not one fellow who is multiple standard deviations ahead of everyone else. There are other prodigies who have done things by age 13 that are at least as impressive as perfect scores on the old SAT, and for many of those the recognition as prodigy at some point involves taking SAT or IQ tests. Yet we do not hear of a lot of IQ's over 200, and when we do it is not from the people with other evidence of accomplishment. Cheating or luck or simple fabrication of results are more believable for most cases of over-200 IQ measurements.

    …except for the case of one RK Unz – though the poor old chap will.probably have gone a bit off the boil by now :-)

    Read More
  81. @Anonymous

    And so recursion recurses? Are you one of the tortoises all the way down?
     
    To troll who trolls a troll is known as a metatroll. In this case you were the metatroll. Revusky then was metatrolling the metatroll. Etc...

    And you???

    Read More
  82. @artichoke
    Why then are our greatest universities mostly in the north? They got to greatness by having great students and great faculty doing great work, and I think less of that work gets done when you're sweating on the paper and would rather go have a nice iced tea or go for a swim, or golfing, or whatever.

    I can testify from current experience that the energy of an ageing Anglo-Celtic male is much diminished by the uppermost two or three degrees Celsius in the Equstorial tropics with roof fans but no aitcon. A week ago ot was fine but now the typical Google report for the nearby coastal town is 31 degrees (“feels 35 degrees”) humidity 63 per cent.

    It confirms my view formed from a trip to and along the Amazon 15 years ago that the Equatorial tropics is just 3 degrees too hot (maybe more: we had aircon at night on the Amazon and for an hour’s siesta).

    Read More
  83. @Anon
    IQ tests that are normed at 100 are problematic for the very gifted, and people who create these tests say the results are unreliable if you're getting scores above 160. What we really need is a new test solely for the very gifted that is normed at around 180 or so, but the problem is we don't have enough of the very gifted to test to decide what the 'norm' is for the gifted--what questions you should choose for the test and what weighting to give to math vs. verbal vs. spatial questions, etc.

    You also have the problem of motivation, sometimes rooted in early experience of what got you attention from teachers or parents, maybe what little No. 6 did to stand out at a table with eight siblings. Or of course the motivation not to be seen as standing out.

    Read More
  84. @Ron Unz

    Ryan Leslie, a black man, got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT at age 14. He skipped his senior year of high school and started Harvard at age 15, graduating at 19.
     
    Well, I'll admit I'd never heard of that particular black rap singer fellow you mentioned, who later went bankrupt. He certainly does seem quite an unusual character.

    Checking a bit, it's apparently true that he was admitted to Harvard at 15 and did graduate at 19, though only barely since he admits he was placed on academic probation three times (it's virtually impossible to flunk out from Harvard). Here's his 2010 interview with the Harvard Crimson, in which he discusses some of these things:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/4/1/nbsp-fm-arl-believe/

    I don't doubt that he's a pretty smart fellow, and his varied talents may have attracted the attention of Harvard's admissions office, at least relative to the other competing black applicants, and gotten him a slot. But did he get a perfect 1600 on the SAT in 1992 at the age of 14? Count me exceptionally skeptical. Indeed, it's more likely that he shared the same "imaginative" publicist with Philippe Dauman. Among other things, he never mentions that claim in his Crimson interview, since the Harvard student interviewing him probably would have probably exploded the likely hoax, unlike an entertainment journalist. It's also interesting that near the very end of the interview he states that "Perhaps I live in a fantasy world..."

    Just out of curiosity, doesn't it seem a little suspicious that all these perfect 1600 SATs at astonishingly young ages happen to have gone to individuals in the entertainment industry? And aren't entertainment people notorious for hiring publicists who make up all sorts of ridiculous stories about their achievements and foist them on totally ignorant entertainment journalists?

    Dear Mr. Unz:
    I was reading the book by C. H. Papas “Theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation”,
    and found there a reference to the publication

    H. Unz, Linear Arrays with Arbitrarily Distributed Elements, Electronics Research Lab., series 60, issue 168 University of California, Berkeley, Nov. 2, 1956.

    Since it is dated 4 years before you were born, I do not assume it is your work. Are you somehow related to the author of that publication ?

    Most respectfully, I.f.f.U.

    Read More
  85. @Ron Unz
    Given the considerable number of comments above, I should probably further clarify the point I was trying to make.

    Scoring 1600 on the old pre-1995 SAT was certainly not impossible, but it was very rare, perhaps something like being over 7 feet tall.

    Although it's possible that a 13-year-old achieved that result, it seems extremely unlikely to me, just like I doubt there's ever been an American 13-year-old who was over 7 feet tall.

    Why would anyone think that Philippe Dauman achieved such an astonishing result? Well, that's what it said in Forbes, the NYT, the WSJ, Reuters, and various other MSM publications. But why did they think that? Well, because that's what he (or his publicists) apparently told them or they'd read it elsewhere.

    But it seems extremely unlikely to me, and it's a negative sign of their credibility that they never recognized the implausibility of that claim or asked him for any proof during the two decades it was in circulation. Since over the last few years, the claim stopped being repeated, I'd assume he quietly abandoned it.

    Ron, thanks for clarifying what you were getting at.

    I just want to offer a top-of-the-head thought from this reader who’s skeptical that HBD/IQ has political legs. Wouldn’t it make some sense for proponents of HBD/IQ ideas to challenge, as you’ve done, all claims of extraordinary IQ, inapposite or faux claims of intellectuality, etc.? The purpose would be narrow down what we actually mean when we say HBD/IQ ideas are important.

    Read More
  86. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @rod1963
    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers, not citizens with critical thinking capabilities. And with Common Core it will produce helots. Even without CC, it's quite possible to graduate HS without really knowing much of anything or having any skills to help a graduating student in life.

    The people from the Ivies were supposed to be their masters and tell them what to think.

    Yet, it seems to embrace “high IQ” psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing

     

    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.

    We have to “thank” these types and Ivy League “economists” for imposing on all of us a pseudo-utopia of “post-industrialism” under the cover of which US economy was thoroughly not only de-industrialized but failed to produce a labor force even remotely capable of operating in modern industrial environments. Well, as it turned out, we still live in industrial society where high quality skills from avionics specialists to G-code CNC programmers are in a huge deficit, unlike it is with a vast army of app-coders and iPhone “specialists”.

    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers

    Exactly–docile. Ah, running 5-axis machining center is so not cool or glamorous, running complex calibration procedures on some million dollar technological marvel is so not iPhone, if you know what I mean. Real productive labor has been discredited and we have an army of what can only be described as office plankton–people without any particular skills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, SmoothieX12 !
    I am glad that there is a topic that we can agree upon.
    Duplicate from another thread on Unz Review:

    I can confirm the statements made by esteemed Dr. Frost
    by personal observations through my humble family.
    Two male relatives, of different degrees of relatedness, both nowadays USA citizens, both having Russian language as the native tongue.
    One has education from USSR in some technical discipline.
    The other got BS and Master of Sci. from MIT in comp. sci.
    and Ph.D. from Stanford in comp. sci.

    “Technical” guy works now at Google.

    “MIT-Stanford” guy did not get offer either from Microsoft or from Google.
    He is doing OK even without those offers.

    But strife (better to say, absence of it) from Industry for quality people is quite evident.

  87. @Andrei Martyanov

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.
     
    We have to "thank" these types and Ivy League "economists" for imposing on all of us a pseudo-utopia of "post-industrialism" under the cover of which US economy was thoroughly not only de-industrialized but failed to produce a labor force even remotely capable of operating in modern industrial environments. Well, as it turned out, we still live in industrial society where high quality skills from avionics specialists to G-code CNC programmers are in a huge deficit, unlike it is with a vast army of app-coders and iPhone "specialists".

    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers
     
    Exactly--docile. Ah, running 5-axis machining center is so not cool or glamorous, running complex calibration procedures on some million dollar technological marvel is so not iPhone, if you know what I mean. Real productive labor has been discredited and we have an army of what can only be described as office plankton--people without any particular skills.

    Hello, SmoothieX12 !
    I am glad that there is a topic that we can agree upon.
    Duplicate from another thread on Unz Review:

    I can confirm the statements made by esteemed Dr. Frost
    by personal observations through my humble family.
    Two male relatives, of different degrees of relatedness, both nowadays USA citizens, both having Russian language as the native tongue.
    One has education from USSR in some technical discipline.
    The other got BS and Master of Sci. from MIT in comp. sci.
    and Ph.D. from Stanford in comp. sci.

    “Technical” guy works now at Google.

    “MIT-Stanford” guy did not get offer either from Microsoft or from Google.
    He is doing OK even without those offers.

    But strife (better to say, absence of it) from Industry for quality people is quite evident.

    Read More
  88. @Ron Unz

    Sorry, Mr. Unz, but you lose again:
     
    Touche! Though from the Wikipedia page, it's not entirely clear that the 13-year-old who stood over 7 feet tall was an American, though it's very possible. And I doubt he ever became the CEO of a major media corporation...

    There are surprisingly many brilliant people who could have scored very high on the SAT at an early age, examples of individuals include anyone with a PHD in algebraic geometry or post-WW2 theoretical physics (quite possibly the two hardest subjects ever), a total of probably a couple hundred people minimum. This probably implies an IQ of at least 180

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    There are surprisingly many brilliant people who could have scored very high on the SAT at an early age, examples of individuals include anyone with a PHD in algebraic geometry or post-WW2 theoretical physics (quite possibly the two hardest subjects ever), a total of probably a couple hundred people minimum. This probably implies an IQ of at least 180
     
    Exactly. There are probably at least several hundred Americans who scored 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT, or would have if they had taken the test, which, according to the correspondence table in the Klitgaard book would have put their Stanford-Binet childhood IQs at around 200. Obviously, there are huge random fluctuations in all these things, and I'm certainly not saying this set precisely corresponds to the smartest Americans, according to other definitions. But I'd bet that there's a large overlap between the two groups, with both being heavily weighted towards theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians.

    However, I'm also quite skeptical that either Dauman or that black rapper fellow fall into either of those sets, MSM claims to the contrary.
  89. @Andrei Martyanov

    I’m merely a poorly educated 99th percentile schmoe, but my honest take on my super genius friend is that he is good at figuring out IQ problems and nothing else.
     
    SAT, as an example, has nothing to do with math (a real one), it is merely a collection of cascading "smart-ass" tests within a very narrow required knowledge field. IQ and knowledge are not the same. No matter IQ but if one doesn't know basic trigonometric identities or what real physics is, no IQ will help. Of course, there are also always advanced placement tests but in any case, I am sure that all those 1600 SAT kids, if they are products of run-of-the-mill US public school, they will have a lot of trouble passing entrance exams into serious STEM schools in Europe. E.G. some Russian top notch universities retained the right to mandate entrance exams. Good luck to 1600 SAT kids taking those exams, which do require actual serious knowledge in mathematics and physics, not just IQ.

    SAT, as an example, has nothing to do with math (a real one), it is merely a collection of cascading “smart-ass” tests within a very narrow required knowledge field. IQ and knowledge are not the same. No matter IQ but if one doesn’t know basic trigonometric identities or what real physics is, no IQ will help. Of course, there are also always advanced placement tests but in any case, I am sure that all those 1600 SAT kids, if they are products of run-of-the-mill US public school, they will have a lot of trouble passing entrance exams into serious STEM schools in Europe. E.G. some Russian top notch universities retained the right to mandate entrance exams. Good luck to 1600 SAT kids taking those exams, which do require actual serious knowledge in mathematics and physics, not just IQ.

    I keep hearing that argument ‘the SAT /IQ tests only measure ‘puzzle skills’, not hard problems’ . lol but it just so happens that those kids who score well on the SAT also have the potential to do well at the harder stuff too, while those who score poorly tend to do crappy service sector jobs when the grow up (although there are always exceptions) . While not every high scorer will produce original scientific research, all successful researchers scored well on the SAT

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    While not every high scorer will produce original scientific research, all successful researchers scored well on the SAT
     
    Original scientific research!!? How about decent G-code programmers, good electricians, let alone good engineers?

    but it just so happens that those kids who score well on the SAT also have the potential to do well at the harder stuff too
     
    Sure, among those who know four main arithmetic operations many also have a potential to do well in harder stuff. Again, no IQ or SAT score will help if one doesn't know trigonometry or cannot solve simple problem on resultant force. IQ =/= knowledge.
  90. @rod1963
    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers, not citizens with critical thinking capabilities. And with Common Core it will produce helots. Even without CC, it's quite possible to graduate HS without really knowing much of anything or having any skills to help a graduating student in life.

