Just Pack Up and Go

Look.

One of the things we talk about a lot on here is intelligence. Of course the main or only way we have to measure intelligence in man is via IQ tests. No, don’t give me any crap about IQ not measuring intelligence. They do in fact measure intelligence. That’s why they are called “Intelligence Quotient” tests. They actually measure intelligence better than any other device known to man.

There is a lot to back this up.

High correlations up to .41 have been found between IQ scores and head size on MRI. Recently the correlation was upped to ~.7 by a study that gave MRI’s to researchers and asked them to estimate IQ based on MRI. The correlation between their estimates and the actual IQ scores was ~.7. So the correlation between IQ and head size is as high as .7! That is a very high correlation for the social sciences. It’s almost good as gold.

In case some you IQ haters can’t figure what I am talking about (probably because your IQ isn’t very high) let me spell it real simple for you so even a dummy like you can understand.

What that correlation means is this: Statistically, the bigger your head is, the higher your IQ. This means that people with higher IQ’s actually have bigger heads than people with lower IQ’s. Ok, IQ haters, your position is that IQ does not measure intelligence. Fine. But if IQ doesn’t measure intelligence, why do people with higher IQ’s actually have bigger heads?! You would suspect someone with a bigger head to be more intelligent than someone with a small head, would you not? Now you are saying that there is absolutely no connection between the fact that people with bigger heads actually have higher IQ scores. Isn’t your theory starting to get a bit weak?

Still yapping away that IQ does not measure intelligence? Not a problem.

I believe that IQ correlates ~.41 or maybe higher with reaction time tests. These are tests that test just how fast you react or in other words how fast your brain works. Now you are free to object moronically that reaction time tests actually do not measure reaction time at all, but they are the best we have right now. We can now see that the higher your IQ is, the faster your brains works on tests of brain speed. Now you are left to say that the fact that IQ lines up with tests of brain speed (the higher the IQ, the faster the brain speed) means absolutely nothing at all. Your stupid theory is getting even weaker.

Still not satisfied? A new study of the efficiency of glucose utilization in the brain has shown a good correlation between IQ and the glucose utilization efficiency. In other words, the higher your IQ, the better and more efficient your brain is at utilizing glucose. Glucose may be seen as “fuel for the brain.” So higher IQ people use glucose (or brain fuel) better than people than lower IQ’s. Now of course you are going to say that how well someone’s brain uses brain fuel has nothing to do with how smart that person is. Your already retarded theory is getting dumber by the minute.

I think we better leave off here before I humiliate you IQ Deniers even further. I know how embarrassing it must be to be humiliated by showing how stupid your idiotic theory is, and not being a sadist, I will stop now out of the general Christian principle of mercy for the weak, lame, and crippled, which is what you are.

Getting back to the subject of the post, this blog talks about IQ a lot. We also assume that IQ accurately measures human intelligence. Now if you are an IQ Denier or an IQ Hater, that’s going to make you very angry. All I have to say to you is get out. You’re obviously reading the wrong website. This is what we talk about here a lot, and if it bugs you, just leave. Real simple, right? Even a dummy like you can probably figure it out.

76 Comments

Filed under Biology, Intelligence, Neuroscience, Psychology, Science

76 responses to “Just Pack Up and Go

  1. James Schipper

    Dear Robert

    We should be very careful with correlations, not so much because correlation doesn’t mean causation, but because it it is like a ranking. A ranking doesn’t tell us much about the magnitude of the difference between the ranks. Suppose that Peter, Paul and Patrick have incomes of respectively 80,000, 50,000 and 20,000. That is a clear ranking. Now suppose that their respective incomes are 51,000, 50,000 and 49,000. Then we have the same ranking and the same average, but not exactly the same distribution.

    It is the same with correlation. Suppose that we have 5 individuals with IQs of 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120. Their respective incomes are 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 and 60,000. That is a neat correlation of 1 between IQ and income. Now suppose that the respective incomes of those 5 individuals are 38,000, 39,000, 40,000, 41,000 and 42,000. Again, we have a neat correlation of 1 between IQ and income. Yet, the situation is quite different.

    !Q is not like height. If Peter’s height is 170 cm and Paul’s height is 187 cm, then we can say that Paul is 10% taller than Peter. On the other hand, if Peter’s IQ is 100 and Paul’s is 110, then we can’t say that Paul is 10% smarter than Peter. IQ is really a ranking more than a measurement. We don’t know what one unit of IQ stands for. We can’t compare IQ with height. People with an IQ over 130 are 2% of the population, but we can’t really tell how much smarter they are than the rest.

