Category Archives: Intelligence

Is 116 a High IQ?

My answer below from Quora:

What is wrong with that? Most people are average. Is there something wrong with being average, ordinary, typical, everyday, or like everybody else? I mean if you are average, you are about the same as most folks around you. 67% of the population has an IQ between 84–116. A 116 IQ is called “high normal.” If there was a footrace of 100 people, you would come in 16th. You would beat most of the people in the race. What’s so bad about that? Everyone can’t come in first you know. Only one person can come in first. If there are 10 people in the room you are smarter than 8 of them. If there are 20 in the room, you smarter than 17 of them. In other words, most of the time you are in a room with other people, you are smarter than most people in the room. Isn’t that cool?

Also I must say that IQ’s in this range differ a lot. I had a commenter on my site with an IQ of 117 and he was one of the smartest people on there. I have one with a 115 IQ, and he is smart as a whip. I have a 147 IQ and it is hard to say that I am smarter than either of those guys. You cannot raise your IQ, but I think people at the same IQ seem smarter or less smart depending on how much they have stuffed into their heads. That 117 IQ who seems to perform far above his range has been stuffing his head forever. If you want to be as smart as possible, just keep stuffing your head and challenging your mind. I think you might be very surprised at how smart you will end up seeming to be.

You also might look into extra-IQ factors. Extra-IQ factors have been shown to increase your effective IQ on the job by 10–20 points. A book by James Flynn showed that Chinese and Japanese first generation Americans were performing at jobs 10–20 points above what would be expected based on their IQ’s. The reason they were performing above their IQ levels was due to beneficial extra-IQ factors that served as a sort of “synthetic IQ points.” The extra-IQ factors made them seem to have IQ’s that were 15 points above their own, or it made them perform just as well on the job as someone with an IQ 15 points higher than their own.


Filed under Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Intelligence, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe By Robert Lindsay

This is from one of my papers on Academia. It is getting linked around all over the place right now, so I thought you folks might want to take a look at it if you have not done so already. Pretty interesting paper documents an 8-13.5 rise in the 2nd generation of immigrants coming from the less developed world to the West, in this case to Europe. The usual hereditarian rejoinders to this argument are dealt with.

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe

By Robert Lindsay

From an article by Philippe Rushton, hereditarian, a revelation about yet another instance of skyrocketing IQ increases in the second generation born in the West after migrating from the less developed areas.

Previously, we noted that the children Jamaican immigrants to the UK (IQ = 71) have IQ’s of 85-86, typically within a single generation. That is a gain of 14.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. Hereditarians have offered many rationales for this. The usual one is that the Jamaican immigrants were already very bright anyway (as we will see with Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands, this is not true).

Another is that Jamaicans in the UK are very heavily bred in with Whites to the point where they may be only 1/2 White. This is not true – UK Jamaicans are only 12% White (Jamaicans in Jamaica are 9% White).

The children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK (IQ = 81.5) have IQ’s ranging from 92 (Rushton) to 96 (a figure I prefer). Call it 94. This is a gain of 12.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. The counter-argument here once again is that this group is self-selected.

Taken together, the children of Jamaican and East Indian immigrants see rises of 13.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. It is true that beyond the initial jump, we are not seeing more rises.

However, a strong initial jump is perfectly consonant with being raised in an area with a higher standard of living. Higher standards of living seem to be somehow translating into long-term rises in IQ. The mechanisms can be debated.

Education, a massively stimulating environment (computers, cell phones, TV, movies), proper nutrition, good medical care, and myriad other things have been suggested, but the mechanisms for the rises are still somewhat mysterious.

Now, via Rushton, we have yet more evidence of a Flynn Effect in immigrants to the West. First generation Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands had IQ’s of 81. This is low. The Moroccan norm IQ is 84, and the Turkish norm IQ is 90. So, contrary to the argument that only the very brightest immigrants are going to the West, it seems instead that the less bright immigrants are arriving instead.

The second generation has IQ’s of 89. 89 is around the Turkish average, but it is 5 points above the Moroccan average of 84. Both the Turkish and the Moroccan figures also shows a Flynn gain of 8 points between generations. Rushton tries to explain this away somehow, but he doesn’t do a good job of it.

The evidence for massive IQ gains in second-generation immigrants to the West is now becoming overwhelming, and it is going to be harder and harder for hereditarians to explain away.

Comparison of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to the West and the resulting Flynn Effect gains, apparently solely by being born and raised in the West. The common factor behind rising IQ’s in the West may be related to rising standards of living.

