Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

Scientific evidence (of the good variety) exists demonstrating the following:
1. IQ is between 50 - 85% genetic.

That's familial IQ - heritability.
Not average population IQ used to compare different populations.

3. IQ of around 85% is strongly correlated with violence in the USA.

But not in other places.
Know what is? Leaded gasoline exposure in childhood.

4. IQ is very strongly correlated with economic performance.

As both cause and effect, historically within but not between populations.

What you have yet to provide evidence for:
1. African Americans have an average IQ of 85 because White people are poisoning them with lead. Prove it.
2. Most White Americans are racist against most African American - of high IQ. Prove it.

Those aren't my assertions.

Find out why you in fact can compare the heights of different populations of people. For example, the average height of a male in clean, well-fed, healthy, longest lived people in the world, Japan, is about 5'7"; whereas in the Netherlands, it's about 6'0".

I did, and posted you the links. Two or three times now. Why haven't you read them?

The conclusion drawn by the people who actually made these comparisons, carefully and scientifically, over the entire planet and as much historical and paleontological record as they could find, were that with very few and rare exceptions all races and nations of human beings have about the same genetic height.

... Anyway, IQ and mental age are strongly correlated. A 8 year old will have a higher IQ when 13 and higher again when 25. Should a person with a mental age of 14 be allowed to vote?

Which means IQ and height are strongly correlated. Also IQ and number of teeth. Should a person with a mental height of 5'2" or a mental tooth count of 28 be allowed to vote?

A lay article for easy reading

Which, if you read it, not only omits the later research by John Komlos et al I linked - which compares height between populations, as your article does not - but also contains a direct warning to you about heritability measures like these: they vary considerably between different populations. You can't use them to compare the absolute values of the inherited feature between different populations.

Seriously, dude: take a community college class in basic statistics. You're making a fool of yourself.

As far as IQ and government, I'm in basic agreement with William Buckley: I would rather be governed by an equivalently numerous group of people selected at random from the registered voters of New York than by the faculty of Yale .

 

[Michael]

That's familial IQ - heritability.
Not average population IQ used to compare different populations.

Familial IQ explains the population. As an example, some human, a long time ago, had a mutant form of a gene that has led to some humans having dry ear wax (and straight hair). This is *GAAAASP* an example of heritability. And get this, when you look across the population, from China, Korea and Japan, you'll notice that the average Asians has *SHOCK* dry ear wax. The same reasoning holds for the genes that were under environmental pressure and selected for. I fail to see why you have a problem with this very simple concept. Intelligence was selected for in humans. It didn't just arise out of the ether magically. The genes that produce the intelligence and are needed to get a IQ score higher than 100 are more prevalent in Asians compared to Whites. This explains why Asians make more money than Whites. There's not a conspiracy where by Yellow Privilege is why Asians make 20K more a year. It's also why Chinese who grew up in polluted, noisy, lead-tainted god-knows-what-else-tainted-water in Chinese cities (much dirty than American cities by the way) on average have IQ scores around 103-105. People with IQ scores of 100 are LESS inclined to commit violent crimes when compared with people who have IQ scores of 85.

Now, here's the little bit of magic you have to get over. Instead of categorizing people are Yellow people, White people and Black people - we instead categorize people by objective measurements (which you cannot do with 'race' - because it's in your head, like the flavor chocolate), including IQ score, fMRI, genetic tests, etc..... Then, finally, you will see a very strong correlation between violent crime and police response and how it connects directly to biology.

Incidentally, I was wondering, given your "Race Theory", why is it that White Americans can commit less violent crimes compared to ALL other minorities added together (Yellow, Black, Blue, etc...), yet Whites are actually killed by police officers more often? Is it their White Privilege do you think? Sure, I understand that Whites make up the majority of the population. So what? They commit less violent crimes and therefor should be legally killed less often - yet, that's not what the data shows.

Let me guess? It's lead in the water somewhere? Or, maybe it's global warming? Oh wait, I forgot, 'because White'.

LOL

One day, in the future, we're going to know each and every single gene involved in intelligence, how they regulate brain development and exactly how this leads to various unwanted, as well as desired, human behaviors. Everything from mental spatial representation, to violent crime. Then, we'll fix it. Voluntarily. How's that sound?

But not in other places.

Actually, yes, in other places.

Know what is? Leaded gasoline exposure in childhood.

(a) It's not either or. Obviously, lead can lower IQ by affecting brain development. So can genetics. Genetics can ALSO impact IQ by influencing brain development.

I did, and posted you the links. Two or three times now. Why haven't you read them?

If your argument is that height isn't partially determined by genetics, you are wrong.