    Ultimately, IQ tests only formalize what we always knew, namely that some people are smarter than others and that most people aren’t so far from the middle. However, the value of IQ lies in revealing intelligence which otherwise might remain hidden and in telling us how important intelligence may be for the performance of certain tasks.

    Regards. James

    • Chinedu

      Phil,

      There’s head size variation all over the place. There is no “European head size.” And there certainly isn’t an “African head size.” Head shape and size even varies regionally in the U.S. It has also varied historically. Can’t you people get it through your heads that most things don’t fit into your neat little discrete categories? Jesus, a child should know that.

      Where is this study that proves Africans have smaller crania? Where’s the data? Who’s gone around length and breath of Africa measuring heads?

      According to this study Africans have larger heads on average than Europeans and Asians:

      http://www.pbs.org/race/004_HumanDiversity/004_01-explore.htm

      • http://www.unz.com/pfrost/brain-size-and-latitude-why-correlation/

        The one you gave was done by Philip Tobias, and his results were not reproduced.

        However, Morton’s, Beal’s, and Rushton’s were.

        • Jm8

          One study of Latin Americans in several countries apparently found no correlation between genetic racial admixture (measuring Black, European, and Amerindian) and head circumference (but found significant correlations with facial features, height, pigmentation, hair texture). There could be significant environmental factors (that influence cranial size), that vary by region (along with other factors that may also contribute to some population differences in size, but in many cases—I speculate–these might be minor ,e.g.: genetic factors in the conventional sense i.e. selection driven, possible epigenetic ones—not now well understood). And as mentioned in your link, there are/seem to be other (morphological) determinants/correlates with iq.

          “Admixture in Latin America: Geographic Structure, Phenotypic Diversity and Self-Perception of Ancestry Based on 7,342 Individuals”
          Andrés Ruiz-Linares et al.

          http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004572

          “The ancestry effects that we detect for facial features (eye fold, face shape and size), but not for head circumference, agree with the notion of a greater developmental and evolutionary constraint on neuro-cranium than on facial variation.”

        • Jm8

          edit: “One study of Latin Americans in several (Latin American) countries apparently found no (or no really significant) correlation between genetic racial admixture…”

        • This is interesting, which seems to go for the point of how environmental selection could play into craniometric traits.

          Since much of these populations are amalgamated it would likely increase the likelihood of a certain head size to be desired based on environmental pressures. Also, I believe South America also has better opportunity for SES attainment than much of Sub Saharan Africa thus that could Ameliorate environmental constraints of Brain size African Populations due to depravity.

        • Jm8, I love your stuff and I think you are brilliant and also a good person, but could you please limit your paragraphs to 10 lines or less? Thx.

      • “Phil,

        There’s head size variation all over the place. There is no “European head size.” And there certainly isn’t an “African head size.””

        Yet that study you gave me would say otherwise. If you didn’t use that as a reference, then your statement still means nothing.

        “Head shape and size even varies regionally in the U.S. It has also varied historically. Can’t you people get it through your heads that most things don’t fit into your neat little discrete categories? Jesus, a child should know that.”

        What categories are you talking about, quote me. You are again confusing Variation and Averages. It possible for variation to change by geography or time but what you said does nothing in the act of actually finding an average.

        Actually, just by ADMITTING that it varies by region in places that would mean that you would have to COMPARE AVERAGES for those different places.

        I have admitted since my FIRST POST arguing with you that INDIVIDUALS varied, sub groups VARIED, yet you keep on using those to dispute MACRO GROUPS VARYING.

        BTW, if race didn’t exist then how could you say that you got a DNA test finding you to be 100% African Black if you said race doesn’t exist?

        “Where is this study that proves Africans have smaller crania? Where’s the data? Who’s gone around length and breath of Africa measuring heads?”

        Again I gave you a reference for a study as well as others that replicated the results.

        • Chinedu

          Phil,

          If you look at the chart I posted, it is comparing head sizes regionally. One rather large region of Africa has larger head sizes than all of Europe and Asia. The other regions in Africa have moderate head sizes equivalent to European and Asian head sizes. Europe itself has regional variations in head sizes. By the way, Australian Aborigines have the largest head, according to the study.

          I never said that race doesn’t exist. In fact I think there are thousands or even millions of races. You’re the one that wants to promulgate the idea that all blacks are the same, all whites are the same, etc. In fact depending on how finely we delineate differences, there are thousands of races in Europe. It’s all arbitrary. Race is whatever you say it is.

          You did not cite a credible study. You posted the usual junk by Rushton and the other pseudoscientific charlatans. Try to introduce Rushton’s “work” in a court of law as some sort of expert testimony and you’ll be laughed out of the building.