                   1st   2nd   Gain

UK Jamaicans       71    85.5  14.5
UK East Indians    81.5  94    12.5
ND Moroccans/Turks 81    88     7

Average            78    89    11.5


Filed under Blacks, Britain, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Flynn Effect, Immigration, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Moroccans, Netherlands, North Africans, Pakistanis, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asians, Turks

More Cultural Left Redditors Who Hate Me


This is the I Am Very Smart group. They claim that they put down pretentious idiots who brag about how smart they are, but really, if you say anything whatsoever about your intelligence, no matter how you say – shyly, normally or overbearingly – even if it is solid fact, you’re somehow “bragging” and you get on their list.

I’ve often said that intelligence is the one thing that you cannot brag about even if you are superior.

  • Get laid a lot? Crow away.
  • Making lots of money? Hear, hear!
  • Great athlete? Tell us more!
  • 6’2? Wow, I am breathless!
  • Handsome or beautiful? We know, we know! Don’t you tell us. We’ll tell you! By the way, can I have your number, cutie?
  • Calm under pressure? My hero!
  • Amazingly healthy? You should be a doctor!
  • Charming, witty, extroverted, life of the party? Swoon.
  • Got a fancy degree? Show us! Show us!
  • Got an award for anything on Earth? Can I see it? Is it framed?
  • Got a fancy, high paying job? Wow, a high quality man. I thought there weren’t any left. You married, sexy?
  • Got a hollow leg? How do you do it? Can I borrow your stomach for a few decades?
  • Athletic talent? He was climbing jungle gyms at age two? Wow! Future NBA star. Such a bright future.
  • Mechanical talent? He was taking apart clocks and putting them back together at age three? Wow a mechanical genius! I am impressed!
  • Artistic talent? I can’t believe he was doing portraiture at age five! Your son is the next Picasso!
  • Genius IQ? Braggart! Who cares about your IQ score? You’re a social failure for even bringing it up! Get away from me! You suck! I hate nerds! Nerds can’t get laid lol. I’d rather have a sexy gardener than a pencil necked geek! Dumb people are better anyway! Smart people suck! I hate smart people! I don’t know what my IQ is and I don’t care! IQ doesn’t mean anything anyway! No one cares about your brain, it’s what you do with it, loser (never mind that everyone cheers for any other inborn superiority)! Ew, social retard, talking about his IQ! Offensive! IQ doesn’t even measure intelligence anyway! No one cares about IQ, you idiot! You know a lot of smart people are idiots and a lot of dumb people are geniuses? Has your brain ever gotten you laid, pencil neck, lol? Nobody like a brain, go crawl under a rock, egghead. Intellectuals are borrrrrrrring, yawn. Problem with smart people is the ain’t got no common sense! You say something Einstein – Sorry I was sleeping? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz what were droning about again? Have you ever noticed that smart people are lame clods with glasses who are complete dorks lol?


Filed under Humor, Intelligence, Left, Psychology

Peter Frost Discusses My Work


Peter Frost is an excellent race realist anthropologist. I think he is a working academic. He is as smart as the Devil. Brilliant man.

This is my post that he critiques.

Lindsay, R. (2010). The Head Size/IQ/Race Trainwreck, March 11

He sort of handwaves it away, but I think I am onto something.

I noticed certain things. First of all, Amerindian IQ is generally set at 87 all up and down the Americas. Yet their head sizes are all over the place, from large to small. OK, their heads range from large to small, but their IQ’s are all the same? Something wrong with the theory.

Here is his quote. My work is in italics below:

There has not been much comment on the Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) article. The most substantive one seems to be a blog post by Robert Lindsay (2010) who calls their map a “train wreck” for claims that cranial capacity correlates with IQ:

White racists like to make a big deal about the supposed correlation between head size and intelligence and race. A nice little chart showing the basically dishonest portrayal they attempt based on cherry-picking data is below.

Methinks that Lindsay takes the fine details on that map a bit too seriously. Many of the details are simply creative extrapolation and infilling; otherwise, the map roughly corresponds with world distribution of mean IQ. Furthermore, no one is claiming that cranial capacity is the only determinant of IQ. There are undoubtedly many others: cortical surface area, myelinization of nerve fibers, relative importance of domain-general thinking, etc.

But he does make a good point about the Amerindian data.

As you can see, in the Americas, there is no good evidence whatsoever for head size and IQ. I am not aware that Amerindian IQ varies in the Americas. The average is apparently 87 across the continent. If anyone can show me that it varies by latitude, please do.

Agreed. No one can, for now. But a hypothesis is not false because no one has bothered to test it.