One more time:
The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue

“If only environmental factors were responsible for the different IQs of different populations, we should expect to find some countries where Africans had higher IQs than Europeans. The failure to find a single country where this is the case points to the presence of a strong genetic factor.” Richard Lynn.

“Regression would explain why Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents.” Arthur Jensen.​

Let me repeat that; NO LONGER A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE.

Sorry, but history is leaving you behind. The Earth revolves around the Sun and science doesn't care for what you want to be true, but for what is true.

The conclusion drawn by the people who actually made these comparisons, carefully and scientifically, over the entire planet and as much historical and paleontological record as they could find, were that with very few and rare exceptions all races and nations of human beings have about the same genetic height.

SA: How much of human height is genetic and how much is due to nutrition?

The short answer to this question is that about 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors, whereas 20 to 40 percent can be attributed to environmental effects, mainly nutrition.​

Which means IQ and height are strongly correlated. Also IQ and number of teeth. Should a person with a mental height of 5'2" or a mental tooth count of 28 be allowed to vote?

Okay, and we use age as a proxy for mental aptitude. You do understand some people who are 40 have the mental aptitude of a 6 year old? You understand that, correct? They're legally not allowed to drive a car, to sign contracts involving money, etc...

So, my question was: DO you think that people with a mental age of 14 should be allowed to vote?

As far as IQ and government, I'm in basic agreement with William Buckley: I would rather be governed by an equivalently numerous group of people selected at random from the registered voters of New York than by the faculty of Yale .

The best government, is the least government.

 

[iceaura]

Familial IQ explains the population.

No, it doesn't. Please take a basic course in statistics and genetics, or just pay attention to the examples provided for you: height, for one.

Incidentally, I was wondering, given your "Race Theory", why is it that White Americans can commit less violent crimes compared to ALL other minorities added together (Yellow, Black, Blue, etc...), yet Whites are actually killed by police officers more often? Is it their White Privilege do you think? Sure, I understand that Whites make up the majority of the population. So what? They commit less violent crimes and therefor should be legally killed less often

You never get your facts straight, which causes you to make errors of reasoning - but then, when somebody corrects your facts, you don't go back and rehabilitate your reasoning. Why is that?

One day, in the future, we're going to know each and every single gene involved in intelligence, how they regulate brain development and exactly how this leads to various unwanted, as well as desired, human behaviors. Everything from mental spatial representation, to violent crime. Then, we'll fix it. Voluntarily. How's that sound?

Sounds like you being stupid again.

Try this: how do you know the genetic factors correlated with IQ are not things like genetic variability in handling childhood lead exposure, maternal stress, or omega 6 vs omega 3 fat ratios in the maternal or childhood diet, metabolically? Hint: you don't.

But not in other places.
Actually, yes, in other places.

No, not in other places. Please get your facts straight - it will help you think.

Know what is? Leaded gasoline exposure in childhood.
(a) It's not either or. Obviously, lead can lower IQ by affecting brain development. So can genetics. Genetics can ALSO impact IQ by influencing brain development.

The correlation of violence with childhood lead exposure is universal, holds for and between populations both temporally and spatially, and has a mechanism. The correlation of violence with IQ score has never been established, partly because even the known environmental factors such as childhood lead exposure have never been filtered out of IQ scores on a population level.

You do understand some people who are 40 have the mental aptitude of a 6 year old? You understand that, correct? They're legally not allowed to drive a car, to sign contracts involving money, etc...

That would be an example of not using age as a proxy for mental aptitude, or vice versa.

So, my question was: DO you think that people with a mental age of 14 should be allowed to vote?

Like you? Sure - I would never take away your right to vote on the basis of your immaturity of thought.

If your argument is that height isn't partially determined by genetics, you are wrong.

Since it isn't, obviously, I'm still right.
I used height as an example of something with a heritability even higher than IQ, a heritability not nearly as inconsistent between populations as IQ is according to your link, that contradicts your invalid attempts to extrapolate from familial heritability to comparisons between populations. This illustrates the invalidity of your arguments regarding IQ, and shows you where you need to correct your bad reasoning.

You are making basic and elementary errors in genetics and statistical reasoning. Your conclusions are thereby seen to be garbage.

One more time:
The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue

Then it's irrelevant to racial issues on these threads, and you can quit posting your confusions about IQ when racial issues come up.

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't.

The Science denial is strong in this one....

Here's a short summary from a few countries. How would you explain the significant difference in average IQ for Citizens of China (whom are generally of E. Asian ancestry, with a PPP around 4,500 and IQ of 105) relative to the Citizens of Luxembourg with an average IQ 100 (a PPP around 10 times higher, 53,000, and are generally of European ancestry).

IOWs why do the poor, polluted, noisy, lead-tainted-water-drinking Chinese have an average IQ that is significantly higher than their rich, non-polluted, quite and peaceful, clean-clear-healthy-water-drinking Europe comparison?