    The people from the Ivies were supposed to be their masters and tell them what to think.

    Yet, it seems to embrace “high IQ” psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing

     

    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.

    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.

    The problem is the winner-take-all nature of media that tends to focus on only a handful of brilliant people such as Einstein and ignoring others like Witten, who is much smarter. So that creates the illusion that the majority brilliant people don’t produce much (because they are held up to the standard of Einstein), when they do.

    Also, science advances in increments, but often a handful of people get the credit. Einstein gets the credit but he had many other, possibly more brilliant people (like Hilbert, Grossmann , Palitini) helping him or who contributed to the mathematics but who got less credit or attention . A single result is analogous to the stone of a winding path, and these brilliant people are quietly creating the path, setting stones, but the media only focuses on those who lay the final stone.

    Also, as mentioned before, while not all high-scorers produce genius-caliber work, pretty much all great work is produced by very smart people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [The problem is the winner-take-all nature of media that tends to focus on only a handful of brilliant people such as Einstein and ignoring others like Witten, who is much smarter]

    Would Witten have scored higher on an IQ test? No doubt. But Einstein was clearly much better at doing physics research, even when you adjust for his being more fortunate in his year of birth. So it depends what you mean by smarter.
  91. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    No offense Ron, but you just sound jealous that this guy is better than you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    That says more about you than about Ron, or his style, IMO.
  92. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @grey enlightenment2
    SAT, as an example, has nothing to do with math (a real one), it is merely a collection of cascading “smart-ass” tests within a very narrow required knowledge field. IQ and knowledge are not the same. No matter IQ but if one doesn’t know basic trigonometric identities or what real physics is, no IQ will help. Of course, there are also always advanced placement tests but in any case, I am sure that all those 1600 SAT kids, if they are products of run-of-the-mill US public school, they will have a lot of trouble passing entrance exams into serious STEM schools in Europe. E.G. some Russian top notch universities retained the right to mandate entrance exams. Good luck to 1600 SAT kids taking those exams, which do require actual serious knowledge in mathematics and physics, not just IQ.

    I keep hearing that argument 'the SAT /IQ tests only measure 'puzzle skills', not hard problems' . lol but it just so happens that those kids who score well on the SAT also have the potential to do well at the harder stuff too, while those who score poorly tend to do crappy service sector jobs when the grow up (although there are always exceptions) . While not every high scorer will produce original scientific research, all successful researchers scored well on the SAT

    While not every high scorer will produce original scientific research, all successful researchers scored well on the SAT

    Original scientific research!!? How about decent G-code programmers, good electricians, let alone good engineers?

    but it just so happens that those kids who score well on the SAT also have the potential to do well at the harder stuff too

    Sure, among those who know four main arithmetic operations many also have a potential to do well in harder stuff. Again, no IQ or SAT score will help if one doesn’t know trigonometry or cannot solve simple problem on resultant force. IQ =/= knowledge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @grey enlightenment2
    technically, all math is reducible to simple operations like addition (which is how computers work) but the SAT, (at least until the left dumbs it down until its worthless) is designed to test problem solving skills rather than just plug and chug. Word problems for example.
    , @Ron Unz

    Again, no IQ or SAT score will help if one doesn’t know trigonometry or cannot solve simple problem on resultant force. IQ =/= knowledge.
     
    Certainly, but the argument is that high SAT scores strongly correlate with great intellectual ability, so the former is a useful filter for programs oriented towards the latter. For example, that Ellenberg fellow I'd mentioned seems to be very strong in pure mathematics, given that in two different years he got Gold Medals with perfect scores in the International Math Olympiad, and has gone on to a seemingly successful academic career in math. So I think it's unsurprising that he also got a 1600 on the SAT at the age of 16, very possibly being the youngest American his year.
  93. @Andrei Martyanov

    While not every high scorer will produce original scientific research, all successful researchers scored well on the SAT
     
    Original scientific research!!? How about decent G-code programmers, good electricians, let alone good engineers?

    but it just so happens that those kids who score well on the SAT also have the potential to do well at the harder stuff too
     
    Sure, among those who know four main arithmetic operations many also have a potential to do well in harder stuff. Again, no IQ or SAT score will help if one doesn't know trigonometry or cannot solve simple problem on resultant force. IQ =/= knowledge.

    technically, all math is reducible to simple operations like addition (which is how computers work) but the SAT, (at least until the left dumbs it down until its worthless) is designed to test problem solving skills rather than just plug and chug. Word problems for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    technically, all math is reducible to simple operations like addition (which is how computers work)
     
    Yes, even Laplace Transforms are integration by parts, which is, in the end, addition. But this statement:

    at least until the left dumbs it down
     
    Who told you that it wasn't already? Math level of SATs is pathetic, barely reaching what could be described as European-Developed Asia 8-9th grades. The level of geometry in it is laughable, same goes for word problems which have as much in common with math as they have with semantics. Best European educational systems are built around word problems. Literally. You may want to read this:

    http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2015/11/09/how-rusias-ege-compares-with-sat-gaokao-and-the-a-level-exams_538453

    European math and physics public school text books are better left not shown here in US. I can not provide direct links to some tests--do not have Cyrillic on my keyboard at work--but there are some resources which give some insight. And then, of course, there are entrance exams in number of, say, Russia universities and colleges--that is another universe altogether. American kids were dumbed down by both their parents and educational system. Instead of teaching them (and yes--it is hard) kids are enslaved by convoluted IQ-driven philosophy which ignores knowledge as the foundation of education.

  94. @Anonymous

    And so recursion recurses? Are you one of the tortoises all the way down?
     
    To troll who trolls a troll is known as a metatroll. In this case you were the metatroll. Revusky then was metatrolling the metatroll. Etc...

    Trolling a troll is necessary but insufficient to be a metatroll. To be a metatroll, you must troll the troll with reference to the troll’s trolling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/183617
  95. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @grey enlightenment2
    technically, all math is reducible to simple operations like addition (which is how computers work) but the SAT, (at least until the left dumbs it down until its worthless) is designed to test problem solving skills rather than just plug and chug. Word problems for example.

    technically, all math is reducible to simple operations like addition (which is how computers work)

    Yes, even Laplace Transforms are integration by parts, which is, in the end, addition. But this statement:

    at least until the left dumbs it down

    Who told you that it wasn’t already? Math level of SATs is pathetic, barely reaching what could be described as European-Developed Asia 8-9th grades. The level of geometry in it is laughable, same goes for word problems which have as much in common with math as they have with semantics. Best European educational systems are built around word problems. Literally. You may want to read this:

    http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2015/11/09/how-rusias-ege-compares-with-sat-gaokao-and-the-a-level-exams_538453

    European math and physics public school text books are better left not shown here in US. I can not provide direct links to some tests–do not have Cyrillic on my keyboard at work–but there are some resources which give some insight. And then, of course, there are entrance exams in number of, say, Russia universities and colleges–that is another universe altogether. American kids were dumbed down by both their parents and educational system. Instead of teaching them (and yes–it is hard) kids are enslaved by convoluted IQ-driven philosophy which ignores knowledge as the foundation of education.

    Read More
    • Agree: Triumph104
    • Replies: @grey enlightenment2
    Math level of SATs is pathetic, barely reaching what could be described as European-Developed Asia 8-9th grades.

    It's not supposed to be that advanced, rather it's applying elementary concepts to solve problems that are phrased in such as way as to be 'tricky' or circuitous. This is supposed to test the ability to make inferences and filter out noise.
  96. @grey enlightenment2
    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.



    The problem is the winner-take-all nature of media that tends to focus on only a handful of brilliant people such as Einstein and ignoring others like Witten, who is much smarter. So that creates the illusion that the majority brilliant people don't produce much (because they are held up to the standard of Einstein), when they do.

    Also, science advances in increments, but often a handful of people get the credit. Einstein gets the credit but he had many other, possibly more brilliant people (like Hilbert, Grossmann , Palitini) helping him or who contributed to the mathematics but who got less credit or attention . A single result is analogous to the stone of a winding path, and these brilliant people are quietly creating the path, setting stones, but the media only focuses on those who lay the final stone.

    Also, as mentioned before, while not all high-scorers produce genius-caliber work, pretty much all great work is produced by very smart people.

    [The problem is the winner-take-all nature of media that tends to focus on only a handful of brilliant people such as Einstein and ignoring others like Witten, who is much smarter]

    Would Witten have scored higher on an IQ test? No doubt. But Einstein was clearly much better at doing physics research, even when you adjust for his being more fortunate in his year of birth. So it depends what you mean by smarter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Would Witten have scored higher on an IQ test? No doubt."

    How could there possibly be "no doubt"?
    , @grey enlightenment2
    the media has done a better job at promoting Einstein, over others, as the exemplar of genius. but I think you underestimate the importance of timing. Eisenstein had the benefit of a lot of the 'long hanging' fruit having not been picked. A lot recent work has become very incremental, taking extensive research to fill small gaps of knowledge, rather than just huge sweeping discoveries like Einstein made. Witten also published a lot of papers, too. A lot of Einstien's papers tend to be recitations and compilations of maybe 4-5 landmark results.
  97. @5371
    [The problem is the winner-take-all nature of media that tends to focus on only a handful of brilliant people such as Einstein and ignoring others like Witten, who is much smarter]

    Would Witten have scored higher on an IQ test? No doubt. But Einstein was clearly much better at doing physics research, even when you adjust for his being more fortunate in his year of birth. So it depends what you mean by smarter.

    “Would Witten have scored higher on an IQ test? No doubt.”

    How could there possibly be “no doubt”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Einstein never struck mentally quick men as mentally quick, while Witten always has.
  98. @grey enlightenment2
    There are surprisingly many brilliant people who could have scored very high on the SAT at an early age, examples of individuals include anyone with a PHD in algebraic geometry or post-WW2 theoretical physics (quite possibly the two hardest subjects ever), a total of probably a couple hundred people minimum. This probably implies an IQ of at least 180

    There are surprisingly many brilliant people who could have scored very high on the SAT at an early age, examples of individuals include anyone with a PHD in algebraic geometry or post-WW2 theoretical physics (quite possibly the two hardest subjects ever), a total of probably a couple hundred people minimum. This probably implies an IQ of at least 180

    Exactly. There are probably at least several hundred Americans who scored 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT, or would have if they had taken the test, which, according to the correspondence table in the Klitgaard book would have put their Stanford-Binet childhood IQs at around 200. Obviously, there are huge random fluctuations in all these things, and I’m certainly not saying this set precisely corresponds to the smartest Americans, according to other definitions. But I’d bet that there’s a large overlap between the two groups, with both being heavily weighted towards theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians.

    However, I’m also quite skeptical that either Dauman or that black rapper fellow fall into either of those sets, MSM claims to the contrary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Triumph104
    The only claims of a perfect SAT or ACT score that I take seriously are those that receive media coverage while the child is still in school, ideally with the corroboration of a school official.
  99. @Andrei Martyanov

    While not every high scorer will produce original scientific research, all successful researchers scored well on the SAT
     
    Original scientific research!!? How about decent G-code programmers, good electricians, let alone good engineers?

    but it just so happens that those kids who score well on the SAT also have the potential to do well at the harder stuff too
     
    Sure, among those who know four main arithmetic operations many also have a potential to do well in harder stuff. Again, no IQ or SAT score will help if one doesn't know trigonometry or cannot solve simple problem on resultant force. IQ =/= knowledge.

    Again, no IQ or SAT score will help if one doesn’t know trigonometry or cannot solve simple problem on resultant force. IQ =/= knowledge.