But there are quite a few other holes in this theory. South Indians and Vietnamese have the same sized heads. South Indian IQ = 82, and Vietnamese IQ = 99. How does that work? Heads the same size and one SD difference in IQ? What?

Ugandans/ Kenyans and Italians have the same sized heads. Ugandans and Kenyans have the largest heads in Africa. Now that I think about it, Masai heads do look quite large. Ugandan/Kenyan IQ = 68, and Italian IQ = 103. OK, now we have heads of the same size and a 35 point or over 2 SD difference in IQ? Huh? I suppose you can argue that Ugandans have huge heads but there’s not a lot inside of them except maybe air. Or you can argue that the Ugandan brains are not very specialized, and Italians have much more specialized brains. I suspect this may be the case with Vietnamese too.

After all, you can have a huge car that is junk and a smaller car that is one of the finest on Earth. It’s all down to the specialization and micro-detail. And I suspect it’s not just head size alone. We know full well that certain more modern parts of the brain are correlated much more with advanced thinking than other parts of the brain are. The prefrontal cortex is one of those – it hardly exists in apes, but it’s full blown in man. And there are structures within the PFC than are even more specialized than the PFC itself. Maybe it’s not the size of the brain but the type and quality of the machinery inside of it?

This becomes quite clear when we notice that Eskimos have the biggest heads of all, yet their IQ is only 91, just above the world average of 89. 91 is not a bad IQ, but one would expect more from the people with the biggest heads on Earth, no? Usually the explanation is that a huge portion of the Eskimo brain has gone over to visuospatial, which is actually proven in experiments that show how Eskimos can find their way even in the most confusing wind, snow and ice-filled landscapes.

Aborigines also have superb visuospatial skills, some of the finest of all mankind. They got this from having evolved in the trackless desert that in terms of familiar objects and markers is probably not a whole lot different from the Arctic. So if you have a huge brain but a lot of that larger size is gone over to something like visuospatial, then that won’t do a lot for your IQ.

On the other hand, there goes your theory! We are already finding exceptions and handwaving them away.

Nevertheless, I think that the theory is good in sort of a broad and general way, possibly with a number of exceptions. The exceptions may be down to some large brains having huge areas gone over to certain specialized things that don’t do much for IQ and some small brains possibly being as good as large ones in that perhaps they are very specialized or have a lot of micro-machinery of very good quality in their heads.

All in all, not a bad theory, but beware of the exceptions minefield.


Filed under Aborigines, Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, East Indians, Europeans, Intelligence, Inuit, Italians, Masai, Neuroscience, Physical, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Science, SE Asians, South Asians, Vanity, Vietnamese, White Racism

The Overblown Menace of Race Realism

Race realist, referring to this post:

Outstanding post. Even with explaining your views on the matter, baseless claims will still be made as to why you’re a race-realist.

This is where I have been coming from since Day One. I founded a movement called Liberal Race Realism, but it was a complete flop due to as the Marxists would say the contradictions. But then I started the Alternative Left, which in a lot of ways is just the same thing except expanded.

I have long held that we on the Left need to deal with the reality of race and come up with some sort of Left project that takes into account the reality of race. The idea that race realism kills liberalism and the Left is nonsense. Liberalism and the Left can cope with any factual reality, including the reality of race. Supposedly it will be fatal because we believe everyone is equal, but most on the Left have never held that everyone is equal anyway, as that is an insane position. And in general most of the Left has not created complete equality, only relative equality. A lot of us are just for de jure equality or equality before the law and equality of opportunity.

The Left can’t keep on screaming that there’s no such thing as race forever.

But I also believe that if the belief in race ever becomes more common, everyone will go to the Right is unfounded. I know a number of good liberal people who believe in race realism. I even knew a Communist who believed in it. You put your average White liberal behind closed doors and put a few drinks in him, and a lot of times the Inner Race Realist comes out.

I say this because I have converted some people to facets of race realism, and they didn’t change their ideology one bit. In particular the race-IQ thing will never fly because most people hate the idea of IQ. It will be hard to get a population that hates IQ to care about the race-IQ facts.

There are some people who never knew about the facts of the Black-White IQ gap until I told them a few years ago. These were very intelligent Whites aged 45 or so.

RL: “Yes, Blacks score 15 points lower than Whites on IQ tests. Blacks are just not as smart as Whites, at least at the moment.”

45 year old liberal: Funny half smile that is hard to describe like he is hearing some odd fact. “Really? I never knew that.”

RL: “Yep it’s been well known forever, and further the tests are not biased, and IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence.’