 

[iceaura]

IOWs why do the poor, polluted, noisy, lead-tainted-water-drinking Chinese have an average IQ that is significantly higher than their rich, non-polluted, quite and peaceful, clean-clear-healthy-water-drinking Europe comparison?

I have no idea.

There are dozens of factors possible, from genetic advantage (of several different kinds) to breast vs bottle feeding, omega 3/6 ratios, oldest child advantage, immigration and emigration effects, and a whole collection of others. None of them have been controlled for - the IQ testers have a different agenda, usually.

Your description, of course, as always when you are forced to deal with physical and historical reality, is complete bs: for example, you have no idea what the comparative levels of childhood lead exposure among the people actually tested for IQ in those various countries were - between the leaded gasoline soaked cities of Europe and rural unmechanized small farming China thirty and forty years ago, it's anybody's guess. You simply assume.

And in the end, since the issue was your denial of the effects of white racism on black people in the US (in the middle of a thread on denial of such things, you illustrate) nothing about yellow IQ matters anyway.

 

[Michael]

I have no idea.

LOL.... you and your lead...

So, let me see if I have this correct: dirt-poor Chinese living in ultra-noisy, lead-polluted don't even think of brushing your teeth with tap water, Chinese cities, living as children under a fog of pollution so thick 5000 - 10,000 Chinese died of lung cancer yesterday, and another 7500 or so will die today, they just so happened to come in at just about the same IQ as Japan, Korea and Hong Kong and somehow managed to score higher than rich, non-polluted, quite and peaceful, clean-clear-healthy-water-drinking Luxembourg who had an average IQ 100.

Scientific evidence suggests that genetics account for 50 - 85% of an individual's IQ score, but you have no idea.

No idea at all in the whole wide world. Nope. Just seems to be magic that E. Asians share a common genetic heritage and happen to magically score the same on IQ tests (higher than White Privileged Luxembourgians). Yes, Chinese, who were invaded and colonized by White Europeans, humiliated - just somehow happened to magically have an IQ higher than your average 'White' European.

Yup, just Magic.

Or, or.... who knows? Maybe it's all extra viewing angle you get when you don't have a big nose partially blocking the median view. LOL Never-mind that other than rice, Japanese and Chinese each eat very very different foods, and live at extremely different levels of prosperity. Yup, just MAGIC that the Chinese somehow score about the same on their IQ tests.



Well well well iceaura, I didn't know you were a Climate Change denier. Because, we both know you have NO IDEA of the amount of change that occurs from human activity. Therefor, it's really not that important. You know, because we just have no idea. None. Who knows. Could be 1%, or maybe 90%. The Gods only know.



And, in a similar vein, it's all just one big fat magical coincidence that Yellow minorities, who only make up 3%, also compose about 50% of student cohort at many of the UC student cohorts. So much so, that I've heard liberal progressive professors say 'We have to do something about the Asian problem'. You know, because a Racists, they don't think it's 'fair'. And we all know how Liberals love their notions of 'fair'. F*ck moral. No, that's not important, we need 'fair'. And to have 'fair', we need races. So we can Virtue Signal to feel good about ourselves. Because 'White'.

 

[iceaura]

Scientific evidence suggests that genetics account for 50 - 85% of an individual's IQ score, but you have no idea.

You still haven't taken that community college class in genetics, we see.

Or, or.... who knows? Maybe it's all extra viewing angle you get when you don't have a big nose partially blocking the median view. LOL Never-mind that other than rice, Japanese and Chinese each eat very very different foods, and live at extremely different levels of prosperity. Yup, just MAGIC that the Chinese somehow score about the same on their IQ tests.

You do know that the Japanese and Han Chinese are not in the same genetic subpopulation - right?
That the country of China is not nearly as genetically uniform as Japan?
That the Japanese are genetically closer to the dominant genetic population of Malaysians than they are to the most important genetic population of Chinese?
That the people testing for IQ have not controlled for any of the diet and pollution exposure and maternal behavior so forth that you claim was so different between those tested in Japan and those tested in China?

As far as you know, the only thing on record in those IQ tests is the influence of lead exposure via gasoline fumes, breastfeeding, and a childhood diet high in omega 3 fats. Not saying that explains anything in this case, but those are obviously relevant factors you haven't controlled for. You haven't established a relevant genetic relationship at all.

Check out post 33 here, for example: http://www.eastbound88.com/showthread.php/34671-SEA-genotypes/page2

Well well well iceaura, I didn't know you were a Climate Change denier. Because, we both know you have NO IDEA of the amount of change that occurs from human activity. Therefor, it's really not that important.