    Certainly, but the argument is that high SAT scores strongly correlate with great intellectual ability, so the former is a useful filter for programs oriented towards the latter. For example, that Ellenberg fellow I’d mentioned seems to be very strong in pure mathematics, given that in two different years he got Gold Medals with perfect scores in the International Math Olympiad, and has gone on to a seemingly successful academic career in math. So I think it’s unsurprising that he also got a 1600 on the SAT at the age of 16, very possibly being the youngest American his year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Certainly, but the argument is that high SAT scores strongly correlate with great intellectual ability, so the former is a useful filter for programs oriented towards the latter
     
    I do understand this, but my point is different--the only thing which is out there is SAT/ACT. Yes, there are some Advanced Placement SATs or Princeton AB and BC Exams--but those are still not it. The whole system is rigged towards IQ-criteria, not real knowledge-based education. It most manifests itself in the labor force, much of which is totally capable to improve, granted that it is educated not in SAT-oriented environment but in actual programs of progressing complexity. But here we are getting to a larger, philosophical essence of US educational system--it does support very low standard. One of the major reasons for that--SATs.
  100. @5371
    [The problem is the winner-take-all nature of media that tends to focus on only a handful of brilliant people such as Einstein and ignoring others like Witten, who is much smarter]

    Would Witten have scored higher on an IQ test? No doubt. But Einstein was clearly much better at doing physics research, even when you adjust for his being more fortunate in his year of birth. So it depends what you mean by smarter.

    the media has done a better job at promoting Einstein, over others, as the exemplar of genius. but I think you underestimate the importance of timing. Eisenstein had the benefit of a lot of the ‘long hanging’ fruit having not been picked. A lot recent work has become very incremental, taking extensive research to fill small gaps of knowledge, rather than just huge sweeping discoveries like Einstein made. Witten also published a lot of papers, too. A lot of Einstien’s papers tend to be recitations and compilations of maybe 4-5 landmark results.

    Read More
  101. @Andrei Martyanov

    technically, all math is reducible to simple operations like addition (which is how computers work)
     
    Yes, even Laplace Transforms are integration by parts, which is, in the end, addition. But this statement:

    at least until the left dumbs it down
     
    Who told you that it wasn't already? Math level of SATs is pathetic, barely reaching what could be described as European-Developed Asia 8-9th grades. The level of geometry in it is laughable, same goes for word problems which have as much in common with math as they have with semantics. Best European educational systems are built around word problems. Literally. You may want to read this:

    http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2015/11/09/how-rusias-ege-compares-with-sat-gaokao-and-the-a-level-exams_538453

    European math and physics public school text books are better left not shown here in US. I can not provide direct links to some tests--do not have Cyrillic on my keyboard at work--but there are some resources which give some insight. And then, of course, there are entrance exams in number of, say, Russia universities and colleges--that is another universe altogether. American kids were dumbed down by both their parents and educational system. Instead of teaching them (and yes--it is hard) kids are enslaved by convoluted IQ-driven philosophy which ignores knowledge as the foundation of education.

    Math level of SATs is pathetic, barely reaching what could be described as European-Developed Asia 8-9th grades.

    It’s not supposed to be that advanced, rather it’s applying elementary concepts to solve problems that are phrased in such as way as to be ‘tricky’ or circuitous. This is supposed to test the ability to make inferences and filter out noise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, although half the traditional SAT was Verbal, here's a couple of surprising anecdotes suggesting the effectiveness of such a metric in filtering very high-end ability, even in the sciences...

    The late Sydney Coleman was an exceptionally strong theoretical physicist, and a few weeks ago I stumbled across a reference to some Science Fiction reviews written in the mid-1970s by a fan named Sydney Coleman. Since the name is moderately uncommon, I consulted his Wikipedia page, and sure enough, it mentioned Coleman had had a strong interest in SF. Out of curiosity, I tracked down some of his reviews, one of them linked below:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FantasySF-1974aug-Coleman.pdf

    To my surprise, he seemed an extremely good writer, and also remarkably erudite, both with regard to SF and also mainstream literature. Read it and judge for yourself. There seems no indication of any of this in his Wiki page, and neither I nor another physicist who knew Coleman had even been aware of that side of his interests. I don't have a clue what his SAT Verbal score was, but I'd guess it would have been very high.

    As another example, the renowned physicist Ed Witten originally supposedly intended to go into journalism as a career, and even published a few early pieces in The Nation, TNR, and such before he switched to physics:

    http://www.unz.org/Author/WittenEdward/
  102. @dearieme
    "Would Witten have scored higher on an IQ test? No doubt."

    How could there possibly be "no doubt"?

    Einstein never struck mentally quick men as mentally quick, while Witten always has.

    Read More
  103. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Trolling a troll is necessary but insufficient to be a metatroll. To be a metatroll, you must troll the troll with reference to the troll's trolling.
    Read More
  104. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ron,

    How much more common are 1600 scores on the post-1995 SAT? And how does the post-1995 SAT correlate with IQ compared to the pre-1995 SAT?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    There are SAT -> IQ conversion tables for both pre and post recentering at http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx
    They also give percentiles so you can compare frequencies (but I think they assume a normal distribution, which is not a good assumption).

    This page gives some numbers for 1600 scores in different years (although not footnoted it gives references at the bottom):
    http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html

    In the 1985-1986 school year, nine students out of about one million test takers (roughly one in 110,000 test-takers) receive a perfect score of 1600 on the SAT.
    ...
    1990 In this year, ten students out of 1.2 million test takers (roughly one in 120,000 students) get perfect scores of 1600 on the SAT.
    ...
    Previous to the new scaling, a single mistake or question left blank would result in a score of less than 1600. Starting with the April, 1995, SAT test, students can miss as many as four questions and still get a perfect 1600. In 1994, 25 students got perfect scores out of about 1.25 million (about 1 in 50,000 students). The first recentered SAT in April has 137 perfect scores out of about 200,000 test takers (about 1 in 1,400 students).
     
    It's funny to hear non-brilliant people claim a 1600 on the pre-recentered SAT (someone tried that on a friend of mine who knows better having attended an elite school). It just demonstrates how little they understand the rarity of that accomplishment. Dauman might have scored 1600 at 17, but I agree with Ron that his doing it at 13 is highly implausible.

    For an idea of how rare high 13 year old SAT scores were see the Duke TIP and SMPY studies:
    https://tip.duke.edu/node/289
  105. @Anonymous
    Ron,

    How much more common are 1600 scores on the post-1995 SAT? And how does the post-1995 SAT correlate with IQ compared to the pre-1995 SAT?

    There are SAT -> IQ conversion tables for both pre and post recentering at http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx
    They also give percentiles so you can compare frequencies (but I think they assume a normal distribution, which is not a good assumption).

    This page gives some numbers for 1600 scores in different years (although not footnoted it gives references at the bottom):

    http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html

    In the 1985-1986 school year, nine students out of about one million test takers (roughly one in 110,000 test-takers) receive a perfect score of 1600 on the SAT.

    1990 In this year, ten students out of 1.2 million test takers (roughly one in 120,000 students) get perfect scores of 1600 on the SAT.

    Previous to the new scaling, a single mistake or question left blank would result in a score of less than 1600. Starting with the April, 1995, SAT test, students can miss as many as four questions and still get a perfect 1600. In 1994, 25 students got perfect scores out of about 1.25 million (about 1 in 50,000 students). The first recentered SAT in April has 137 perfect scores out of about 200,000 test takers (about 1 in 1,400 students).

    It’s funny to hear non-brilliant people claim a 1600 on the pre-recentered SAT (someone tried that on a friend of mine who knows better having attended an elite school). It just demonstrates how little they understand the rarity of that accomplishment. Dauman might have scored 1600 at 17, but I agree with Ron that his doing it at 13 is highly implausible.

    For an idea of how rare high 13 year old SAT scores were see the Duke TIP and SMPY studies:

    https://tip.duke.edu/node/289

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    How much more common are 1600 scores on the post-1995 SAT? And how does the post-1995 SAT correlate with IQ compared to the pre-1995 SAT?
     
    It's been years since I looked into the details, but this webpage accords with my (fuzzy) memory, namely that the 1995 "recentering" increased the number of 1600s by a huge factor, maybe something like 20-50x, effectively destroying the SAT as a measure of highest-end ability. There was widespread suspicion that this impact was deliberate, since it allowed the elite universities to admit from an enormously larger pool of students based on all sorts of other grounds while concealing the fact that demonstrated academic ability was being disregarded (keep in mind that the number of students scoring in the 1500s also vastly increased).
  106. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @BCB2
    Guess I’m ignorant as to how IQ tests are scored. How can you even score that high on Stanford-Binet?

    So far as I know the reliability of most IQ tests fade out at 140. A professor of IQ 120 (the average professor in the US) will find it difficult to devise a realistic test for someone of “150″ IQ, although it is tried. The best that can be done is a speed trial. A lot of relatively easy questions answered quickly.

    Read More
  107. @Immigrant from former USSR
    You wrote:

    If IQ is genetically determined,
     
    It is not genetically determined.
    Genes play important role, but to say "determined" is incorrect.

    If grandmother had dick, she would be grandfather.

    Then is Jenner a Grandfather or Grandmother?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    My first reaction was
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
    But then I understood that you are talking about that freak.
    I have no idea.
  108. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ron Unz

    Again, no IQ or SAT score will help if one doesn’t know trigonometry or cannot solve simple problem on resultant force. IQ =/= knowledge.
     
    Certainly, but the argument is that high SAT scores strongly correlate with great intellectual ability, so the former is a useful filter for programs oriented towards the latter. For example, that Ellenberg fellow I'd mentioned seems to be very strong in pure mathematics, given that in two different years he got Gold Medals with perfect scores in the International Math Olympiad, and has gone on to a seemingly successful academic career in math. So I think it's unsurprising that he also got a 1600 on the SAT at the age of 16, very possibly being the youngest American his year.

    Certainly, but the argument is that high SAT scores strongly correlate with great intellectual ability, so the former is a useful filter for programs oriented towards the latter

    I do understand this, but my point is different–the only thing which is out there is SAT/ACT. Yes, there are some Advanced Placement SATs or Princeton AB and BC Exams–but those are still not it. The whole system is rigged towards IQ-criteria, not real knowledge-based education. It most manifests itself in the labor force, much of which is totally capable to improve, granted that it is educated not in SAT-oriented environment but in actual programs of progressing complexity. But here we are getting to a larger, philosophical essence of US educational system–it does support very low standard. One of the major reasons for that–SATs.

    Read More
  109. @res
    There are SAT -> IQ conversion tables for both pre and post recentering at http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/oldSATIQ.aspx
    They also give percentiles so you can compare frequencies (but I think they assume a normal distribution, which is not a good assumption).

    This page gives some numbers for 1600 scores in different years (although not footnoted it gives references at the bottom):
    http://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html

    In the 1985-1986 school year, nine students out of about one million test takers (roughly one in 110,000 test-takers) receive a perfect score of 1600 on the SAT.
    ...
    1990 In this year, ten students out of 1.2 million test takers (roughly one in 120,000 students) get perfect scores of 1600 on the SAT.
    ...
    Previous to the new scaling, a single mistake or question left blank would result in a score of less than 1600. Starting with the April, 1995, SAT test, students can miss as many as four questions and still get a perfect 1600. In 1994, 25 students got perfect scores out of about 1.25 million (about 1 in 50,000 students). The first recentered SAT in April has 137 perfect scores out of about 200,000 test takers (about 1 in 1,400 students).
     
    It's funny to hear non-brilliant people claim a 1600 on the pre-recentered SAT (someone tried that on a friend of mine who knows better having attended an elite school). It just demonstrates how little they understand the rarity of that accomplishment. Dauman might have scored 1600 at 17, but I agree with Ron that his doing it at 13 is highly implausible.

    For an idea of how rare high 13 year old SAT scores were see the Duke TIP and SMPY studies:
    https://tip.duke.edu/node/289

    How much more common are 1600 scores on the post-1995 SAT? And how does the post-1995 SAT correlate with IQ compared to the pre-1995 SAT?

    It’s been years since I looked into the details, but this webpage accords with my (fuzzy) memory, namely that the 1995 “recentering” increased the number of 1600s by a huge factor, maybe something like 20-50x, effectively destroying the SAT as a measure of highest-end ability. There was widespread suspicion that this impact was deliberate, since it allowed the elite universities to admit from an enormously larger pool of students based on all sorts of other grounds while concealing the fact that demonstrated academic ability was being disregarded (keep in mind that the number of students scoring in the 1500s also vastly increased).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Triumph104
    There is an athlete at Harvard who scored a 1660 out of 2400 on the SAT. They had the score posted on their LinkedIn page but it has been taken down now. They had a 4.0 high school GPA so they just made the Ivy League Academic Index minimum.