45 year old liberal: Gets a look on his face like he’s sort of known it all along. “Well, of course. Of course they’re not as smart. That’s obvious. Anyone knows that. It’s common sense.

Then the conversation degenerates into a “Yeah, but so what” discussion where this person basically says:

“Who cares if they score lower?…Who cares about IQ anyway?…Screw IQ tests…Screw IQ…Everyone hates IQ scores, and no one likes those tests…No one cares what your IQ is, and in fact most people are angry if you tell them.”

Then on to whether the tests really measure intelligence or not, and he argues that they probably don’t.

Bottom line is even presented with the facts of race, most people don’t really change their views:

About the Black-White IQ gap: “So? Who cares? So they score lower. Big deal. Why is this important?”

About IQ and IQ tests in general: “The Hell with IQ. Nobody wants to talk about IQ, you can’t talk about it, everyone hates it, no one cares about it.”

About validity of IQ tests: “Well, who says those tests even measure intelligence anyway. There are different types of intelligence. I doubt if they really measure intelligence. Anyway, who cares about any of this?”

I think both sides are way too worried about this stuff. The Left is probably overreacting by shouting this stuff down. The Right is wrong that everyone will go rightwing and the Left will die once they learn the facts of race. Most people probably know about the reality of race on some intuitive level anyway, and even presented with race realist facts which they accept, they don’t seem to change their views.

Bottom line is most people do not care about race realism. It is considered to be sort of smarmy, slimy, disreputable and mean subject, and most people “just don’t want to go there.” Even when they know the facts, they shrug their shoulders. Most people hate the idea of IQ and never want to discuss it. At the end of the day, even if more people believe in the reality of race, I doubt if it would change the political landscape much. Both sides seem to be placing way too much importance on this stuff, while the guy next door basically does not give a damn about it anyway.


Filed under Blacks, Intelligence, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA, Whites

Black Male, 113 IQ

When we set Black male IQ’s at 113, the Black and White crime rates are equal. Now isn’t that interesting?

So if all Blacks were just as smart as Jews, they would be no more criminal than Whites. But sadly that’s not case.

Now this is very interesting. Let’s look at this group – the Whites with 113 IQ and the Blacks with 113 IQ. Were their life experiences different? If so, how? If the Black experiences were worse, then why were the Blacks immune to them? Let’s look at the genes. Whoa! Genes are not the same. 113 IQ Blacks had a number of high risk repeats and whatnot that can definitely raise the risk of crime. Yet in them, it didn’t raise it one bit. Wow that is interesting! Why not? How were they immunized?

I actually suspect that the answer here is twofold but both answers deal with the same thing – intelligence.

Theory 1: First of all, it is possible that 113 IQ Blacks have some general background criminal tendency risk common to the race. So they were sort of born with their mind wanting to go in these directions. My theory: At some point, IQ is so high that is swarms out your bad genes. At 113 IQ, perhaps the high IQ might enable Black men to “swamp out” their antisocial tendencies like a tidal wave washing over a village. The intelligence just overwhelms the bad drives and renders them moot.

There might be something to that because I am convinced that a lot of low crime people want to act bad too. Bad men do what good men dream. This has always been my thinking. There is one maniac running around raping and murdering women while 100 men are only dreaming of it. The role of repression in human behavior is severely underestimated.

I hate to say it, but I have had all sorts of criminal urges in my life. The overwhelming majority of the time, I was simply able to suppress or repress these urges and forget about them. My superego would come in and say You might get caught, it’s wrong, what about the person, how could you do that to them, what about jail what about prison, imagine what that could be like, you would never handle it, it would ruin your life, don’t do it. They few times I gave in, I decided it was not a bad thing to do and anyway, the victim deserved it. So it was more paybacks and revenge than anything else.

The take home point here may be that as IQ rises, we can suppress more and more of our nasty and antisocial impulses, not to mention our stupid impulses. IQ might be the Great Suppressor or the Great Repressor.

Theory 2: Another possibility is that the genes that elevate criminal tendency in Blacks are not evenly distributed in the Black population. Alpha and Tulio act good because they simply never got dosed with these repeats. And perhaps, as Black IQ rises, genes are connected with this IQ rise. And the higher the IQ, the fewer antisocial genes one is dealt because these traits sort of run together genetically. Conversely, as IQ descends, perhaps the frequency of high crime risk genes increases because these genes are tied in genetically with low IQ.

Anyway it is figures like this, where the “high crime race” commits exactly the same amount of crime as the “low crime race” and discovers just why it is that this is so that makes race realist research so interesting, even from a point of view of progressive motives.