        • We are not talking about head size. We are talking about brain size.

          Asians have the largest brains -> then Whites -> and Blacks have the smallest brains.

          Although I must say that the differences are not large. Aborigines have some of the smallest brains of all.

          “It is true that most Africans have small brains, at 1250-1299 cc.”

        • “Phil,

          If you look at the chart I posted, it is comparing head sizes regionally. One rather large region of Africa has larger head sizes than all of Europe and Asia. The other regions in Africa have moderate head sizes equivalent to European and Asian head sizes. Europe itself has regional variations in head sizes. By the way, Australian Aborigines have the largest head, according to the study.”

          I already pointed out that the result weren’t replicated.

          I never said that race doesn’t exist. In fact I think there are thousands or even millions of races. You’re the one that wants to promulgate the idea that all blacks are the same, all whites are the same, etc.”

          I never said that, what I said was that they could be genetically assigned to different groups. I’ve also emphasized repeated that this doesn’t restrict the existence of variation with them as well as sharing such.

          ” In fact depending on how finely we delineate differences, there are thousands of races in Europe. It’s all arbitrary. Race is whatever you say it is.”
          What you are describing is merely the vocabulary use of “race”. That is different from the SCIENTIFIC use of race, being macro division of the human species due to genetic isolation/other factors. Within them would be subraces.

          “You did not cite a credible study. You posted the usual junk by Rushton and the other pseudoscientific charlatans. Try to introduce Rushton’s “work” in a court of law as some sort of expert testimony and you’ll be laughed out of the building.”

          Yet you have not proven with scientific logic that I have not already debunked.

          BTW.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=0

        • Also,

          That Map you gave still used AVERAGES from different assigned regions.

          I could lump the data into different grouped regions and come out with a new average but of a different include variation.

          You are also confusing concepts. You act as if that an number aveage for something, like “42” is thus called a “white mean” yet since another population has “42” has that too, a white mean doesn’t exist.

          Except that’s not how it works. Two different populations can have the same mean for a trait measured, it’s just that do to simply identifying them they are assigned to different categories.

        • Chinedu

          Phil,

          You haven’t debunked anything. White supremacists always think they’re winning debates when in fact they’re getting their clocks cleaned. I know you claim to be black, but if you are then you are a black white supremacist.

          The article you posted talked about remeasuring Morton’s samples. Full stop. It says nothing about brain sizes, head sizes or which “race” has a larger brain on average.

        • June 12, 2016 at 3:55 PM

          Phil,

          You haven’t debunked anything. White supremacists always think they’re winning debates when in fact they’re getting their clocks cleaned. I know you claim to be black, but if you are then you are a black white supremacist.

          The article you posted talked about remeasuring Morton’s samples. Full stop. It says nothing about brain sizes, head sizes or which “race” has a larger brain on average”

          Actually, the article talked about Gould’s academic dishonesty towards his debunking of Morton’s samples.

          By that token, that didn’t make Morton’s study, one of the first studies on Skulls sizes and races comprehensively done , debunked by him.

          Otherwise, what other source actually debunked the hypothesis of race and IQ varying?

        • Chinedu

          You are also confusing concepts. You act as if that an number aveage for something, like “42” is thus called a “white mean” yet since another population has “42” has that too, a white mean doesn’t exist.

          Except that’s not how it works. Two different populations can have the same mean for a trait measured, it’s just that do to simply identifying them they are assigned to different categories.

          You don’t even make any sense. I challenge anyone here to decipher this tangled web of incoherent gibberish you posted.

          By the the way, I went into a hat shop in an all-white town in North Dakota. Try as they might, they couldn’t find a hat large enough to fit my head. They searched everywhere, including the stockroom. Nothing. I went away empty handed.

          It is your contention that since I have a larger brain than the vast majority of the town, that I am smarter than the vast majority of the town?

          Do you guys actually think through the consequences of the pseudoscience you propagate? I can show you pictures of black people and white people together where the heads of the black people dwarf the heads of the white people. Based on your theory, those black are innately and genetically more intelligent than the white people

        • Chinedu

          Phil,

          Morton’s samples were unrepresentative. So debunking Gould’s representations of Morton’s study doesn’t say anything about the actual head sizes of different so-called races.

        • “You don’t even make any sense. I challenge anyone here to decipher this tangled web of incoherent gibberish you posted.

          By the the way, I went into a hat shop in an all-white town in North Dakota. Try as they might, they couldn’t find a hat large enough to fit my head. They searched everywhere, including the stockroom. Nothing. I went away empty handed.”

          Again, you’re just one. That goes in line to what I said about variation.