    Years ago former Libertarian presidential candidate hit the publicity circuit to crow that his homeschooled daughter had gotten into Harvard. She received perfect scores of 800 on the reading and writing portions of the SAT. While his daughter is bright, what was glossed over was that his daughter was a nationally ranked fencer and the importance that played in her admission to several elite universities.

    http://www.ivygateblog.com/2012/01/fameball-libertarian-peddles-harvard-daughter-for-fame-and-money-again/
  110. @grey enlightenment2
    Math level of SATs is pathetic, barely reaching what could be described as European-Developed Asia 8-9th grades.

    It's not supposed to be that advanced, rather it's applying elementary concepts to solve problems that are phrased in such as way as to be 'tricky' or circuitous. This is supposed to test the ability to make inferences and filter out noise.

    Incidentally, although half the traditional SAT was Verbal, here’s a couple of surprising anecdotes suggesting the effectiveness of such a metric in filtering very high-end ability, even in the sciences…

    The late Sydney Coleman was an exceptionally strong theoretical physicist, and a few weeks ago I stumbled across a reference to some Science Fiction reviews written in the mid-1970s by a fan named Sydney Coleman. Since the name is moderately uncommon, I consulted his Wikipedia page, and sure enough, it mentioned Coleman had had a strong interest in SF. Out of curiosity, I tracked down some of his reviews, one of them linked below:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FantasySF-1974aug-Coleman.pdf

    To my surprise, he seemed an extremely good writer, and also remarkably erudite, both with regard to SF and also mainstream literature. Read it and judge for yourself. There seems no indication of any of this in his Wiki page, and neither I nor another physicist who knew Coleman had even been aware of that side of his interests. I don’t have a clue what his SAT Verbal score was, but I’d guess it would have been very high.

    As another example, the renowned physicist Ed Witten originally supposedly intended to go into journalism as a career, and even published a few early pieces in The Nation, TNR, and such before he switched to physics:

    http://www.unz.org/Author/WittenEdward/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Is writing ability really indicative of intelligence? Imo, intelligence is being able to process information quickly. If someone throws two numbers at you, the smarter man can spit out their sum faster than the dumber man. Of course, summing algorithms make a big difference. Our mind, like a computer, chooses which summing algorithm is the best given the input. So maybe the man who happened on a neat summing algorithm wins. He's not smarter. He's just luckier or more well-read.
    , @Sam Shama
    Coleman's writing, as you pointed out, is delightful, and mixes wit and wonder with ease; and that is a feat, simpler savoured than performed.

    Thank you for the brilliant collection at unz.org and unz.com uploads.

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Do you have an opinion on the Julian Assange situation?

    He claims he has information that Hillary Clinton has been rigging elections and also that his next release will lead to the arrest of HRC. Assange hinted that the murdered DNC staffer was killing in a hit, as retribution for leaking documents to him.

    Do you think his claims have any substance?
  111. @JohnnyWalker123
    Then is Jenner a Grandfather or Grandmother?

    My first reaction was

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

    But then I understood that you are talking about that freak.
    I have no idea.

    Read More
  112. @Ron Unz
    Given the number and diversity of comments and my somewhat elliptical writing style, perhaps I should clarify what I was actually suggesting in my column...

    (1) I think it's been well-established that neither IQ scores nor SAT scores are Gaussian at the very high end, having much fatter tails than would be expected.

    (2) Despite this, I think it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone has ever gotten an IQ score as high as 260 on the Stanford-Binet test. But I also think it's exceptionally unlikely that any 13-year-old ever got a perfect 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT.

    (3) Instead, I believe it's virtually certain that the story of Dauman's astonishing score is merely a hoax, one which he probably originally fabricated to impress his mentor, Sumner Redstone, and then was simply repeated over and over again by the gullible media. Perhaps Dauman's true SAT scores were quite good or perhaps they weren't---I don't have a clue.

    (4) Probably the main reason the media fell for such a ridiculous claim is that relatively few high-scoring students become professional journalists, so presumably most of the journalists involved had no idea that scoring 1600 at age 13 was so utterly implausible. Similarly, I'd suspect that most of the other ultra-high-IQ stories promoted by the MSM (e.g. that Montana bar-bouncer) are also more-or-less hoaxes, accepted by the MSM for similar reasons.

    (5) I'd guess that very few of the individuals in Shari Redstone's anti-Dauman camp had very high SAT scores, so they probably also failed to notice Dauman's ridiculous claims for exactly the same reason.

    (6) The central point of my column was less about IQ scores, and more about the tremendous gullibility of the MSM on all sorts of issues, with hoaxes sometimes taking on a life of their own and being propagated for decades. The reason I focused on Dauman's SAT scores was (A) they were so wildly implausible and (B) even with the "opp research" due to tens of billions of dollars at stake in the Viacom control battle, his bitter opponents also hadn't noticed the issue.

    You’re making us feel small here.

    Read More
  113. @Anonymous
    No offense Ron, but you just sound jealous that this guy is better than you.

    That says more about you than about Ron, or his style, IMO.

    Read More
  114. Could a trained psychometrician make an educated guess as to what the IQs were of the top mathematicians ever: Archimedes, Newton, Gauss, and Euler? Yes after William Dunham I include Euler and frankly am astonished he was left off in the first place by ET Bell.

    Read More
  115. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    his forhead doesn’t look big enough, imo, for him to be a plausible scorer of 1600. If you look at that bouncer fellow, the man the media uphold as the smartest man, you can’t help but notice his gigantic forhead.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/pubpym/picture76556712/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/Unz

    Your forhead is large, too.

    So is steve sailer’s

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Steve-Sailer-10.png

    Great minds have forheads alike.

    Judging by forhead, sailer is smarter than you. Well, sailer can sure write better than you, if writing ability is a partial function of conciseness.

    If at some point in reading my comment you stopped to look at your forhead in the mirror, i have won.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    his forhead doesn’t look big enough, imo, for him to be a plausible scorer of 1600.
     
    Your comment brings to mind those scholars in Germany who, learning that the brain of the great mathematician Gauss was, at autopsy, rather normal, concluded that Gauss could not have been quite the great mathematician as was generally supposed.

    In fact, the assumption of a correlation between intellect and brain volume seems fairly dopey, except in cases of pathological abnormality.

    With an average of 81 billion neurons, each with up to ten thousand synapses, a person's intellectual ability is likely to be far more closely related to the way those those synapses have been facilitated, .e.g., whether they have benefited from a Harvard education, ( and also how high gain the entire nervous system is) than with the volume of the cranium, which itself a poor proxy for cerebral tissue volume.
  116. I don’t think most of the people that contributed to STEM had particularly great IQ’s. There is the issue of being talented in a particular area.

    There is that spark also that comes on one.

    Read More
  117. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, although half the traditional SAT was Verbal, here's a couple of surprising anecdotes suggesting the effectiveness of such a metric in filtering very high-end ability, even in the sciences...

    The late Sydney Coleman was an exceptionally strong theoretical physicist, and a few weeks ago I stumbled across a reference to some Science Fiction reviews written in the mid-1970s by a fan named Sydney Coleman. Since the name is moderately uncommon, I consulted his Wikipedia page, and sure enough, it mentioned Coleman had had a strong interest in SF. Out of curiosity, I tracked down some of his reviews, one of them linked below:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FantasySF-1974aug-Coleman.pdf

    To my surprise, he seemed an extremely good writer, and also remarkably erudite, both with regard to SF and also mainstream literature. Read it and judge for yourself. There seems no indication of any of this in his Wiki page, and neither I nor another physicist who knew Coleman had even been aware of that side of his interests. I don't have a clue what his SAT Verbal score was, but I'd guess it would have been very high.

    As another example, the renowned physicist Ed Witten originally supposedly intended to go into journalism as a career, and even published a few early pieces in The Nation, TNR, and such before he switched to physics:

    http://www.unz.org/Author/WittenEdward/

    Is writing ability really indicative of intelligence? Imo, intelligence is being able to process information quickly. If someone throws two numbers at you, the smarter man can spit out their sum faster than the dumber man. Of course, summing algorithms make a big difference. Our mind, like a computer, chooses which summing algorithm is the best given the input. So maybe the man who happened on a neat summing algorithm wins. He’s not smarter. He’s just luckier or more well-read.

    Read More
  118. @Ron Unz

    There are surprisingly many brilliant people who could have scored very high on the SAT at an early age, examples of individuals include anyone with a PHD in algebraic geometry or post-WW2 theoretical physics (quite possibly the two hardest subjects ever), a total of probably a couple hundred people minimum. This probably implies an IQ of at least 180
     
    Exactly. There are probably at least several hundred Americans who scored 1600 on the pre-1995 SAT, or would have if they had taken the test, which, according to the correspondence table in the Klitgaard book would have put their Stanford-Binet childhood IQs at around 200. Obviously, there are huge random fluctuations in all these things, and I'm certainly not saying this set precisely corresponds to the smartest Americans, according to other definitions. But I'd bet that there's a large overlap between the two groups, with both being heavily weighted towards theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians.

    However, I'm also quite skeptical that either Dauman or that black rapper fellow fall into either of those sets, MSM claims to the contrary.

    The only claims of a perfect SAT or ACT score that I take seriously are those that receive media coverage while the child is still in school, ideally with the corroboration of a school official.

    Read More
  119. @Ron Unz

    How much more common are 1600 scores on the post-1995 SAT? And how does the post-1995 SAT correlate with IQ compared to the pre-1995 SAT?
     
    It's been years since I looked into the details, but this webpage accords with my (fuzzy) memory, namely that the 1995 "recentering" increased the number of 1600s by a huge factor, maybe something like 20-50x, effectively destroying the SAT as a measure of highest-end ability. There was widespread suspicion that this impact was deliberate, since it allowed the elite universities to admit from an enormously larger pool of students based on all sorts of other grounds while concealing the fact that demonstrated academic ability was being disregarded (keep in mind that the number of students scoring in the 1500s also vastly increased).

    There is an athlete at Harvard who scored a 1660 out of 2400 on the SAT. They had the score posted on their LinkedIn page but it has been taken down now. They had a 4.0 high school GPA so they just made the Ivy League Academic Index minimum.

    Years ago former Libertarian presidential candidate hit the publicity circuit to crow that his homeschooled daughter had gotten into Harvard. She received perfect scores of 800 on the reading and writing portions of the SAT. While his daughter is bright, what was glossed over was that his daughter was a nationally ranked fencer and the importance that played in her admission to several elite universities.

    http://www.ivygateblog.com/2012/01/fameball-libertarian-peddles-harvard-daughter-for-fame-and-money-again/

    Read More
  120. “I have little doubt that if American journalists were a bit more conversant with the higher reaches of academic testing…” But being conversant presupposes that they’re intelligent enough to understand the topic (or even accept its validity, thanks to the Soviet-era levels of political correctness that have marinated the mind of many a journalist). The incredible groupthink, or as Sobran put it ‘hive mind’, amongst most journalists today precludes them from honest intellectual investigation. Mediocre hit pieces on the latest politically-incorrect deviant or deviation in thought are MUCH more emotionally satisfying for these people.

    Read More
  121. This is interesting (perhaps germane to the bartender-genius fellow):

    The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time…

    The very limited research that has been done on this phenomenon has focused on possible flaws in high IQ people that might explain the exclusion. In order to be explanatory, the flaw would need to increase with IQ. However, the evidence that exists suggests that it is not the result of of a compensatory flow, but rather the result of inappropriate educational and productive environments within which the high IQ person must strive to succeed…

    So, if your IQ is 140 something, the above should serve as a warning that you may be facing related career challenges. If your IQ is over 150, it is a clarion call; without direct intervention, your career prospects are very poor. …

    http://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Christopher Langan was actually a bouncer (doorman), not a bartender.