Filed under Blacks, Crime, Criminology, Genetics, Intelligence, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Sociology, Whites

Response to Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay

This is my response to Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay by NotPoliticallyCorrect. His piece is also on my site here.

I do not believe that the facts of HBD, if they are facts at all, are racist. The thing is, in general, we have not proven that they are even facts. Officially, science is still agnostic on this stuff. Nevertheless, HBD is a perfectly legitimate position to take, and it’s not a racist position at all assuming it might be true, and perhaps quite a bit of it might be true.

It’s absolutely wrong for the Left to say that believing in HBD is racist. It’s not racist at all, and even less so if it’s true. That’s a bad definition of racism.

Even the “superior or inferior” argument is wrong because even leaving aside HBD, statistics show that different races score either superior or inferior on various metrics. Clearly Whites have a superior (lower) crime rate than Blacks. If you point this out, you’re racist? Insane! Even pointing out that presently, intelligence tests show that Whites are smarter than Blacks (true even leaving HBD aside) is somehow racist. But that’s just true. It’s a fact of science.

Nevertheless, look around you. 98% of HBD’ers are some pretty ugly, vicious racists, aren’t they? Or is it even more than that? And most of the rest of them are not all that nice.

How many HBD’ers do you meet who seem like they actually like those dirty inferior NAM people? Zero? How many HBD’ers do you meet who actually like those nasty “low IQ” people, most of whom are not even low IQ? Human IQ is 89 average, and HBD’ers routinely claim that IQ’s at that level are “low.” Zero! How many HBD’ers do you meet who don’t think that higher IQ are superior to lower IQ people? Zero!

Nasty, nasty people.

Now I agree that some HBD’ers are ok, but they barely even seem HBD. I had no idea Will was even HBD because he’s so mild. Tulio is much the same way.

Well, of course they’re all reactionaries. That’s another reason no one wants anything to do with them. Progressive or liberal HBD’ers are like four leaf clovers. There’s not many about.

Whenever I meet someone spouting HBD, I check and see what sort of a person this is. Almost inevitably, it’s someone who leans rightwing, usually hard rightwing. Usually they are aligned with the Alt Right. Usually they hate NAM’s, low IQ people and think people with higher IQ’s are superior to people with low IQ’s. And usually they give off a very ugly vibe somehow.

Now this philosophy either attracts people who are already racist or it turns people that way. It’s up in the air. But it’s still pretty much poison.

What good does talking about this HBD stuff do? The only reason 99% of HBD’ers talk about this stuff all the time is so they can use it as a club to beat up those evil NAM people and those scummy “low IQ” people. That’s why they talk about it all the time.

Just because something is true doesn’t mean we have to talk about it. I took some shits in the past month. That’s a fact. They had a certain consistency about them, though it was variable. If I wanted to, I could have charted all my shits, taken some photos and made a nice essay called My September Turds. 100% fact. 100% science. 100% true. But why should I talk about that? Why would anyone want to hear about that? They wouldn’t.

Can someone tell me why we need to talk about this HBD stuff all the time? Someone give me a reason why this needs to be discussed all the time. What good does it do? All the HBD’ers say HBD means everything is hopeless anyway. If it’s all hopeless, why talk about it? I always say if you don’t have a solution to ameliorate a problem, don’t bother talking about it. HBD’ers admit there is no ameliorating HBD facts (they are wrong by the way). Well, if there is no way to better these problems, then why in God’s name are we talking about them? Why don’t we rail about the horrible problem of death instead? There’s no solution to that either.

There’s no evidence that the world naturally sucks, that people are lousy or that the world is a vicious, nasty place. There’s also no evidence that Social Darwinism is the natural state of man. These are all just opinions.

We don’t live in jungles. Unlike wild animals, we can actually decide not to live by the law of the jungle. Wild animals can’t make decisions like that. Conservatives think the world is a nasty, vicious place because their philosophy is nasty and vicious and typically they are nasty and vicious little monsters  themselves. It’s all self-serving belief.

Nice try with the oxytocin and other biological attempts to justify racism. Sure, humans are often racist jerks. That doesn’t mean it’s normal to act that way. That doesn’t mean we are doomed to act that way. Every racist person made a conscious decision to feel racist. There’s no oxytocin BS that made him feel that way.

People’s ethnocentrism varies all over the world. You go to San Francisco or Hawaii these days, and there’s really no such thing as ethnic or racial ethnocentrism. It’s gone.