You have my argument exactly backwards, despite having seen it five or six times now. That may be because your IQ is too low to handle this matter - that would explain your obsession with IQ, as well.

Meanwhile:

And in the end, since the issue was your denial of the effects of white racism on black people in the US (in the middle of a thread on denial of such things, you illustrated a doozy) nothing about yellow IQ matters anyway.

 

[Michael]

You do know that the Japanese and Han Chinese are not in the same genetic subpopulation - right?
That the country of China is not nearly as genetically uniform as Japan?
That the Japanese are genetically closer to the dominant genetic population of Malaysians than they are to the most important genetic population of Chinese?

Oh good Gods. Okay, let's take a step back.

1. You do agree that genes influence IQ?
2. You do agree that 50 - 85% of an (unpoisoned, healthy, mentally stable) adults' IQ score is dependent on their individual genes?

So, let's just start there.


Because as for now, your red-herring is getting a bit stale.

I asked you why Chinese who grew up in massively lead-polluted noisy Chinese cities, on average, have higher IQ's when compared with Luxembourgians. And what was you answer? You have no idea.

No idea?

Not a single idea has popped into your head as to why if you were to pull a random human of E. Asian heritage living in a polluted Chinese city you'd have a increased statistical likelihood of plucking a human out with an IQ greater than 100, as compared to if you randomly picked out a person from clean, non-polluted, Luxembourg.

No idea at all? Well, here's an idea, perhaps lead-poising is raising the average IQ of your average Chinese. Or, perhaps it's their low quality diet? Or, just maybe, given their IQ aligns closely with other E. Asians' IQ, it's simply a matter of genetics.

A little something called: Evolution. Maybe give it a look up?


As for the origins of Japanese. No one really knows - just yet. But, they will. For now, good evidence suggests that one population of humans lived on the archipelagos 20,000 years ago (at least). Another population commingled with that population 7000 years ago.

Molecular Biology and Evolution: Model-Based Verification of Hypotheses on the Origin of Modern Japanese Revisited by Bayesian Inference Based on Genome-Wide SNP Data.

Results from a genome-wide, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data strongly support the hybridization model as the best fit for Japanese population history. An initial divergence between the Ainu and Beijing group was dated to approximately 20,000 years ago, while evidence of genetic mixing occurred 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, older than estimates from the archaeological records, probably due to the effect of a further sub-population structure of the Jomon people.​

--o--
Get this, all humans originate from Africa. It's the selection pressures that were important, as well as just dumb luck. Thus, suppose some humans 25 millennia ago became the humans that live in Malaysia and Japan today. Well guess what? The selection pressures across the 20000 years are totally different. Neanderthals, were wandering about 40,000 years ago - now they're extinct. Some of their DNA is in some human populations. Not just their's, other hominids DNA as well. But not all populations of humans. Do you think maybe this might matter? Maybe? Or you have no idea? Or is asking the question Wrong Think? Because White.

E. Asians lived through the most extreme weather conditions of nearly any humans around 80 - 60 millennia ago. Massively expansive hellish ice-sheets of barren rock and snow. This is not the same environmental pressures as a tropical island where you can wander down to the ocean and grab a crab for lunch.

There's a reason why they call it 'island time'. Try that in the middle of a glacial ice sheet, and you're dead. No descendants for you. Don't plan for the winter on an island. No worries. Do that in the north - you're dead.


Now, I know you want to pretend it's just one big fat coinkydink that the humans who were put under these massive selection pressures for tens of millennia just so happen to also correlate with the humans who make particle accelerators and invent the materials used in iPhones. Yup, just one big fat coinkydink. But, you're probably wrong. Worse still, as a Science Denier, you're making the problem WORSE. Because when you deny reality, then you leave people to use their imagination to come up with made-up reasons. Or they conflate reasons. Or, even worse, they actually CAUSE events to happen - because they just KNEW it was going to happen. Like the kid who just knows he's going to get dumped, then acts like a dick to the girl he likes. She of course, doesn't want anything to do with him. And he just KNEW that she like that.

You're doing this to people. Your idiotic ideas about 'Race' are in fact CAUSING racism.

I've lived on numerous continents, in various cultures - guess what? Most high IQ people, like high IQ people. They really don't care if you have a tan or not, green, brown or blue eyes or if they're squinty eyes or not. They also don't like to hang out of low IQ people. For obvious reasons. Now, that's not to blame the low IQ person who "likes me drink and footy". They didn't do anything right or wrong. Neither did the person who just happens to have an IQ of 140. It's f*cking luck. And to those of IQ around 140, remember, your children will probalbly regress to the average. So, try not to be a dick / smart-arse


RE: Wrong Think
You don't do that with Global Climate Change. Even though you have no idea what percent effect humans are having. As in, you literally have no idea. But, in that instance, it aligns with your cognitive biases (I'd not be surprised if you don't also Because White climate change as well). No, then you're interested in finding the real Scientific causes (or I assume you want to). AND even though you have no idea what role humans play, you think it's important to find out. Not so here. Here it's servings of red herring, one after another. Simmered in notions of racism and a glaze of Wrong Think, Because White.