          “It is your contention that since I have a larger brain than the vast majority of the town, that I am smarter than the vast majority of the town?”

          With the correlation found with brain size it is possible, however in is not known because if you read that Link I gave you earlier it said that it wasn;t the ONLY reason.

          “Do you guys actually think through the consequences of the pseudoscience you propagate? I can show you pictures of black people and white people together where the heads of the black people dwarf the heads of the white people. Based on your theory, those black are innately and genetically more intelligent than the white people.”

          No…that just proves comparable variation between two groups which negates nothing of what I said.

          “Phil,

          Morton’s samples were unrepresentative. So debunking Gould’s representations of Morton’s study doesn’t say anything about the actual head sizes of different so-called races.”

          Despite replication of said Morton’s conclusion. You have yet shown Beal’s or Rushton;s study to be false.

          “Similar claims were previously made by Ho et al. (1980), who measured 1,261 brains at autopsy, and Beals et al. (1984), who measured approximately 20,000 skulls, finding the same East Asian → European → African pattern but warning against using the findings as indicative of racial traits, “If one merely lists such means by geographical region or race, causes of similarity by genogroup and ecotype are hopelessly confounded”.[16][17] Rushton’s findings have been criticized for confusing African-Americans with equatorial Africans, who generally have smaller craniums as people from hot climates often have slightly smaller crania.[18] He also compared equatorial Africans from the poorest and least educated areas of Africa with Asians from the wealthiest, most educated areas and colder climates.[18] According to Z. Z. Cernovsky Rushton’s own study[19] shows that the average cranial capacity of North American blacks is similar to that of Caucasians from comparable climatic zones,[18] though a previous work by Rushton showed appreciable differences in cranial capacity between North Americans of different race.[20] This is consistent with the findings of Z. Z. Cernovsky that people from different climates tend to have minor differences in brain size.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anthropometry#Race_and_brain_size

          Nowhere was a study mentioned which debunked the conclusion. All that was mention was that these differences where more of a pattern of environmental selection rather than strict racial traits.

          Again, in line to what I said about variation.

        • Chinedu

          Robert,

          My graph is from PBS and all their world renowned scientists and academics. Your graph is from a blogger, presumably.

          I think I’ll stick with PBS and their head estimates. As you can see, it clearly shows that Africans, on average, have larger heads (meaning larger brains) than Europeans and Asians.

        • https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/beal-et-al.pdf

          This is the actual study the Map is from.
          Second, if you go to that page you would notice how there is NO REFERENCE to a study for those results PBS gave. So how do we know it’s reliable.

          At first I thought it was Philip Tobias’ work but no, his was saying that American Blacks had bigger brains so that conclusion shouldn’t have extended to Africans as a whole.

          So, as much as you talk about credibility it looks like PBS actually doesn’t help you there.

    • Chinedu

      Let me just say, that there’s NO WAY, that the “Spatial intelligence selectivity” did not occur at higher levels in Northern Climates than in Sub-Saharan Africa, and there are modest Cranial Capacity differences that exist…

      Your beliefs don’t equal science. That you believe there’s “no way” something did or didn’t happen is irrelevant.

      • Chinedu

        Robert,

        Head size is a proxy for brain size. You can’t fit a large brain into a small head.

        No comprehensive study has been done on brain sizes. None. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

        • They do them all the time and brain size is more important than head size as a matter of fact. There have been many studies looking at brain size, mostly trying to correlate brain size on MRI to IQ. The correlation ranges from .41 to .7, depending on how you do it.

          In the US anyway:

          Asians have the largest brains.
          Whites are next largest.
          Blacks have the smallest brains.

          Africans are notable for having very small brains.

          https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/the-head-sizeraceiq-trainwreck/

          From the article:

          “It is true that most Africans have small heads, at 1250-1299 cc.”

          I admit that the racial correlation is a bit of a mess though. But the IQ correlation on an individual basis is much better.

          You want to explain to me how people with higher IQ’s utilize glucose at a faster and more efficient manner than people with lower IQ’s. There’s a very good correlation between glucose utilization efficiency and IQ.

  2. You should write an article about your test scores, like pumpkin person did here: https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/04/25/pumpkin-persons-childhood-iq-results/

    Or may be you could send him (pumpkin) your test results so that he could do an analysis. I’m sure he will be enthousiastic about it.

  3. Jason Y

    Racist people are too hung up in IQ. A high IQ is a help, but won’t always lead to a good life. Often people get ahead due to family connections, likeability, inherited wealth, good work habits despite a low IQ etc..