Don’t want to get into the Communism death toll BS, but you ought to know that India probably killed 200 million more people than Communist China did, even under Mao. Even looking at the Mao era, India killed 100 million more than Mao did. We know that as of 1979, India had killed 100 million more people than Mao. I assume that nothing has changed since and India killed another 100 million since then. That’s 200 million more than Mao. Communist death toll, get real.

That data is from Amartya Sen, by the way. You can look it up.

Most of those deaths were from starvation and malnutrition.

Since 1986, capitalism starves 14 million people to death every single year. There are 14 million deaths due to starvation every year in the world, and in the last 30 years, very few of those have been in Communist countries. Most of those deaths were in South Asia. That’s 420 million starvation deaths in the world since 1986, mostly in South Asia, almost all killed by capitalism. How many people did Communism kill since 1986?

Mao set a world record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time. That’s called saving lives. Sure Mao killed people, but he saved so many more lives, and he gave so many people more time on Earth.


Filed under Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Conservatism, Death, Economics, Health, History, India, Intelligence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Modern, Nutrition, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, South Asia

NotPoliticallyCorrect’s Rejoinder to My Piece on HBD and Racism

This was posted over at NotPolitcallyCorrect’s site. I hope he doesn’t mind my reprinting it here with a link to the original. He doesn’t copyright his stuff, and I see no Creative Commons license. His site’s not monetized anyway. I’ll take it down if he requests it. I also posted my own rejoinder to his response, which I will post after this.

Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay

A nice special post today, Robert Lindsay’s accusation of HBD being ‘racist’ is on the table today. As always, I want to hear what you want me to write on so send me an email, address is in the sidebar.

Robert Lindsay asks “Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?” It, of course, isn’t. Today I’ll rebut his piece saying that it is “hatred and ‘racism’ (whatever that means)”. He says that HBDers who resist ‘racism’ (which I will address later) are “swimming against the tide” and “probably have to exercise a bit of self-control to not go over to the dark side.” What is he even talking about? What “dark side” is there? Being ‘racist’?

This is because HBD facts tend to lend pretty regularly to quite a bit of racism and the hatred that goes along with it. And if you notice, the more hardcore the HBD’er is, the more racist they tend to sound.

Of course these facts lead to ‘racism’, however, these ‘racists’ will be ‘racist’ with or without the facts of HBD. I will touch more on that later. In the meantime, he says “the more hardcore the HBD’er is, the more racist they tend to sound.” Robert, are you just making broad generalizations? Do you have anything to back your claim on this statement? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

HBD in and of itself is not racist of course, not in any sane sense of the word.

I agree with him saying that the Left has destroyed any “meaning” that the word “racist” has. However, even without the overstating of the word “racist”, HBD itself would not be a racist ideology. It is, however, racist to the average person who doesn’t know the science involved in racial differences. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has two definitions for ‘racism’. It defines ‘racism’ as:

  1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

  2. Racial prejudice or discrimination

Well, “superiority” is meaningless. Race is not a primary determinant of human traits as there is a lot of crossover. However, there are racial/ethnic differences in phenotype which of course are caused by differences in genotype. That is not up for discussion, but the term ‘inherent superiority’ is.

Of course to the average person, HBD is seen as ‘racist’. But is researching/reading about human differences and being interested in their causes and what they mean today really ‘racist’ or a want to learn more about human evolution and how and why we got here?

But the ones who are very deep into it and talk about it all the time, well, it’s quite clear that they have a pretty low opinion of NAM’s. Even worse, a lot of them are just out and out racists. Some are even vicious racists. And almost all of them have the worst rightwing politics, usually Libertarian, that you could imagine.

‘Racists.’ There’s that word again. I did say at the beginning of the year that we should petition to have ‘racist’ changed to ‘ethnocentrist’, as what is being described when one cries ‘racist’ is actually ethnocentrism in action. This is mediated by the brain hormone oxytocin. I would wager that ‘racists’ and other, closely related people (ie Arab Muslims with high consang rates) would have higher levels of this brain hormone. This would be the reason why these groups stick to those who are phenotypically to themselves; it’s hormonally driven, like most, if not all things in life. Stop using the word ‘racist’ and use ‘ethnocentrist’ as it makes much more sense.