See how that works out for "society". And try not to confuse virtue with vise.

 

[iceaura]

1. You do agree that genes influence IQ?
2. You do agree that 50 - 85% of an (unpoisoned, healthy, mentally stable) adults' IQ score is dependent on their individual genes?

So, let's just start there.

OK, let's pretend you are making sense: From that you could safely say that in an unpoisoned, healthy, culturally coherent human population with an average IQ of 70, if you have measured it reliably, a random individual would owe between 35 and 60 points of their IQ score to their individual genes. From an unpoisoned, healthy, culturally coherent population with an average IQ of 1o7, they would owe between 55 and 94 points to their individual genes.

None of your conclusions follow (and none of that makes sense anyway).

Not a single idea has popped into your head as to why if you were to pull a random human of E. Asian heritage living in a polluted Chinese city you'd have a increased statistical likelihood of plucking a human out with an IQ greater than 100, as compared to if you randomly picked out a person from clean, non-polluted, Luxembourg.

Many ideas have popped into my head - in particular, why you keep talking as if you knew the actual childhood exposure regimes to key pollutants of the people whose IQ has been measured in China (a largely rural and unindustrialized country until recently) and Luxembourg (essentially an entirely urban population living in leaded gasoline fumes until less than 20 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead).

Followed by the obvious continuation of that: diet, breastfeeding, family size, age structure, etc, none of which are controlled by any of your "averages".

Followed by the rather obvious point that China has a billion ethnically and genetically various people living in widely varied and often rather isolated environments, whereas Luxembourg has about a half a million people all living in the same place.

And then, of course, there's your idiotic underlying presumption that you would have some idea of the mechanism(s) underlying your correlation of IQ scores with geography if you could somehow show they were not culturally or environmentally or demographically biased. You wouldn't. (Arthur Jensen doesn't either, btw). Look at this:

No idea at all? Well, here's an idea, perhaps lead-poising is raising the average IQ of your average Chinese. Or, perhaps it's their low quality diet? Or, just maybe, given their IQ aligns closely with other E. Asians' IQ, it's simply a matter of genetics.

What are you thinking when you type the words "simply a matter of genetics"? Anything? You've seen the examples and arguments - height, for example, you've seen laid out for you - links provided, everything.

E. Asians lived through the most extreme weather conditions of nearly any humans around 80 - 60 millennia ago. Massively expansive hellish ice-sheets of barren rock and snow. This is not the same environmental pressures as a tropical island where you can wander down to the ocean and grab a crab for lunch.

There's a reason why they call it 'island time'. Try that in the middle of a glacial ice sheet, and you're dead. No descendants for you. Don't plan for the winter on an island. No worries. Do that in the north - you're dead.

Your entire worldview is a collection of fantasies - dumbass, bigoted, ignorant stereotypes you could correct with five minutes on the intertubes.

Here: The Alaskan native IQ - the very peak and pinnacle of the tens of millenia of harsh and demanding pressure-driven"evolution" you are talking about - is 87. The Polynesian native IQ - the very nadir of easy and stupid living on the beach your bizarre fantasy world presumes - is 89. And if you've ever had dealings with either of those populations, you would - or should - note the following: those are some very intelligent people. Both of them.

Those low IQ islanders? They were running regular trade, raid, and social visits between flyspeck islands scattered across thousands of miles of open Pacific Ocean, in outrigger canoes, thousands of years ago. No compass, no quadrants, no logbooks, no clocks, no selected captain of hundreds - brainpower, easily available among ordinary groups of a couple of dozen young men, average IQs probably (back estimating from the Flynn Effect) in the high 70s/low 80s. The highly evolved 100+ IQ northern Europeans still celebrate the navigational exploits of a fearless adventurer who needed a floating city and all the technology he could bring to bear (none of which he had invented: http://www.christopher-columbus.eu/navigation.htm) to hit the broad side of a continent by sailing more or less "west".

You don't do that with Global Climate Change. Even though you have no idea what percent effect humans are having. As in, you literally have no idea.

As noted, you have my (and the) AGW arguments backwards. You also have mistaken your muddlings for "science", overlooking (among other basic matters) the key factor of "mechanism" in explaining "correlations" (the quoted terms are for you to research on the internet).

The topic is denial - your world is full of it, starting (here) with sociological race: it exists, and it exists more solidly and verifiably and scientifically than the "objective" IQ you claim to understand.