    • Except that IQ is correlated with fairy with traits such as work habit, personality, and economic abilities of attainment.

      Why do you start of with “racist”? While the mainstream person doesn’t put weight on IQ, and many internet racialist put weight on it that doesn’t equal all who do put weight on it being only racist.

      Those with a low IQ that actually manage those things are practically exceptional or at least don’t get as far ahead as the representative person of a high IQ.

  4. Chinedu

    Anybody that thinks IQ measures innate intelligence is an idiot. Scores can rise just as a result of motivation alone. Scores can rise with better assimilation of the values the IQ test is designed to reward. If IQ had anything to do with genetics, scores would remain constant.

    • If you have a high or very high IQ, you were born with a genetic high intelligence, period. Yes, scores go up or down in adolescence for whatever reason, but after adolescence they are very stable.

      An IQ test is not designed to reward any values whatsoever. As I said, the correlation with reaction time is excellent. What values does a reaction time test reward? It also correlates superbly with head size. What values does a head size test reward?

      There is no evidence whatsoever that current IQ tests are culturally biased in any way, shape or form. In fact, we now have tests that have no language in them whatsoever. They are nothing but pattern recognition and whatnot.

      It is hard to argue that the ability to think fast, abstractly and logically or to recognize patters is some sort of a cultural value that some cultures reward and others do not. Sure some smart cultures reward those values, and some dumb cultures do not, I would agree with that. And I would agree that IQ tests are highly discriminatory. They discriminate very strongly against dumb people. It’s horrible how biased those tests are in that way.

      • Chinedu

        Your great grandparents generation scored at imbecile levels. If IQ measures intelligence, why does it rise? How do you account for converging group averages all over the world?

        • Another William Playfair Web

          Let me just say, that there’s NO WAY, that the “Spatial intelligence selectivity” did not occur at higher levels in Northern Climates than in Sub-Saharan Africa, and there are modest Cranial Capacity differences that exist…
          BUT
          the genetic gaps are modest (see below) and perhaps Blacks just have lower spatial ability than Whites.
          That’s what I’ve been convinced of.
          With all due respect to whomever, most of the rest is pretty much just the result of a pro-HBD echo chamber.

        • It rises because we are getting smarter, that’s why. James Flynn is a personal acquaintance of mine.

          Group averages are not converging all over the world.

          IQ is effected by both genes and environmental variables acting together.

          Of course IQ measures intelligence.

          Do you know how many prominent psychologists believe that IQ does not measure intelligence? At this point, about zero. There might be one. The Environmental crowd surrendered on that lie a while back. Check out Nesbitt, he is their hero. He quit saying that.

          The problem is that ignorant people in the media and society keep repeating all these old dead lines that even the leading Environmental IQ theorists gave up on. So the ignorant masses are not aware of expert consensus.

        • Blacks do worse on Verbal IQ too.

        • Chinedu

          There’s no evidence that Africans have cranial capacities below that of anyone else. From charts I’ve seen, cranial capacity varies globally and even regionally. Some African regions have larger crania than Asians and Europeans. My head is enormous. Most of the people from my part of Africa have large heads. Does that make us all geniuses.

          Please don’t cite MRI studies or any other such nonsense. It has all been comprehensively debunked.

        • Chinedu

          It rises because we are getting smarter, that’s why. James Flynn is a personal acquaintance of mine.

          Nonsense. Read some of the letters of civil war and WW I soldiers. The level of literacy they demonstrated is stunning, particular given that most of them were just ordinary people with little formal education. You may say that those were the best examples. So what if they were? The best examples of today’s soldiers don’t rise anywhere near that level.

          People haven’t gotten smarter for 100,000 years. Early modern humans were no different from you and me. All that has changed is access to information which allows people to build on what previous generations did. Do you think that the people that built bulky cell phones 20 years ago were dumber than the people making sleek smart phones today? Of course they weren’t

          If you truly know James Flynn then you would know that he rejects the notion that IQ tests for native intelligence. Flynn says IQ tests for adaption to western modernity, not intelligence per se. He’s right. Scores are rising around the wold due to globalization (i.e., westernization).

        • Flynn does indeed say that tests do measure intelligence among different groups at any point in time. That is, at the moment, the groups with the highest scores are the most intelligent, then the 2nd highest and on and on. He would argue that a group scoring 110 is smarter than a group scoring 100, the group scoring 100 is smarter than the group scoring 90, the group scoring 90 is more intelligent than the group scoring 85, the group scoring 85 is more intelligent than the group scoring 80, the group scoring 80 is smarter than the group scoring 70, etc.