    Langan took a string of labor-intensive jobs for some time, and by his mid-40s had been a construction worker, cowboy, Forest Service Ranger, farmhand, and, for over twenty years, a bouncer on Long Island.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan#Later_life

    Psychological and Social Disorders of High IQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABN-QNzxa2g

    Published on Feb 24, 2013

    "Psychological and Social Disorders of High IQ," Jennifer Carl, Valencia College
    While it is easy to assume someone's psychological well-being, it is often masked by a crucial factor: IQ. People outside the normal IQ range often face unique psychological and psycho-social disorders. Individuals with higher IQs usually exhibit certain characteristics that are many times overlooked. Here we will discuss this side of the spectrum and many adversities these individuals must overcome in society and within themselves.

    Presented at Florida Collegiate Honors Council 2013
    , @JackOH
    mobi, thanks. I read the link quickly, and, well, I got a sinking feeling that, as I suggested in my comment #85 above, HBD/IQ as a political idea is a very tough sell. What are we going to do now? Try to sell the over-150 IQ folks as a new victim class? Yep, it pains me to write that.

    Here's another very rough, very imperfect measure of how being fairly bright may not mean all that much in many settings. Many UR writers and commenters are very bright people. How many of us have taken on new jobs or new responsibilities expecting a fresh set of challenges, only to find a mess that management wants you to clean up without actually giving you the authority to do so? There are numerous variations, too, where "smart" on its own doesn't quite work. Again, it pains me to write that.
  122. @mobi
    This is interesting (perhaps germane to the bartender-genius fellow):

    The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time...

    The very limited research that has been done on this phenomenon has focused on possible flaws in high IQ people that might explain the exclusion. In order to be explanatory, the flaw would need to increase with IQ. However, the evidence that exists suggests that it is not the result of of a compensatory flow, but rather the result of inappropriate educational and productive environments within which the high IQ person must strive to succeed...

    So, if your IQ is 140 something, the above should serve as a warning that you may be facing related career challenges. If your IQ is over 150, it is a clarion call; without direct intervention, your career prospects are very poor. ...
     
    http://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

    Christopher Langan was actually a bouncer (doorman), not a bartender.

    Langan took a string of labor-intensive jobs for some time, and by his mid-40s had been a construction worker, cowboy, Forest Service Ranger, farmhand, and, for over twenty years, a bouncer on Long Island.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan#Later_life

    Psychological and Social Disorders of High IQ

    Published on Feb 24, 2013

    “Psychological and Social Disorders of High IQ,” Jennifer Carl, Valencia College
    While it is easy to assume someone’s psychological well-being, it is often masked by a crucial factor: IQ. People outside the normal IQ range often face unique psychological and psycho-social disorders. Individuals with higher IQs usually exhibit certain characteristics that are many times overlooked. Here we will discuss this side of the spectrum and many adversities these individuals must overcome in society and within themselves.

    Presented at Florida Collegiate Honors Council 2013

    Read More
  123. Here’s the cure! – for all those suffering from high – or low – or just about : any – – IQ:

    It depends

    If you meet someone
    Who is brighter or dumber than you -
    Don’t worry about it.
    The ants and the Gods
    Struggle, believe me, alike.

    This is the beginning of a poem by Hans Magnus Enzensberger – a writer who speaks (and writes) less than 10 languages, and has, as far as mathematics is concerned, onyl written a children’s manual: The Number Devil, – which hasn’t even sold a million copies worlswide.
    But guess what: Enzensberger is a nice guy who seems to enjoy life very much. –
    It just comes to my mind – a little book by him: “IQ – The Idiot-Guide” – Suhrkamp Publishers, Frankfurt/ M.; 2007

    Read More
  124. @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, although half the traditional SAT was Verbal, here's a couple of surprising anecdotes suggesting the effectiveness of such a metric in filtering very high-end ability, even in the sciences...

    The late Sydney Coleman was an exceptionally strong theoretical physicist, and a few weeks ago I stumbled across a reference to some Science Fiction reviews written in the mid-1970s by a fan named Sydney Coleman. Since the name is moderately uncommon, I consulted his Wikipedia page, and sure enough, it mentioned Coleman had had a strong interest in SF. Out of curiosity, I tracked down some of his reviews, one of them linked below:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FantasySF-1974aug-Coleman.pdf

    To my surprise, he seemed an extremely good writer, and also remarkably erudite, both with regard to SF and also mainstream literature. Read it and judge for yourself. There seems no indication of any of this in his Wiki page, and neither I nor another physicist who knew Coleman had even been aware of that side of his interests. I don't have a clue what his SAT Verbal score was, but I'd guess it would have been very high.

    As another example, the renowned physicist Ed Witten originally supposedly intended to go into journalism as a career, and even published a few early pieces in The Nation, TNR, and such before he switched to physics:

    http://www.unz.org/Author/WittenEdward/

    Coleman’s writing, as you pointed out, is delightful, and mixes wit and wonder with ease; and that is a feat, simpler savoured than performed.

    Thank you for the brilliant collection at unz.org and unz.com uploads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Makes you wish he had tried his hand at SF authorship, not just criticism. Probably he did but his own high standards would not allow him to publish.
  125. @mobi
    This is interesting (perhaps germane to the bartender-genius fellow):

    The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time...

    The very limited research that has been done on this phenomenon has focused on possible flaws in high IQ people that might explain the exclusion. In order to be explanatory, the flaw would need to increase with IQ. However, the evidence that exists suggests that it is not the result of of a compensatory flow, but rather the result of inappropriate educational and productive environments within which the high IQ person must strive to succeed...

    So, if your IQ is 140 something, the above should serve as a warning that you may be facing related career challenges. If your IQ is over 150, it is a clarion call; without direct intervention, your career prospects are very poor. ...
     
    http://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

    mobi, thanks. I read the link quickly, and, well, I got a sinking feeling that, as I suggested in my comment #85 above, HBD/IQ as a political idea is a very tough sell. What are we going to do now? Try to sell the over-150 IQ folks as a new victim class? Yep, it pains me to write that.

    Here’s another very rough, very imperfect measure of how being fairly bright may not mean all that much in many settings. Many UR writers and commenters are very bright people. How many of us have taken on new jobs or new responsibilities expecting a fresh set of challenges, only to find a mess that management wants you to clean up without actually giving you the authority to do so? There are numerous variations, too, where “smart” on its own doesn’t quite work. Again, it pains me to write that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I see the high IQ community more as the greatest untapped potential and untapped natural resource on the planet. Much more powerful and creative than any AI super computer could ever be. Ignoring them, is the world's and humanity's loss, not high IQ peoples' loss, in my opinion. They will manage just fine on their own, some more graciously and soberly than others, but they will mostly be OK. High IQ people are not victims or saviors, they are simply an underappreciated and underused resource, besides being a legitimate, global minority and endangered species worthy of protection, in my opinion. Our rulers are betting on robots and cheap, foreign, mediocre IQ labor/citizens to conquer and win the future. They are seriously delusional and shooting themselves in the foot by promoting and pursuing this misguided, dysgenic project and path.
    What I am betting on, is that things will get so badly out of control, to the point where the ruling class will be forced to grudgingly ask the high IQ community for help. A ''When the going gets weird, the weird get going/turn pro'' type of scenario.

    I feel, we are fast approaching this tipping point...

    Thompson [6' 3''] on Conan [6' 4'']

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjHAnfMiiI

    “So if we aim to have computers truly ‘get’ jokes–much less to come up with their own and know when and to whom to tell them–we’re essentially going to have upload into them all of humanity. Plus…it seems pretty clear that good comedy breaks the rules and revels in the peculiar. And that’s exactly the sort of stuff computer programs aren’t very good at.”
     
    - http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/intelligence-humour-are-smart-people-funnier/

    Whomever has the ''smarts'' to sustainably, fairly, and ethically tap into this significant, yet unexploited, renewable natural resource, will strike it rich, in monetary as well as in political terms. The technology/mindset to successfully tap these deposits/reserves with, is a mysterious and magical formula. Akin to discovering the Holy Grail. I feel Mr. Unz is one of the very few people close to discovering/formulating it. Peter Thiel is another person on the right(eous) path.
  126. @Sam Shama
    Coleman's writing, as you pointed out, is delightful, and mixes wit and wonder with ease; and that is a feat, simpler savoured than performed.

    Thank you for the brilliant collection at unz.org and unz.com uploads.

    Makes you wish he had tried his hand at SF authorship, not just criticism. Probably he did but his own high standards would not allow him to publish.

    Read More
  127. @JackOH
    mobi, thanks. I read the link quickly, and, well, I got a sinking feeling that, as I suggested in my comment #85 above, HBD/IQ as a political idea is a very tough sell. What are we going to do now? Try to sell the over-150 IQ folks as a new victim class? Yep, it pains me to write that.

    Here's another very rough, very imperfect measure of how being fairly bright may not mean all that much in many settings. Many UR writers and commenters are very bright people. How many of us have taken on new jobs or new responsibilities expecting a fresh set of challenges, only to find a mess that management wants you to clean up without actually giving you the authority to do so? There are numerous variations, too, where "smart" on its own doesn't quite work. Again, it pains me to write that.

    I see the high IQ community more as the greatest untapped potential and untapped natural resource on the planet. Much more powerful and creative than any AI super computer could ever be. Ignoring them, is the world’s and humanity’s loss, not high IQ peoples’ loss, in my opinion. They will manage just fine on their own, some more graciously and soberly than others, but they will mostly be OK. High IQ people are not victims or saviors, they are simply an underappreciated and underused resource, besides being a legitimate, global minority and endangered species worthy of protection, in my opinion. Our rulers are betting on robots and cheap, foreign, mediocre IQ labor/citizens to conquer and win the future. They are seriously delusional and shooting themselves in the foot by promoting and pursuing this misguided, dysgenic project and path.
    What I am betting on, is that things will get so badly out of control, to the point where the ruling class will be forced to grudgingly ask the high IQ community for help. A ”When the going gets weird, the weird get going/turn pro” type of scenario.

    I feel, we are fast approaching this tipping point…

    Thompson [6' 3''] on Conan [6' 4'']

    “So if we aim to have computers truly ‘get’ jokes–much less to come up with their own and know when and to whom to tell them–we’re essentially going to have upload into them all of humanity. Plus…it seems pretty clear that good comedy breaks the rules and revels in the peculiar. And that’s exactly the sort of stuff computer programs aren’t very good at.”

    http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/intelligence-humour-are-smart-people-funnier/

    Whomever has the ”smarts” to sustainably, fairly, and ethically tap into this significant, yet unexploited, renewable natural resource, will strike it rich, in monetary as well as in political terms. The technology/mindset to successfully tap these deposits/reserves with, is a mysterious and magical formula. Akin to discovering the Holy Grail. I feel Mr. Unz is one of the very few people close to discovering/formulating it. Peter Thiel is another person on the right(eous) path.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    FKA, thanks, I don't doubt your sincerity, but "they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own" doesn't jibe with those same high IQ people making up an "endangered species worthy of protection".

    I'm very eager to listen to arguments that HBD/IQ ideas ought to be more politically favored than they are. Those arguments haven't yet achieved ripeness in my opinion.
  128. @FKA Max
    I see the high IQ community more as the greatest untapped potential and untapped natural resource on the planet. Much more powerful and creative than any AI super computer could ever be. Ignoring them, is the world's and humanity's loss, not high IQ peoples' loss, in my opinion. They will manage just fine on their own, some more graciously and soberly than others, but they will mostly be OK. High IQ people are not victims or saviors, they are simply an underappreciated and underused resource, besides being a legitimate, global minority and endangered species worthy of protection, in my opinion. Our rulers are betting on robots and cheap, foreign, mediocre IQ labor/citizens to conquer and win the future. They are seriously delusional and shooting themselves in the foot by promoting and pursuing this misguided, dysgenic project and path.
    What I am betting on, is that things will get so badly out of control, to the point where the ruling class will be forced to grudgingly ask the high IQ community for help. A ''When the going gets weird, the weird get going/turn pro'' type of scenario.

    I feel, we are fast approaching this tipping point...

    Thompson [6' 3''] on Conan [6' 4'']

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjHAnfMiiI

    “So if we aim to have computers truly ‘get’ jokes–much less to come up with their own and know when and to whom to tell them–we’re essentially going to have upload into them all of humanity. Plus…it seems pretty clear that good comedy breaks the rules and revels in the peculiar. And that’s exactly the sort of stuff computer programs aren’t very good at.”
     