 

[Michael]

The topic is denial - your world is full of it, starting (here) with sociological race: it exists, and it exists more solidly and verifiably and scientifically than the "objective" IQ you claim to understand.

I didn't claim racism doesn't exist, I said race doesn't exist. Further still, racism is not the major reason why Asians make 20,000 USD more a year than the White Patriarchy they live as a wealthy subdued minority under. IOWs, sure, some Americans are racist. I'd guess "Whites", given their propensity to virtue signal, are one of the least (if not the LEAST) people to make a call based on your perceived notion of race. Anyone outside of a public servant, who has actually opened a business, knows employers will always hire the best for the job. Regardless. Which is one reason why Yellows make about 20,000 more a year than Whites.

As for your science denial: Nature Genetics (2015): Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies.

Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial. We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%. For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis of the causes of individual differences in human traits thus far and will guide future gene-mapping efforts. All the results can be visualized using the MaTCH webtool.​

Or let me guess, it was that sneaky lead just again huh? Just snuck right out of high IQ lead-polluted China and right on over to clean northern Europe.

LOL

 

[Michael]

One more time:
The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue
“If only environmental factors were responsible for the different IQs of different populations, we should expect to find some countries where Africans had higher IQs than Europeans. The failure to find a single country where this is the case points to the presence of a strong genetic factor.” Richard Lynn.

“Regression would explain why Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents.” Arthur Jensen.

Together with the piles of genetic data, it is soon going to become so overwhelmingly obvious that the real causes for poverty in the USA are (1) genetics (2) Government.

See, Governmental systems are in place that REDUCE the number of people who can participated in lucrative markets. As an example, only the best of the best score high enough to attend medical school or law school. When in fact, THAT level of general intelligence is not needed. And may even be bad. We wouldn't know, because Progressive Socialism has destroyed all markets in the USA through hyper-regulation. Imagine, if statistically, you're most likely to have an IQ of 85 (group average). Now, through no virtue or vise of your own, you end up being born with a general IQ of 110. Which means you can easily practice medicine (as in, yes, you can learn the material). Yet, another group will have an average IQ of 105. For THAT group, the chances are a lot better you'll be born with 115. Thus out-competing their 110 competitor (on average).

Thus, what happens is something begins to look like 'racism', when in FACT it is Statism. And the biggest Statists are Progressive Socialists. Many of whom are paid via the State to promulgate their idiotic 'race' theory. It's a win-win for THEM. The State loves to pit one group against another (see any side of ANY political campaign) and the Statist can continue not only with an overly paid job (one the free market would GREATLY discount) but also Virtue Signalling to their hearts content. Ruining society in the process (See: Progressive Welfare and the Government run Ghettos they pay for). Which is where we're at now.

Lead-Free China .... LOL, give me a break.

 

[iceaura]

One more time:
The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue
“If only environmental factors were responsible for the different IQs of different populations, we should expect to find some countries where Africans had higher IQs than Europeans. The failure to find a single country where this is the case points to the presence of a strong genetic factor.” Richard Lynn.

“Regression would explain why Black children born to high IQ, wealthy Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents.” Arthur Jensen.

None of that is relevant to your argument. There is no mechanism, there were no controls.

You have been linked to example factor (height) and argument (lists of possible mechanisms etc) and illustrative populations (Alaskan, Polynesian, US black) . You keep posting error anyway. You remain confused. I don't know why - it's not that complicated an issue. Maybe your IQ is just not up to the task? Lot's of people in your race are unable to handle these concepts, after all, and you are quoting people like Arthur Jensen (revealing an inability to think for yourself in this matter).

Thus, what happens is something begins to look like 'racism', when in FACT it is Statism.

Nothing in the US ever "began to look like racism". The US was founded on a plantation slavery economy, a variety of free market capitalism which was justified by a severe racial bigotry that has afflicted the country ever since. The various actions of the State in reducing the influence of this founding delusion (from affirmative action policies to outright State violence and coercion) have been only partially successful.

Lead-Free China .... LOL, give me a break.

Either control for at least the known factors, or forget about absolute numbers and any hope of comparing populations.

Nothing about yellow people is relevant anyway - the issue was denial of white racism's influence on black people in the US.

 

[Michael]

Nothing about yellow people is relevant anyway - the issue was denial of white racism's influence on black people in the US.

LOL ... "Because White". Too funny.

The issue of why Yellow People have a higher IQ and make more money than White or Black people is perfectly relevant. The data strongly suggest that Yellow People have a higher IQ, because Yellow People have a different genetic makeup to White People (see above Nature Genetics manuscript).

Oh, and get this, White People being racist isn't lowering the IQ of Yellow People, not in the USA, not in Asia and not in Europe.