          Flynn says it gets a lot harder when comparing groups from different eras. Anyway, the Flynn Effect is not much on g, so some argue that it is not a true across the board intelligence rise. We think much more scientifically now and that shows up in IQ scores. We are better at analytical thinking and problem solving, especially solving novel problems that we have never encountered before. Also we are dramatically better on visuospatial intelligence, especially visuospatial analytical thinking.

          All of this is down to our much more technologically driven society, which is indeed making us more intelligent.

          Our grandparents were perfectly intelligent for their times but they did not have access to the modern world to better their scientific reasoning and analytical skills and especially their visuospatial intelligence. It’s down to all of these gadgets. All of these computers and gadgets are actually making us smarter.

          They were not retarded at all. You cannot really compare two groups across time. Flynn says that. He says IQ is only good for measuring distances between groups at any snapshot in time.

          So are we smarter than our grandparents? In some ways, yes. But if we were transported back to then, they would not seem stupid to us. On the other hand, if they were transported here, they might have a hard time of it but after a while, they might be just as smart as we were, especially if my grandpa was transported to our era as a boy.

          We are thinking more scientifically now than we did in the past.

          There is not much controversy in Psychology that there is a correlation between head size and IQ. I think even Nesbitt has caved on that now, and he was the leader of your faction. I would say that there is scientific consensus now that IQ correlates with reaction time, head size by MRI, glucose utilization and all sorts of other things. No one is even arguing these points any more. Everyone agrees that IQ measures intelligence. The two sides only differ in one group saying the differences are environmental and the other group saying it is genes.

          Flynn and I have actually discussed the Flynn Effect a bit on email.

        • “There’s no evidence that Africans have cranial capacities below that of anyone else. From charts I’ve seen, cranial capacity varies globally and even regionally. Some African regions have larger crania than Asians and Europeans. My head is enormous. Most of the people from my part of Africa have large heads. Does that make us all geniuses.”

          Well first of all you again confused MEANS/AVERAGES of a whole race versus sub race variation. Also, you misunderstood that .7 is a correlation towards head size and IQ is a relation and not an absolute rule.

          “Please don’t cite MRI studies or any other such nonsense. It has all been comprehensively debunked.”

          This is probably the biggest flaw with you. You disagree with links that I’ve gave you for example by dismissing the evidence as debunked yet you have refused to give an example. You said that you wouldn’t because it’s “fucking easy” yet if it was why would it be a bother fir you to do so?

          BTW, as for your “observation” of brain sizes exactly where did you get you’re data? Where’s you’re link? None. By that token all we have to do is go by your word.

          “Nonsense. Read some of the letters of civil war and WW I soldiers. The level of literacy they demonstrated is stunning, particular given that most of them were just ordinary people with little formal education. You may say that those were the best examples. So what if they were? The best examples of today’s soldiers don’t rise anywhere near that level.”

          As for you’re last sentence how do you know that they the best of today’s don’t? Further more did you control for different standards of today’s soldiers?

          “People haven’t gotten smarter for 100,000 years. Early modern humans were no different from you and me.”

          proof?

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

          “All that has changed is access to information which allows people to build on what previous generations did. Do you think that the people that built bulky cell phones 20 years ago were dumber than the people making sleek smart phones today? Of course they weren’t.”

          You are comparing people only a few decades ago towards the whole history of human kind. Second, saying “people 20 years ago” built them is misleading. It was those of a higher IQ that designed them.

          “If you truly know James Flynn then you would know that he rejects the notion that IQ tests for native intelligence. Flynn says IQ tests for adaption to western modernity, not intelligence per se. He’s right. Scores are rising around the would due to globalization (i.e., westernization”

          Well, the scores specifically result from environmental depravity on IQ diminishing, however it is explained that, in the case of the B-W Gap, the is mostly on children and it has been observed that when the subjects reach adulthood they go closer towards the racial mean.

          http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-the-Flynn-Effect-as-a-Reason-to-Expect-a-Narrowing-of-the-Black%E2%80%93White-IQ-Gap-2010-by-John-Philippe-Rushton-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf

        • Chinedu

          Blacks do worse on Verbal IQ too.

          I’ll give you a verbal IQ in French. Then I’ll compare your score to that of a French speaking African.

        • IQ tests have been normed on French subjects forever now. For a French speaking African, just give them a French IQ test. Not a problem. They have given millions of those tests in France now.