    - http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/intelligence-humour-are-smart-people-funnier/

    Whomever has the ''smarts'' to sustainably, fairly, and ethically tap into this significant, yet unexploited, renewable natural resource, will strike it rich, in monetary as well as in political terms. The technology/mindset to successfully tap these deposits/reserves with, is a mysterious and magical formula. Akin to discovering the Holy Grail. I feel Mr. Unz is one of the very few people close to discovering/formulating it. Peter Thiel is another person on the right(eous) path.

    FKA, thanks, I don’t doubt your sincerity, but “they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own” doesn’t jibe with those same high IQ people making up an “endangered species worthy of protection”.

    I’m very eager to listen to arguments that HBD/IQ ideas ought to be more politically favored than they are. Those arguments haven’t yet achieved ripeness in my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    but “they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own” doesn’t jibe with those same high IQ people making up an “endangered species worthy of protection”.
     
    I don't think the high IQ community cares too much about its own survival as a collective in evolutionary terms, otherwise it would have a higher fertility rate.

    Warning: strong language

    • With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is diminished by 25%.

    • The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those who don’t want them.

    • Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure rises to 43% among those with college degrees.

    [...]

    Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things such as whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful offspring, whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly dysgenic world—Idiocracy made flesh.

    Western sophisticates claim that the world already has enough people, and many tend to see it as a matter of conscience to not breed. The problem is that hordes of Third Worlders suffer no such ethical qualms. Paradoxically, the pampered First World utopian ideal that the world should be intelligent, sustainable, and filled only with children who are wanted could backfire and create a planet crammed almost exclusively with emotionally, financially, and intellectually deprived Third World bastards.
     

    - http://takimag.com/article/the_barren_wombs_of_smart_women_jim_goad/print#axzz4H52I3RBl


    My apologies for not having been more precise in my above comment. I should have written, that individually high IQ persons will manage just fine on their own, and probably will live pretty long, productive, and semi- to completely-fulfilling lives, but collectively they are an endangered species, due to their reproductive behavior/inactivity, and therefore worthy of protection, (financial, etc.) nurturing/aid, and other sorts of positive encouragement and reinforcement in general. As some other commenters and I said and noticed, the true potential of this community has not even remotely been tapped into thus far. Doing so serves in the self-interest of humanity as a whole. Paradoxically, I guess, it technically is not self-interest to protect and nurture the high IQ community ...

  129. @Ron Unz

    Sorry, Mr. Unz, but you lose again:
     
    Touche! Though from the Wikipedia page, it's not entirely clear that the 13-year-old who stood over 7 feet tall was an American, though it's very possible. And I doubt he ever became the CEO of a major media corporation...

    Seven feet at age 13? That ain’t nuthin’. The Romanian, Robert Bobroczky, was 7′ 4″ at age 13.

    The story about him to which I have linked above states:

    Robert grows approximately 10 cm per year. [which] means Robert will be 11 feet tall by the time he’s 18.

    It is the same logic that infers that a 13-year old with a perfect SAT score, will have an IQ of 260 by the time he’s 18. But more likely, they’re just precocious. Certainly those who develop fastest, usually finish developing earliest.

    But in any case, is there any compelling evidence of a correlation between IQ and achievement? Richard Feynman is said to have had an IQ of 123, which is OK, but not exactly astronomical, yet he was one of America’s greatest theoretical physicists. The Termites, on the other hand, with IQs of around 150, never did anything of the slightest interest, so I understand. Amusingly, William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, was among the elementary school children tested by Terman’s researchers in the 20s. His IQ was not high enough to be a “Termite”, so he was shut out of the experiment and was not deemed “gifted”.

    Anyhow, given the Flynn Effect, which demonstrates the existence of important cultural or environmental components to intelligence, what is the point of comparing, say, Australian Abos with Harvard graduates, or adherents of Black Lives Matter? All that such comparisons seem to show is that different groups differ in both culture and environment, which we knew already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    "The Truth About the 'Termites'", Psychology Today, Scott Barry Kaufman, 9/9/2009, may be worth a quick look. I don't have specific subject matter expertise. But, even those of us who think HBD/IQ ideas probably need a fairer shake know that experts disagree about a whole lot that's connected with HBD/IQ.
  130. @anonguy
    Ron,

    Keep blogging on a regular basis w/articles of your typical caliber and you'll be wiping the floor with iSteve.

    iSteve fans know what a compliment I mean by this...

    Anyhow, I know lotsa folks who nailed various g measuring tests and have had highly unorthodox lives. It is the way to fly rather than being a canary in a gilded cage striving for a Nobel, IMO.

    Cheers!

    p.s. As much as I love the commenting paradigm here, you contribute more to the commonwealth by your blogging than by innovative commenting software for a niche political audience. But I will admit to being short-sighted sometimes....

    you contribute more to the commonwealth by your blogging than by innovative commenting software

    the comment software is certainly brilliant. It would be good to see it generally available by way of a blog platform.

    Read More
  131. @Alden
    Thanks I was going to make a similar comment. It seems that as soon as they have made their millions and billions the ultra wealthy give the money to some anti White Marxists with the object of destroying civilization


    The foundations should all be closed down. And the donors should be forced to pay taxes like the proles and peasants do.

    The foundations should all be closed down. And the donors should be forced to pay taxes like the proles and peasants do.

    A capital tax, applicable to all and sundry, including trusts and foundations, would be a step in the right direction. At a rate of one to one and a half percent, as in Switzerland, it would just about cover the current Federal budget deficit, while satisfying Warren Buffet’s wish for higher taxes on himself.

    Read More
  132. @Anonymous
    his forhead doesn't look big enough, imo, for him to be a plausible scorer of 1600. If you look at that bouncer fellow, the man the media uphold as the smartest man, you can't help but notice his gigantic forhead.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/pubpym/picture76556712/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/Unz

    Your forhead is large, too.

    So is steve sailer's

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Steve-Sailer-10.png

    Great minds have forheads alike.

    Judging by forhead, sailer is smarter than you. Well, sailer can sure write better than you, if writing ability is a partial function of conciseness.

    If at some point in reading my comment you stopped to look at your forhead in the mirror, i have won.

    his forhead doesn’t look big enough, imo, for him to be a plausible scorer of 1600.

    Your comment brings to mind those scholars in Germany who, learning that the brain of the great mathematician Gauss was, at autopsy, rather normal, concluded that Gauss could not have been quite the great mathematician as was generally supposed.

    In fact, the assumption of a correlation between intellect and brain volume seems fairly dopey, except in cases of pathological abnormality.

    With an average of 81 billion neurons, each with up to ten thousand synapses, a person’s intellectual ability is likely to be far more closely related to the way those those synapses have been facilitated, .e.g., whether they have benefited from a Harvard education, ( and also how high gain the entire nervous system is) than with the volume of the cranium, which itself a poor proxy for cerebral tissue volume.

    Read More
  133. @JackOH
    FKA, thanks, I don't doubt your sincerity, but "they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own" doesn't jibe with those same high IQ people making up an "endangered species worthy of protection".

    I'm very eager to listen to arguments that HBD/IQ ideas ought to be more politically favored than they are. Those arguments haven't yet achieved ripeness in my opinion.

    but “they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own” doesn’t jibe with those same high IQ people making up an “endangered species worthy of protection”.

    I don’t think the high IQ community cares too much about its own survival as a collective in evolutionary terms, otherwise it would have a higher fertility rate.

    Warning: strong language

    • With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is diminished by 25%.

    • The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those who don’t want them.

    • Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure rises to 43% among those with college degrees.

    [...]

    Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things such as whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful offspring, whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly dysgenic world—Idiocracy made flesh.

    Western sophisticates claim that the world already has enough people, and many tend to see it as a matter of conscience to not breed. The problem is that hordes of Third Worlders suffer no such ethical qualms. Paradoxically, the pampered First World utopian ideal that the world should be intelligent, sustainable, and filled only with children who are wanted could backfire and create a planet crammed almost exclusively with emotionally, financially, and intellectually deprived Third World bastards.

    http://takimag.com/article/the_barren_wombs_of_smart_women_jim_goad/print#axzz4H52I3RBl

    My apologies for not having been more precise in my above comment. I should have written, that individually high IQ persons will manage just fine on their own, and probably will live pretty long, productive, and semi- to completely-fulfilling lives, but collectively they are an endangered species, due to their reproductive behavior/inactivity, and therefore worthy of protection, (financial, etc.) nurturing/aid, and other sorts of positive encouragement and reinforcement in general. As some other commenters and I said and noticed, the true potential of this community has not even remotely been tapped into thus far. Doing so serves in the self-interest of humanity as a whole. Paradoxically, I guess, it technically is not self-interest to protect and nurture the high IQ community …

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi
    Move to the US?

    https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/idiocracy-can-wait/
    , @Epochehusserl
    The high iq community does care about its survival but isn't it illegal for there even to be a high iq community? The Griggs ruling which prohibits iq testing among large organizations is still in effect. People will not tolerate people saying that they are smarter than other people, it sounds too racist. I think that much good work could be done by this website in explaining the importance of intelligence.
    , @JackOH
    FKA, thanks for the clarification. I ought to note that, in my personal opinion, proponents of HBD/IQ ideas may stand a better chance if they chose to put their thinking directly in the service of more potent and already existing political ideas. For example, there's good criticism that a lot of higher education is money wasted on people without the talent or motivation for it, and that higher ed moneys ought to be cut. I think there may be room there for HBD/IQ proponents to make a contribution, and to burnish the HBD/IQ "brand".
  134. @FKA Max

    but “they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own” doesn’t jibe with those same high IQ people making up an “endangered species worthy of protection”.
     
    I don't think the high IQ community cares too much about its own survival as a collective in evolutionary terms, otherwise it would have a higher fertility rate.

    Warning: strong language

    • With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is diminished by 25%.

    • The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those who don’t want them.

    • Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure rises to 43% among those with college degrees.

    [...]

    Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things such as whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful offspring, whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly dysgenic world—Idiocracy made flesh.

    Western sophisticates claim that the world already has enough people, and many tend to see it as a matter of conscience to not breed. The problem is that hordes of Third Worlders suffer no such ethical qualms. Paradoxically, the pampered First World utopian ideal that the world should be intelligent, sustainable, and filled only with children who are wanted could backfire and create a planet crammed almost exclusively with emotionally, financially, and intellectually deprived Third World bastards.
     

    - http://takimag.com/article/the_barren_wombs_of_smart_women_jim_goad/print#axzz4H52I3RBl


    My apologies for not having been more precise in my above comment. I should have written, that individually high IQ persons will manage just fine on their own, and probably will live pretty long, productive, and semi- to completely-fulfilling lives, but collectively they are an endangered species, due to their reproductive behavior/inactivity, and therefore worthy of protection, (financial, etc.) nurturing/aid, and other sorts of positive encouragement and reinforcement in general. As some other commenters and I said and noticed, the true potential of this community has not even remotely been tapped into thus far. Doing so serves in the self-interest of humanity as a whole. Paradoxically, I guess, it technically is not self-interest to protect and nurture the high IQ community ...

    Read More
  135. @FKA Max

    but “they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own” doesn’t jibe with those same high IQ people making up an “endangered species worthy of protection”.
     
    I don't think the high IQ community cares too much about its own survival as a collective in evolutionary terms, otherwise it would have a higher fertility rate.

    Warning: strong language

    • With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is diminished by 25%.

    • The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those who don’t want them.

    • Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure rises to 43% among those with college degrees.

    [...]

    Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things such as whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful offspring, whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly dysgenic world—Idiocracy made flesh.

    Western sophisticates claim that the world already has enough people, and many tend to see it as a matter of conscience to not breed. The problem is that hordes of Third Worlders suffer no such ethical qualms. Paradoxically, the pampered First World utopian ideal that the world should be intelligent, sustainable, and filled only with children who are wanted could backfire and create a planet crammed almost exclusively with emotionally, financially, and intellectually deprived Third World bastards.
     