“If only environmental factors were responsible for the different IQs of different populations, we should expect to find some countries where Africans had higher IQs than Europeans. The failure to find a single country where this is the case points to the presence of a strong genetic factor.” Richard Lynn.

It's a comparison iceaura. Like comparing the heights between men and women (also genetic by the by). Just what kind of magical control did you want? They investigated all other EU countries and found the same trend. Oh, that's right, when you deny science, you have to appeal to emotion: "Because White". Yup, those hook nosed White People and their gold .... errrr, lead

 

[Michael]

E. Asian IQ score in Britain – UKCAT scores (PDF).

Group................Verbal...............Quantitative...............Non-Verbal
White British......101.1....................100.2.........................101.3
White Irish..........101.3...................100.0..........................99.8
Chinese...............100.8...................109.6........................112.1


Geee, look at that. Just like in E. Asia and just like in the USA - a higher than 100 score for the Yellow Peoples in spatial reasoning. And, when given a free-market, E. Asians somehow (against the predominate bigoted White Racism, centuries of White Empiricism, and White structural control of everything, everywhere, via their White Patriarchy), somehow do better economically. The lead in the water alsdo (MAGICALLY) only affects their Verbal score and otherwise the lead dropped all scores of all the White Bigot to 100. You know, because White.

LOL

WIKI:

British Chinese men and women also rank very highly in terms of receiving wages well above the national median but are less likely to receive a higher net weekly income than any other ethnic group. British Chinese men earn the highest median wage for any ethnic group with £12.70 earned per hour, followed by the medians for White British men at £11.40, and Multiracial Britons at £11.30 and British Indian men at £11.20. British Chinese women also earn the highest median wage for any ethnic group third only to Black Caribbean women and Multiracial Briton women with a median wage of £10.21 earned per hour.

​

So? I wonder, when White People have their pet theory and use their position in society to Virtue Signal by claiming Yellow People are the victims of White People's racism, and this explains everything, all the time, everywhere - do you think maybe this Narrative has an affect on Yellow People?

I mean, I wonder how lying about the effects of racism, in turn creates racism IN the Yellow People? Of course, Yellow People have a higher than average general intelligence. So, maybe not much. They're probably smart enough to see through the White Virtue Signalling bullsh*tter looking for a pat on the head from the other White People.

Of course, a Yellow People with an IQ of 85, would probably see things a bit differently. I mean, especially if they were told this lie for their entire lives, that they're just as good as Micheal Jordan at basketball, they just need to work harder. Learn to Jump Yellow People! Yet, somehow, Yellow People just don't do as well in the NBA. So, it must be all those racist White People! And the racist Blacks too! They're all over the NBA! The reason why Yellow People are missing out on their NBA chance is White and Black people! RACISM!!!

I mean, that twat over there is saying exactly as much... and he's a White People!


Incidentally, have you ever noticed how thuggish NBA Basketball culture is? I'd just as soon give it a pass if I were a Yellow People.

 

[iceaura]

The issue of why Yellow People have a higher IQ and make more money than White or Black people is perfectly relevant.

No, it isn't. It doesn't change anything about white racism toward black people in the US - which is what you are trying to deny.

So? I wonder, when White People have their pet theory and use their position in society to Virtue Signal by claiming Yellow People are the victims of White People's racism, and this explains everything, all the time, everywhere - do you think maybe this Narrative has an affect on Yellow People?

An interesting topic for another thread, once stripped of your fantasies about other people's supposed "narratives" and "virtue signaling" and the other mental gymnastics you employ to deny the existence and influence of white racism in the US.

And, when given a free-market, E. Asians somehow (against the predominate bigoted White Racism, centuries of White Empiricism, and White structural control of everything, everywhere, via their White Patriarchy), somehow do better economically.

According to you, there is no such "free market" involved. Remember? That's what you say on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Incidentally, have you ever noticed how thuggish NBA Basketball culture is?

Also NFL Football culture. And international Soccer culture. It's a real problem - pro sports rival the Hollywood movie industry in moral and ethical turpitude. Is your explanation for this that the multi-billion dollar industries built on pro sports were built by low IQ people?

 

[Michael]

No, it isn't. It doesn't change anything about white racism toward black people in the US - which is what you are trying to deny.

That's not how this works. YOU are making the claim there's a disproportionate amount of 'White' People racism towards 'Black' People. I don't believe this is true. I believe White People are the LEAST racists of all people. So, prove it. When you do, be sure to control for Black racism directed at White people AND control for IQ.

As the data stands, data I presented, IQ is strongly associated with economic outcome and IQ is to a large extent genetic. Thus, discriminating against low IQ people will provide the exact same social outcome we see today. Which is a large number of poor whites and a slightly smaller number of poor blacks.