  5. Another William Playfair Web

    IQ denial is a little bit ridiculous, yes.
    BUT
    when you look at Racial medians of Cranial capacities, you see some times, you see a worldwide SD of about 125 mL, with the median European and Median Black (Bantu) having a difference of 75 mL, or 0.6 SDs, when multiplying by the correlation (like a regression to the mean), you get about 0.25 SDs, this does not explain gaps in IQ by race that exist currently.
    1. Malnutrition, causing defects in brain function.
    2. The correlations between the tests and g- aren’t perfect.
    3. Black kids in the ghetto and Africa just don’t give a fuck and don’t try on the tests.

    • Ghetto Blacks and Africans are crappy on reaction times, too. Is that because they don’t try?

      Spent a lot of time around ghetto Blacks? I have. My impression was that they were not terribly smart. I almost felt sorry for some of them.

      Spent time around Africans? I have. Nigerians. My impression was that they were dumb as rocks.

      • Chinedu

        ,

        Ghetto Blacks and Africans are crappy on reaction times, too. Is that because they don’t try?

        Who tested these ghetto blacks and Africans for “reaction time?” Are you serious? There are high IQ whites who are dull-witted and can’t think on their feet in the real world. If my life depended on it, depending on the situation, I’d put in my lot with the ghetto blacks and Africans if I’m trying to get out alive. Everything is situational.

        Spent time around Africans? I have. Nigerians. My impression was that they were dumb as rocks.

        It’s all a matter of perspective. Many Nigerians feel the same about white people. Believe it or not, they think you’re stupid. They even have a name for it: Mugu. Whites are considered easy marks for their “business proposals” due to sheer stupidity.

        • US Blacks of all types have been tested on reaction time for decades now. Go look it up. I see you are not even familiar with the literature. I believe Africans have been tested on reaction times also.

          IQ tests measure intelligence, which is how fast your brain works, your ability to do abstract and logical thinking and your memory capacity.

          IQ tests do not measure street smarts, common sense or survival skills, but then they do not try to either.

          How do you know how Nigerians think? What African country are you from? The Nigerian scammers I was dealing with in our scammer-fighting struck me as mostly retarded. Seriously they seemed like retarded people, I am not kidding.

          IQ tests do not measure con artist or criminal or street sense. Sure a dumb criminal can fool a smart rube by using his sociopathy and street smarts, but IQ tests do not test for “con artist ability” or “criminal ability.” If they did, I am quite sure that Africans would score highest.

          My impression was half the people of Lagos get up every morning and think, “Who am I going to rip off today?” Nigerians are the worst people on Earth, as bad as Gypsies. Basically human cockroaches AFAICT.

        • Chinedu

          You’re dealing with 13 year old dropouts. The high level scammers are likely smarter than you. They’ve taken millions of dollars from bankers, corporate CEO’s, politicians, medical doctors, etc. They’ve taken hundreds of millions of dollars at a time. They’re not the type you’ve been interacting with in your scambaiting. Sorry.

          There are also ingenious computer hackers in Nigeria who simply use their skills to steal millions of dollars from the global banking system. Again, you won’t run into those types.

      • Jason Y

        Of course, these are all generalizations. My university has several graduate level math students.

      • Jason Y

        You’re dealing with 13 year old dropouts. The high level scammers are likely smarter than you. They’ve taken millions of dollars from bankers, corporate CEO’s, politicians, medical doctors, etc. They’ve taken hundreds of millions of dollars at a time. They’re not the type you’ve been interacting with in your scambaiting. Sorry.

        There are also ingenious computer hackers in Nigeria who simply use their skills to steal millions of dollars from the global banking system. Again, you won’t run into those types.

        Interesting. As I was saying, there are dark black looking African graduate math students at my university. These smart Africans could use thier skills for good, but some might go bad, but the point is they have the brains

      • Chinedu

        Robert,

        You are misrepresenting Flynn. Let’s hear it from the horse’s mouth:

        Skip to 31:40.

        I’d recommend everyone watch the entirety of the video. Most of the HBDers are simpletons who argue from positions of profound ignorance. They should expand their horizons a bit by investigating alternative scenarios. If they’re really open-minded to the truth, I think they’ll find that hereditarianism is deeply flawed.

      • Another William Playfair Web

        I suppose reaction times falls under performance IQ, which means they would do bad, plus it’s possible to not really try your best, I would think.

        I’ve resided in Hispanic neighborhoods but not Black.
        Nigerians are often times such excellent cons it’s hard to tell how intelligent they really are.

        • Gay State Girl

          I have a very slow reaction time, that’s the reason I won’t subject society to my driving. I did not realize it was lumped under PIQ.

        • Another William Playfair Web

          It certainly is interesting that Asians are supposed to have higher PIQs (which indeed includes reaction times) than VIQs yet they are stereotyped as bad drivers…..