More importantly, HBD is a profoundly pessimistic doctrine. Just to give you an idea, they hate the idea that the environment or even free will has any role to play human affairs. Look at how furious they get about the Flynn Effect. Look at all the bending over, twisting themselves into weird yoga positions, hand waving, magic wand waving, “Don’t look over there”, and “just-so” explanations they have come up for to deny what is an obvious rise in human intelligence. The idea that the environment could actually increase intelligence fills them with rage because they are all wrapped up in this “intelligence is purely genetic” argument. (Bold is my emphasis)

Yes HBD is pessimistic, as is life, Robert. Who hates the idea that environment has any role in intelligence? Any sensible individual would acknowledge that environment does play a role, but would also know that intelligence is highly heritable. I’m pretty sure he’s just talking about the average ‘racist’, as I’ve never seen an HBD blogger every state that intelligence is fully genetic. Sure there are some intelligence researchers (a minority) who believe that intelligence is fully genetic but just like extreme environmentalism in regards to causes for IQ, extreme hereditarianism is also a stupid view to hold.

Genes and environment interact to give the phenotype. We can take an African from, say, South Africa and place him in America. Due to better nutrition and better schooling among other things (like lessened parasitic load and disease), in my opinion African IQ would be about 10 points higher, give or take a few points. We know that environment and genetics (GxE) affects all phenotypic traits, but those like Robert like to play up Flynn gains as if they are on actual g – they aren’t. Flynn Effects are not genetic and are UNRELATED to race differences (Rushton, 2000).

On another note, I seem to have been wrong with my statement that Flynn gains were 3 points per decade in every country. I would wager that since intelligence is affected by nutrition that those countries with lower Flynn gains that showed the least improvement with nutrition would show the lowest IQ gains. I will write on this in the future.

Of course, that argument is a death knell for Blacks and other NAM’s. These people have enough problems as it is, but HBD just drives a stake through their heart to make sure the Black man (or other NAM’s) never rises again. It pretty much condemns them forever as genetic inferiors in sense.

They have enough problems as it is because of their biology which HBD speaks about, the supposed ‘racist ideology’. It pretty much does ‘condemn them’ as ‘genetic ‘inferiors” (whatever that means), but that’s Nature! Nature is not a kind Mistress. Nature is harsh, nature doesn’t care about feelings.

Intelligence isn’t either fully genetic nor fully environmental, but shifted considerably over to the hereditarian position.

It says “niggers ain’t got no brains,” and while that may be true in a very ugly and racist sense that most us don’t want to think about, instead, the HBD’er is overjoyed at this fact. “Black people are stupid!” he hollers to the sky with joy. “And they will stay that way forever!” he yells gleefully. “Environment can’t help them. They are condemned!” At this point, he is nearly gleeful and ready to party.

I laughed out loud at this. Environment can help, to a point (if they come from Africa or some other down-and-out place), but mainly, as seen in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, blacks didn’t end up doing better than whites when environments were equalized.

And most of them are racist lousy people, but they are quite smug about their racism because now their racism is given the imprimatur of science. “If science says it’s true, I can’t be racist,” he chortles.

Idiotic. Everyone is ‘ethnocentric’ to a degree, whether consciously or subconsciously. Robert, you are an HBDer yourself whether you admit it or not since you recognize racial differences, so I guess you are ‘racist’.

After all, science isn’t racist. I agree, but distortion of science for racist means sure is, and delighting in the disturbing “racist truths” of science is doubly so.

Sure, gay men are at very high risk of HIV, and up to 20% are infected. That’s a fact of science. So does that make you want to get up and party for 30 days and 30 nights? I hope not, and if so, you are one ugly homophobe.

Science is not racist. But, as Leftists love saying ‘Data isn’t racist, interpretation of it is!!!’ is idiotic. Of course a lot of people distort racial science, but that doesn’t mean that it’s ‘wrong’. Like with making myths on how Europeans were always in Europe 40 kya (not true) or how Europeans were always white (not true) he is right here. Most people do not keep up to date on the newest data that comes out so they still hold to these ‘mythologies’ and ‘identity politics’ and push out outdated and straight untrue statements. But all that means is that they are extremely misinformed.

What would I do with that stat of gay men and HIV? Be cautious around gays, just like I’d be cautious around blacks knowing how much crime and murder they commit as a group. This is a sane position to hold. One group is overrepresented in a certain (negative) stat? Keep an eye out while around those of that demographic. That makes sense. Self-preservation always wins out. Robert is of course using the Leftist playbook on ‘racist’ namecalling. Most everything in this article I’ve seen around countless times being spewed to any HBDer who went against conventional wisdom. The term ‘racist’ is just used as a silencing tactic. Robert, you are a Leftist HBDer. You do know that a lot people you align yourself with politically consider you ‘racist’ right?