    - http://takimag.com/article/the_barren_wombs_of_smart_women_jim_goad/print#axzz4H52I3RBl


    My apologies for not having been more precise in my above comment. I should have written, that individually high IQ persons will manage just fine on their own, and probably will live pretty long, productive, and semi- to completely-fulfilling lives, but collectively they are an endangered species, due to their reproductive behavior/inactivity, and therefore worthy of protection, (financial, etc.) nurturing/aid, and other sorts of positive encouragement and reinforcement in general. As some other commenters and I said and noticed, the true potential of this community has not even remotely been tapped into thus far. Doing so serves in the self-interest of humanity as a whole. Paradoxically, I guess, it technically is not self-interest to protect and nurture the high IQ community ...

    The high iq community does care about its survival but isn’t it illegal for there even to be a high iq community? The Griggs ruling which prohibits iq testing among large organizations is still in effect. People will not tolerate people saying that they are smarter than other people, it sounds too racist. I think that much good work could be done by this website in explaining the importance of intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Epoch, exactly. I was thinking Griggs v. Duke Power Co., plus a whole welter of unduly institutionalized or internalized egalitarian thinking, whether genuine or not, place a terrific burden on the HBD/IQ proponent.
  136. @Epochehusserl
    The high iq community does care about its survival but isn't it illegal for there even to be a high iq community? The Griggs ruling which prohibits iq testing among large organizations is still in effect. People will not tolerate people saying that they are smarter than other people, it sounds too racist. I think that much good work could be done by this website in explaining the importance of intelligence.

    Epoch, exactly. I was thinking Griggs v. Duke Power Co., plus a whole welter of unduly institutionalized or internalized egalitarian thinking, whether genuine or not, place a terrific burden on the HBD/IQ proponent.

    Read More
  137. @FKA Max

    but “they [high IQ people] will manage just fine on their own” doesn’t jibe with those same high IQ people making up an “endangered species worthy of protection”.
     
    I don't think the high IQ community cares too much about its own survival as a collective in evolutionary terms, otherwise it would have a higher fertility rate.

    Warning: strong language

    • With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is diminished by 25%.

    • The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those who don’t want them.

    • Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure rises to 43% among those with college degrees.

    [...]

    Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things such as whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful offspring, whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly dysgenic world—Idiocracy made flesh.

    Western sophisticates claim that the world already has enough people, and many tend to see it as a matter of conscience to not breed. The problem is that hordes of Third Worlders suffer no such ethical qualms. Paradoxically, the pampered First World utopian ideal that the world should be intelligent, sustainable, and filled only with children who are wanted could backfire and create a planet crammed almost exclusively with emotionally, financially, and intellectually deprived Third World bastards.
     

    - http://takimag.com/article/the_barren_wombs_of_smart_women_jim_goad/print#axzz4H52I3RBl


    My apologies for not having been more precise in my above comment. I should have written, that individually high IQ persons will manage just fine on their own, and probably will live pretty long, productive, and semi- to completely-fulfilling lives, but collectively they are an endangered species, due to their reproductive behavior/inactivity, and therefore worthy of protection, (financial, etc.) nurturing/aid, and other sorts of positive encouragement and reinforcement in general. As some other commenters and I said and noticed, the true potential of this community has not even remotely been tapped into thus far. Doing so serves in the self-interest of humanity as a whole. Paradoxically, I guess, it technically is not self-interest to protect and nurture the high IQ community ...

    FKA, thanks for the clarification. I ought to note that, in my personal opinion, proponents of HBD/IQ ideas may stand a better chance if they chose to put their thinking directly in the service of more potent and already existing political ideas. For example, there’s good criticism that a lot of higher education is money wasted on people without the talent or motivation for it, and that higher ed moneys ought to be cut. I think there may be room there for HBD/IQ proponents to make a contribution, and to burnish the HBD/IQ “brand”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    I disagree. Many on the left would simply say that you are denying people opportunity if you don't let every human soul go to skool for as long as they want - whether or not you can do college level work or pay or are even literate. I have had roommates threaten me for saying such. Hbd iq proponents need to pull a page out of the left's playbook and engage in militant activism. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the civil rights act was achieved peacefully. If someone were to develop a way to test for iq verifiably and post the results on a social media profile as a link, I think that might do a lot of good as well. The doctrine of the business necessity along with disparate impact is obviously violating the equal protection of laws as well as being constitutionally vague. You are supposed to know ahead of time if your conduct is prohibited.
  138. @CanSpeccy
    Seven feet at age 13? That ain't nuthin'. The Romanian, Robert Bobroczky, was 7' 4" at age 13.

    The story about him to which I have linked above states:


    Robert grows approximately 10 cm per year. [which] means Robert will be 11 feet tall by the time he’s 18.
     
    It is the same logic that infers that a 13-year old with a perfect SAT score, will have an IQ of 260 by the time he's 18. But more likely, they're just precocious. Certainly those who develop fastest, usually finish developing earliest.

    But in any case, is there any compelling evidence of a correlation between IQ and achievement? Richard Feynman is said to have had an IQ of 123, which is OK, but not exactly astronomical, yet he was one of America’s greatest theoretical physicists. The Termites, on the other hand, with IQs of around 150, never did anything of the slightest interest, so I understand. Amusingly, William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, was among the elementary school children tested by Terman's researchers in the 20s. His IQ was not high enough to be a "Termite", so he was shut out of the experiment and was not deemed "gifted".

    Anyhow, given the Flynn Effect, which demonstrates the existence of important cultural or environmental components to intelligence, what is the point of comparing, say, Australian Abos with Harvard graduates, or adherents of Black Lives Matter? All that such comparisons seem to show is that different groups differ in both culture and environment, which we knew already.

    “The Truth About the ‘Termites’”, Psychology Today, Scott Barry Kaufman, 9/9/2009, may be worth a quick look. I don’t have specific subject matter expertise. But, even those of us who think HBD/IQ ideas probably need a fairer shake know that experts disagree about a whole lot that’s connected with HBD/IQ.

    Read More
  139. @JackOH
    FKA, thanks for the clarification. I ought to note that, in my personal opinion, proponents of HBD/IQ ideas may stand a better chance if they chose to put their thinking directly in the service of more potent and already existing political ideas. For example, there's good criticism that a lot of higher education is money wasted on people without the talent or motivation for it, and that higher ed moneys ought to be cut. I think there may be room there for HBD/IQ proponents to make a contribution, and to burnish the HBD/IQ "brand".

    I disagree. Many on the left would simply say that you are denying people opportunity if you don’t let every human soul go to skool for as long as they want – whether or not you can do college level work or pay or are even literate. I have had roommates threaten me for saying such. Hbd iq proponents need to pull a page out of the left’s playbook and engage in militant activism. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that the civil rights act was achieved peacefully. If someone were to develop a way to test for iq verifiably and post the results on a social media profile as a link, I think that might do a lot of good as well. The doctrine of the business necessity along with disparate impact is obviously violating the equal protection of laws as well as being constitutionally vague. You are supposed to know ahead of time if your conduct is prohibited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Epoch, I'm with you buddy, but it looks like your roommates exercised "militant activism" of their own. More seriously, put together a cover letter, a CV or resume, and two or three pages of bulleted HBD/IQ talking points and shop your advocacy to your local small-market radio station. Those stations do look for local talent. See what happens.
  140. @epochehusserl
    I disagree. Many on the left would simply say that you are denying people opportunity if you don't let every human soul go to skool for as long as they want - whether or not you can do college level work or pay or are even literate. I have had roommates threaten me for saying such. Hbd iq proponents need to pull a page out of the left's playbook and engage in militant activism. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the civil rights act was achieved peacefully. If someone were to develop a way to test for iq verifiably and post the results on a social media profile as a link, I think that might do a lot of good as well. The doctrine of the business necessity along with disparate impact is obviously violating the equal protection of laws as well as being constitutionally vague. You are supposed to know ahead of time if your conduct is prohibited.

    Epoch, I’m with you buddy, but it looks like your roommates exercised “militant activism” of their own. More seriously, put together a cover letter, a CV or resume, and two or three pages of bulleted HBD/IQ talking points and shop your advocacy to your local small-market radio station. Those stations do look for local talent. See what happens.

    Read More
  141. Dauman’s IQ goes to show that this measurement has no relationship with essential intelligence, that is, properly human intelligence, which is capable of absoluteness and hence transcendence. The appallingly low quality of the offerings of the media are clear evidence that “smart” does not equal “intelligent” in any profound sense. In truth, too many of these individuals are simply trivial and shallow, however mentally agile.

    Read More
  142. @Ron Unz
    Incidentally, although half the traditional SAT was Verbal, here's a couple of surprising anecdotes suggesting the effectiveness of such a metric in filtering very high-end ability, even in the sciences...

    The late Sydney Coleman was an exceptionally strong theoretical physicist, and a few weeks ago I stumbled across a reference to some Science Fiction reviews written in the mid-1970s by a fan named Sydney Coleman. Since the name is moderately uncommon, I consulted his Wikipedia page, and sure enough, it mentioned Coleman had had a strong interest in SF. Out of curiosity, I tracked down some of his reviews, one of them linked below:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/FantasySF-1974aug-Coleman.pdf

    To my surprise, he seemed an extremely good writer, and also remarkably erudite, both with regard to SF and also mainstream literature. Read it and judge for yourself. There seems no indication of any of this in his Wiki page, and neither I nor another physicist who knew Coleman had even been aware of that side of his interests. I don't have a clue what his SAT Verbal score was, but I'd guess it would have been very high.

    As another example, the renowned physicist Ed Witten originally supposedly intended to go into journalism as a career, and even published a few early pieces in The Nation, TNR, and such before he switched to physics:

    http://www.unz.org/Author/WittenEdward/

    Do you have an opinion on the Julian Assange situation?

    He claims he has information that Hillary Clinton has been rigging elections and also that his next release will lead to the arrest of HRC. Assange hinted that the murdered DNC staffer was killing in a hit, as retribution for leaking documents to him.

    Do you think his claims have any substance?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    He claims he has information that Hillary Clinton has been rigging elections and also that his next release will lead to the arrest of HRC.
     
    Wow! I don't have a clue about Assange's claims, but this is definitely shaping up as just about the strangest presidential election in U.S. history...

    One of my main features on Saturday is James Petras' piece arguing that the attacks on Trump are unprecedented in American political history, and that the elites are essentially calling for a coup d'etat to prevent Trump from gaining power. He claims that the rhetoric is similar to that used in other countries preceding the military overthrow of a Democratically-elected leader:

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/obama-versus-trump-putin-and-erdogan/

    Petras is a diehard Marxist Sociologist, and (naturally) a Trump supporter.

    Then on Sunday, I'm running Jared Taylor's piece saying more or less the same thing, except he focuses more on the elites inspiring a Trump assassination than a military coup:

    http://www.unz.com/article/atmosphere-of-hate-how-come-liberals-get-to-call-for-trumps-assassination/

    Maybe if Trump somehow wins while avoiding both assassination and a military coup, he should ask both Petras and Taylor to server in his Kitchen Cabinet...

    P.S. I'd been a little skeptical that the murder of the DNC guy had anything to do with Wikileaks, but who knows?
  143. @JohnnyWalker123
    Do you have an opinion on the Julian Assange situation?

    He claims he has information that Hillary Clinton has been rigging elections and also that his next release will lead to the arrest of HRC. Assange hinted that the murdered DNC staffer was killing in a hit, as retribution for leaking documents to him.

    Do you think his claims have any substance?

    He claims he has information that Hillary Clinton has been rigging elections and also that his next release will lead to the arrest of HRC.

    Wow! I don’t have a clue about Assange’s claims, but this is definitely shaping up as just about the strangest presidential election in U.S. history…

    One of my main features on Saturday is James Petras’ piece arguing that the attacks on Trump are unprecedented in American political history, and that the elites are essentially calling for a coup d’etat to prevent Trump from gaining power. He claims that the rhetoric is similar to that used in other countries preceding the military overthrow of a Democratically-elected leader:

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/obama-versus-trump-putin-and-erdogan/

    Petras is a diehard Marxist Sociologist, and (naturally) a Trump supporter.