        • Good con artists? Yes yes yes. Good street smarts and understanding of human psychology? Yes yes yes. Most important of all? Unbelievably ADAPTIVE? Yes yes yes!

          But my impression of their pure brains? You get the feeling you are talking to a retarded person.

        • Another William Playfair Web

          they have one-track minds, for sure.
          I suppose if you have a low-IQ and work at something a lot, you can appear to have a higher IQ, merely because of skill in that masterable subject.

        • Another William Playfair Web

          I’m skeptical that really any country other than the ones in East Asia have non-European cultures (Europe was all over)
          BUT
          those Nigerians, wow. Corruption out the Wha-zoo.

        • Another William Playfair Web

          In certain portions of the country- trying to scam your way to the top, sometimes VIA foreigners/the internet, IS the Culture.
          Only in some parts though.

          Their are perfectly nice Nigerians.

      • Another William Playfair Web

        that last post was to Robert.
        Of course regression could work the opposite way, that you do 0.6(1/0.4) or 1.5 SDs, which I actually believe is the far more accepted model.
        Where Whites have an IQ of 100, pure blooded Blacks have an IQ of 100-15(1.5)= 77.5 IQ……

        • Another William Playfair Web

          the median and average (it’s Gaussian) Black, I mean.
          BUT I’d suspect the Black SD is slightly higher (even among the pure) because there is more genetic diversity- but only slightly, maybe 16 where Whites have 15?

  6. Chinedu

    Phil,

    I just posted an interview with Flynn. He’s credible, you’re not. He’s a respected scientist. You, from all available evidence, are an uneducated and uncredentialed Internet troll.

    Sorry, I’m not going to value your authority over Flynn’s. And as far as Rushton and Jensen go, they’ve been roundly debunked and even censured by their peers for research fraud. Flynn is a much higher, much more respected authority than those clowns.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend.

    • “Phil,

      I just posted an interview with Flynn. He’s credible, you’re not. He’s a respected scientist. You, from all available evidence, are an uneducated and uncredentialed Internet troll.

      Sorry, I’m not going to value your authority over Flynn’s. And as far as Rushton and Jensen go, they’ve been roundly debunked and even censured by their peers for research fraud. Flynn is a much higher, much more respected authority than those clowns.

      Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend.”

      You are simply using authority over actual scientific logic.

      Gould, one of Jensen’s opponents who was part of that “debunking” wasn;t exactly honest either.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

      This was based on a reanalysis by a Pennsylvania team.

      • Chinedu

        Sorry, Phil, I like most of the sentient world will value Flynn’s authority over Rushton’s. Everyone knows that Rushton was motivated by racial animus and that his paymasters were hardened racists, segregationists and eugenicists. And, frankly, anyone that says that men with small cocks are smarter than men with big cocks, as Rushton did, is not to be taken seriously.

        • “Sorry, Phil, I like most of the sentient world will value Flynn’s authority over Rushton’s. Everyone knows that Rushton was motivated by racial animus and that his paymasters were hardened racists, segregationists and eugenicists. And, frankly, anyone that says that men with small cocks are smarter than men with big cocks, as Rushton did, is not to be taken seriously.”

          So again you are deciding to not actually prove he was wrong by scientific means and instead go by a stigma.

          Second, Rushton was not the only one who was in this paper, Rushton’s commentary was given also.

        • I meant to say that Jensen’s words were mentioned as well.

          Until you actually examine/point out why they are incorrect, on a scientific standard, you’re constant refusal means nothing.

          Or you could actually cite a paper that refutes this one.

        • Head Size
          Asians Europeans Africans
          Largest Intermediate Smallest
          1400-1449cc. 1350-1399 cc. 1250-1299 cc.

          IQ
          Asians Europeans Africans
          106 100 67

          Perhaps you were quite smart for that town, no? The correlation is not perfect, but it is there. Ugandans and Kenyans have very large heads, but their IQ’s are 68. Vietnamese have the smallest brains of all, but their IQ’s are 99. Perhaps Vietnamese brains are highly specialized. Perhaps Kenyan heads are large, but maybe they are not organized well or there is not a whole lot of connections up there.

  7. Jason Y

    The head variation thing is creepy. For instance in the antebellum south it was thought blacks had smaller skulls so that in thier mind justified making them slaves. This point was brought out on the movie Django Unchained.

    • Jason Y

      Also William Pierce used head size as a major justification for the racism he preached.

    • So? What if the Antebellum Southerners were right? What if science backs up their view. Because it’s true, Blacks in the US do have smaller skulls.

      It is more of a climate thing though tbh. People from the hottest parts of the globe tend to have smaller skulls and the largest skulls are found in the coldest areas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s