This notion that anyone who believes HBD is ‘racist’ or any other buzzword is used to shut down any and all discussions on matters. Something that, it seems, flew over his head. When one cannot rebut something an HBDer puts out, they get called ‘racist’. However, the term is pretty much close to meaningless nowadays as it’s been so overused by the Left. All of the HBD bloggers I follow are not racist (hell, one who is most certainly not racist is PumpkinPerson who has a very unhealthy obsession with Oprah. =^) You know it’s true, PP). Others like Razib Khan, JayMan, hbd chick, and Cochran and Harpending, just to name a few, have gotten numerous accusations of being racist. Hell, Razib Khan was hired and fired the same day by the NYT after going on board as a science writer when someone discovered his ‘racist’ writings.

Whether or not people believe HBD doesn’t change how true it is. Racial and ethnic differences still persist, so by just disregarding it we completely go over causes of it other than ‘systemic racism’!!! HBD is true and a valid, non-racist (whatever that means) ideology. We segregate with people like us. Hell, even you, Robert, prefer whites over others (oh no, racist!!!!). Once we start understanding how and why people are ethnocentric (with oxytocin playing the main role), then we can have a more peaceful society as we understand causes for actions, both negative and positive, and better curb violence.

HBD itself is not a hateful ideology, it’s just one based on facts and solid reasoning. Just because people use HBD to justify their own preconceived notions or to use ‘hate facts’ doesn’t mean that it’s a racist ideology. Nice job using the word ‘racist’ as invented by Trotsky. But knowing your political leanings, Robert, that’s A-OK, right?

It’s worth noting that Robert banned me for my politics. He claims his comments are ‘free speech’, yet when I said the truth about socialism and the amount of deaths it caused (way more than National Socialism), I got an immediate ban. Truth hurts, huh?


Filed under Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Flynn Effect, Genetics, Intelligence, Left, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Science, Social Problems, Sociology

Singapore, Hong Kong and Other Hypercapitalist Societies as “IQ-Shredders”

Interesting argument.

It’s coming from the Alt Right, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or even necessarily bad. This guy seems to be more part of the HBD/Moldbug/Mangan’s part of the Alt Right, which is often not White nationalist at all. It is interesting that a lot of HBD’ers are not White nationalists or even all that pro-White. This shows that the Alt Right is not all a bunch of Nazis, though that’s mostly what it is. There’s also the Manosphere, the Game/PUA community, antifeminists, etc.

These groupings are often not racist or even racial at all, and many of them, especially the antifeminists, are explicitly multiracial. They never used to be even racist at all until this moron named Roissy/Heartiste starting turning Alt Right and Libertarian on us. He’s always an asshole, but I tolerate his assholeyness better when he’s writing about Game than when he’s writing about economics and race. A bunch of Heartiste’s even more idiotic followers then started imitating him like the bunch of monkeys they are. Just more idiocy and foolishness.

That said, this IQ shredder argument for hypercapitalist societies is an interesting. It’s like hypercapitalism destroys all the HBD values that these reactionaries have and results in more of the dysgenics that they decry so much.


Filed under Asia, Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Intelligence, Political Science, Psychology, Regional, SE Asia, Singapore, Social Problems, Sociology

Eight Point Flynn Rise in Real IQ Among Filipinos Born in the West

We have absolutely no data whatsoever on SEA’s raised in the West, except for Filipinos, who get an 8 point IQ rise from being raised in the West. Filipinos have 86 IQ’s in the Philippines, which unfortunately is not hard to believe if you have talked to a lot of Filipinas. They are some of the sweetest women out there, but they don’t strike you as real bright. But they are so sweet that you almost don’t care that there’s not a heck of a lot upstairs.

However, Filipinos raised in the West have 94 IQ’s, an eight point Flynn rise in real IQ. Hereditardians try to wave this away by appealing to selective immigration, but they have no data to back up their case. They do this with all Flynn rises in the children of 3rd world immigrants raised in the West for whom Flynn rises are virtually the norm. It’s hard to believe that all of these children of immigrants raised in the West Flynn rises are due to selective immigration. That almost strains credulity. Immigrants to everywhere in the West are always that selective? Really? Anyway, the Hereditardians can’t prove that either, but that doesn’t keep them from using it as a hand wave.

I do not think Filipino immigration is as selective as everyone thinks. I taught school in a heavily Filipino area and most of the parents of the kids were working at some pretty menial jobs. I also ate out in Filipino restaurants a lot, and I spent a fair amount of time in Little Manila just north of downtown LA (yes there is a Filipino neighborhood in LA that most have not heard of). If you meet a lot of ordinary, day to day Filipino-American immigrants, you would not think that the best and the brightest only had been imported. Most of them seem like regular everyday Flips.


Filed under Asia, Asians, Filipinos, Flynn Effect, Immigration, Intelligence, Philippines, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, USA