    Then on Sunday, I’m running Jared Taylor’s piece saying more or less the same thing, except he focuses more on the elites inspiring a Trump assassination than a military coup:

    http://www.unz.com/article/atmosphere-of-hate-how-come-liberals-get-to-call-for-trumps-assassination/

    Maybe if Trump somehow wins while avoiding both assassination and a military coup, he should ask both Petras and Taylor to server in his Kitchen Cabinet…

    P.S. I’d been a little skeptical that the murder of the DNC guy had anything to do with Wikileaks, but who knows?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Regarding "political deaths". (I don't have a better phrase for unusual deaths that appear to have some connection to political activity.)

    During the Obamacare debate, a young lobbyist opposed to Obamacare was publicly bullied by a committee chair who strongly discouraged his testimony. The lobbyist testified. A few days later he was found dead, an apparent suicide.

    When Ohio's onetime governor Jim Rhodes came out of retirement for a last shot at the governorship, several former aides committed suicide. Newspaper accounts mentioned they'd been called upon by Rhodes for campaign help before topping themselves. (The never substantiated speculation among some folks was that Rhodes threatened to reveal derogatory information about those aides unless they played ball.)

    There are, of course, plenty of accounts (G. Gordon Liddy's GEMSTONE, e. g.) of partisan operatives engaging in illegal activity to put their patrons in the their debt.

    FWIW-the quality of the Mob hits in my area range from "clean" (no evidence, no suspects) to extremely messy (immediate arrests, witnesses, evidence). Judging from FBI wiretap transcripts and courtroom testimony that's been published locally, the ordering of a Mob hit is preceded by much talk about the likely consequences.
  144. @Ron Unz

    He claims he has information that Hillary Clinton has been rigging elections and also that his next release will lead to the arrest of HRC.
     
    Wow! I don't have a clue about Assange's claims, but this is definitely shaping up as just about the strangest presidential election in U.S. history...

    One of my main features on Saturday is James Petras' piece arguing that the attacks on Trump are unprecedented in American political history, and that the elites are essentially calling for a coup d'etat to prevent Trump from gaining power. He claims that the rhetoric is similar to that used in other countries preceding the military overthrow of a Democratically-elected leader:

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/obama-versus-trump-putin-and-erdogan/

    Petras is a diehard Marxist Sociologist, and (naturally) a Trump supporter.

    Then on Sunday, I'm running Jared Taylor's piece saying more or less the same thing, except he focuses more on the elites inspiring a Trump assassination than a military coup:

    http://www.unz.com/article/atmosphere-of-hate-how-come-liberals-get-to-call-for-trumps-assassination/

    Maybe if Trump somehow wins while avoiding both assassination and a military coup, he should ask both Petras and Taylor to server in his Kitchen Cabinet...

    P.S. I'd been a little skeptical that the murder of the DNC guy had anything to do with Wikileaks, but who knows?

    Regarding “political deaths”. (I don’t have a better phrase for unusual deaths that appear to have some connection to political activity.)

    During the Obamacare debate, a young lobbyist opposed to Obamacare was publicly bullied by a committee chair who strongly discouraged his testimony. The lobbyist testified. A few days later he was found dead, an apparent suicide.

    When Ohio’s onetime governor Jim Rhodes came out of retirement for a last shot at the governorship, several former aides committed suicide. Newspaper accounts mentioned they’d been called upon by Rhodes for campaign help before topping themselves. (The never substantiated speculation among some folks was that Rhodes threatened to reveal derogatory information about those aides unless they played ball.)

    There are, of course, plenty of accounts (G. Gordon Liddy’s GEMSTONE, e. g.) of partisan operatives engaging in illegal activity to put their patrons in the their debt.

    FWIW-the quality of the Mob hits in my area range from “clean” (no evidence, no suspects) to extremely messy (immediate arrests, witnesses, evidence). Judging from FBI wiretap transcripts and courtroom testimony that’s been published locally, the ordering of a Mob hit is preceded by much talk about the likely consequences.

    Read More
  145. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen
     
    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    Some people would say that people capitalizing the word “God” are disrespectful. Words are labels for thoughts and ideas. Capitalizing “God” limits the ideas and thoughts to the Christian god–which could alienate readers. While you would be happy, some other reader would leave a snarky reply in the space occupied by yours. Anyway, God really doesn’t care if you capitalize her name or not.

    Read More
  146. @FKA Max
    Because Nordics/Northern Europeans are on average the tallest humans on the planet (but this is not the only reason), and therefore have on average slightly higher IQs. You are correct temperature plays a significant role in the adaption to taller heights in colder, northern climates/latitudes, but it is not the only selection pressure/motivation, in my opinion:

    Tests of ecogeographical relationships in a non-native species: what rules avian morphology?


    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann's and Allen's rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.
     
    - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936361

    Establishing and maintaining a great university and university environment, or just getting accepted into a great university by way of high test scores (which my above comment was mostly about) are two completely different things, in my opinion. In order for a university to be great it needs to be run by intelligent people, who have certain cultural and genetic attributes, which are the most prevalent in Nordics/Northern Europeans at this time. High intelligence being just one of several factors/attributes/traits required for the long-lasting success and high quality of such an idealistic undertaking to manifest.

    Just being tall and intelligent is not enough.

    I cannot go into all the details, but there are a couple of clues in the following quote, which might give you some clarity and hints on why many of the great institutions of higher learning and teaching of today, can be found in the regions traditionally inhabited by Nordic/Northern European peoples (this includes North America):


    that’s all i’ve got for you today. the short of it is: i wonder if the reformations were a product of several tippining points in the selection for certain behavioral traits in northwestern europeans, among them individualism, universalism, and anti-corruption sentiments. and i don’t think the selection for any of these stopped at the reformation — northwest “core” europeans continued down that evolutionary pathway until we see at least one other big watershed moment in their biohistory: the enlightenment.
     
    - https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/some-very-random-thoughts-on-the-reformation/

    I am confident, that Nordics/Northern Europeans could even establish and run successful and high-quality institutes of higher learning in the tropical/sweaty/hot regions of the world. Who would attend such a school and how this would manifest itself in either high or low average test scores/achievements of the student body, is another matter and discussion altogether. In my opinion the quality of the faculty is of greater importance than the quality of the student body. But of course, the ideal scenario would be to have a high-quality faculty teach a high-quality student body.

    I just read Mr. Sailer’s latest blog post:

    A big advantage that British West Indies countries had in the 20th Century over West Africa was that, due to the healthier climate, they kept a larger leadership caste of whites and middle class mulattos. During the opening ceremonies “Parade of Nations” you’ll notice that a striking proportion of the middle-aged sports bureaucrats representing third world countries in the West Indies and East Africa are white, even in 2016. But that’s not true of sweaty West Africa, which produces a lot of talent but not very well organized teams (as seen in soccer, where West African players make a lot of money in Europe, but West African countries haven’t progressed much in the World Cup since Cameroon’s peak a generation ago). [...] Anyway, as we see here, explanations that integrate nature and nurture are usually better than ones that try to explain everything away by nurture.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-the-secret-of-jamaicas-runners-its-about-culture-not-genetics/

    After I found out about the child prodigy Ryan Leslie and his unbelievable SAT feat through this discussion, I did some more research on him:

    But did he get a perfect 1600 on the SAT in 1992 at the age of 14? Count me exceptionally skeptical. Indeed, it’s more likely that he shared the same “imaginative” publicist with Philippe Dauman.

    – Excerpt from Ron Unz’s comment #73 on this thread

    I found Ryan’s most recent music video, which was filmed on Jamaica, and offers some beautiful vistas of the island:
    Ryan Leslie – “The Wonderful Ones” (Official Music Video)

    Whatever ultimately led to his early academic success (luck, genuine genius/talent, cheating, etc.), much, I am sure, can be attributed to him having very dedicated, ambitious and/or well-connected nurturers and mentors around him from early on in life.

    His name was Sandy Green [ I think this is him: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-leslie/ryan-leslie-mentorship_b_894674.html

    Read More
  147. @Anonymous

    Or isn’t it that semi-employed college drop-out and former bar-bouncer who mathematically proved the existence of god [sic] and generated much chatter on the Internet a dozen
     
    In not capitalizing God, were you just trying to be a disrespectful asshole or did you not know better?

    A god whose existence can be proved mathematically is not God.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I actually quite like and personally identify with Christopher Langan's concept and definition of God.

    I also believe God can be known and defined.


    "I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible."[16]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan#Intellectual_pursuits

    He follows in the tradition of Theistic rationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

    He is in good and esteemed company:


    Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".[23]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

    I must say, that I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions in this comment thread. Thank you to all my fellow commenters, and, most importantly, thank you to Mr. Unz for providing this excellent intellectual discussion platform and forum to the world and the high IQ community.

  148. @Rasmus Persson
    The average mental age stops increasing around age 15, I believe (as measured by fluid intelligence). The estimated IQ from the ratio should then be 15/13*200 = 230, according to the estimates in the piece.

    Oh, and one more thing. Since the SAT is multiple choice, there will be error bars on the actual score. In many cases, the test taker can eliminate some alternatives and just guess. Incidentally, the fewer guesses the test taker has to make, the higher his chances of making a perfect score by chance.

    I don’t think it makes sense to say that someone who knew every question except one cold and correctly guessed the one remaining question, especially if it was an educated guess, made “a perfect score by chance.”

    Read More
  149. @Hibernian
    A god whose existence can be proved mathematically is not God.

    I actually quite like and personally identify with Christopher Langan’s concept and definition of God.

    I also believe God can be known and defined.

    “I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.”[16]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan#Intellectual_pursuits

    He follows in the tradition of Theistic rationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_rationalism

    He is in good and esteemed company:

    Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid “theistic rationalism”.[23]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

    I must say, that I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions in this comment thread. Thank you to all my fellow commenters, and, most importantly, thank you to Mr. Unz for providing this excellent intellectual discussion platform and forum to the world and the high IQ community.

    Read More
  150. @Wizard of Oz
    I've known Ron use the careful Jewish "G-d" so I infer that he was not, on this occasion, conceding that the high IQ loon he was referring to had any claim at all to be able to say anything valid about the Abrahamic deity which is, I presume, the one you want to honour with name capitaization.

    Which gods do you think should be capitalised and why? Do you think it proper to avoid El or Jahweh when referring to the Hebrew G/god of the Torah? Should Malaysian Christians be allowed to refer to their G/god as Allah?

    Should our host Ron Unz even bother to reply to an anonymous boor who thinks it acceptable to call him an "asshole"?

    Believing as I do that diversity can solve all our problems, I make a point of sometimes referring to G-d as “-od” or “Go-.”

    Read More
  151. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    But this could not possibly be the case. After all, consider the case of poor Scott Thompson, a PayPal executive appointed Yahoo CEO in early 2012. He claimed that decades earlier he had earned his undergraduate degree at obscure Stonehill College, majoring in accounting and computer science, but when it was revealed that his major had solely been in accounting, the controversy forced his immediate resignation.

    They are as vain, their vanity as ordinary, as the average person.
    IQ and the intelligence we know how to measure really leave wisdom and personal profundity out fully.

    As our knowledge of the brain advances, it cam be expected that other, and eventually all or nearly all the faculties of the brain can be assessed and expressed in figures.

    But then, maturity, “honesty”, profundity (or superficiality), modesty (or boastfulness) scores would kindle controversies far more intenser than today’s measured intelligence does :))
    Besides, I suspect these measurements would turn yet more sexist than IQ measurements are, as we all know ;)..

    Read More
  152. @rod1963
    Our modern schooling system is designed to produce consumers and docile workers, not citizens with critical thinking capabilities. And with Common Core it will produce helots. Even without CC, it's quite possible to graduate HS without really knowing much of anything or having any skills to help a graduating student in life.

    The people from the Ivies were supposed to be their masters and tell them what to think.

    Yet, it seems to embrace “high IQ” psychopaths, many of whom are rotten human beings and professionals, whose actual contribution to any field is minuscule if any at all, except for self-promotion and self-aggrandizing

     

    That describes people like Robert Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Zuckerberg and most of the Silicon Valley billionaire man-boys like Nathan Myhrvold whose only contribution is to own and run a IP/patent vacuuming company. What a obscene joke for a supposed high IQ genius.

    I used to think highly of the Silicon Valley types until I discovered they were mostly horrid little sociopaths with the egos the size of the Empire State building who got lucky.

    i have seen people with far less talent having much bigger egos than them. Any person in their place would have the same ego they supposedly have.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.