According to you, there is no such "free market" involved. Remember? That's what you say on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Yes, so let me clarify, in the hyper-regulated markets, high IQ people will be rewarded more often and with higher pay than low IQ people. What I meant was, there's less of a 'Who you are related to, what is your last name, which family do you belong to, etc....' which is much more prevalent in socialistic states like those found in Europe and Asia. In this way, higher IQ E. Asians are able to out compete other so-called minorities. And do.

So, sure, ANYONE can take the SAT/ACT, MCAT, etc... tests. Ironically enough, Chinese invented these types of tests, over 2000 years ago. As a means of objectively distributing government jerbs to the people. So, while no, Chinese society was NOT a free-market, in the instance of taking a test - anyone who could afford to sit the test, had their chance at becoming a public 'servant' / rent-seeker. Just like today.

Socialism, the STI that just keeps on giving.

Also NFL Football culture. And international Soccer culture. It's a real problem - pro sports rival the Hollywood movie industry in moral and ethical turpitude. Is your explanation for this that the multi-billion dollar industries built on pro sports were built by low IQ people?

My guess is yes, particularly given the lengths some Universities will go to, to pass their University all stars. It's ridiculous.

Here you go, CNN: UNC report finds 18 years of academic fraud to keep athletes playing.

For 18 years, thousands of students at the prestigious University of North Carolina took fake "paper classes," and advisers funneled athletes into the program to keep them eligible, according to a scathing independent report released Wednesday. "These counselors saw the paper classes and the artificially high grades they yielded as key to helping some student-athletes remain eligible," Kenneth Wainstein wrote in his report.​

Summary, as it stands, White People appear to be the least racist of all your sociopsychobabble race categories and genetic IQ appears to clearly and objectively answer the question of economic outcome in modern societies (where high IQ is rewarded with high pay). Which is why Yellow People have higher IQs in Asia, the EU, Britian, and America and are paid MORE THAN WHITES in so called White Patriarchies. LOL

Welcome to Science iceaura, try it, you may like it

 

[iceaura]

That's not how this works. YOU are making the claim there's a disproportionate amount of 'White' People racism towards 'Black' People. I don't believe this is true. I believe White People are the LEAST racists of all people. So, prove it.

No, I'm not. I have not posted any comparisons between the levels of racism in different populations, and it makes no difference to my argument what any such comparison would show.

As the data stands, data I presented, IQ is strongly associated with economic outcome and IQ is to a large extent genetic. Thus, discriminating against low IQ people will provide the exact same social outcome we see today. Which is a large number of poor whites and a slightly smaller number of poor blacks.

That argument is still garbage. The stuff after "thus" doesn't follow from the stuff before "thus" - you are mistaken in your assumptions, and your reasoning, both.

Once again, keeping it simple: When you say "IQ is to a large extent genetic" you are saying something equivalent to "height is to a large extent genetic". I think even the heritability percentages are similar. As the example of height illustrates, you cannot compare populations on that basis alone - even different breeding populations, let alone sociologically defined groups without any genetic basis whatsoever.

Or I could make the obvious point: if you discriminated on the basis of IQ, there would be no such thing as blacks - or whites.

 

[Michael]

No, I'm not. I have not posted any comparisons between the levels of racism in different populations, and it makes no difference to my argument what any such comparison would show.

Lead exposure, air pollution exposure, childhood disease, stress and noise, stereotype threat, bad diet, poor sleep scheduling, lack of music and books in the house, and so forth, all affect IQ and are all affected - caused by - racism in the US.

Sure it does. It does make a difference. Given you claim that racism can affect IQ score. Actually, its' IQ score that affects Racist Beliefs.

Do you have your controls ready iceaura? Just wondering.... lol

So, what percent of Yellow People racism (against White People) is reflected in their respective IQ scores: of 105 (Yellow People) and 100 (White People)?

What percent of Black People against White People racism is reflected in their IQ scores?


Where's your data to back up your claim iceaura? Where are you controls? Anywhere?

The evidence seems to suggest White People are the LEAST racist of your Categories of Race / people, yet White People have a LOWER average IQ score when compared to Yellow People. Why? Yellow People are a minority, and minorities (by definition) are not part of the evil White Patriacrchy, they cannot influence White Poeple's IQ scores through noise, or lead, or magic, etc... So, why do White People have lower scores?

Further, Yellow People have IQ scores that are ONLY higher in non-verbal parts of the IQ test. Particularly spatial reasoning. The sort of intelligence an arctic tundra may have selected for (along with epicanthic folds with high fat levels). How does lead work it's magic by LIFTING the IQ scores of Yellow People living in White Patriarchies to the same levels as that of Yellow People living in lead polluted Chinese cities? Or is it that lead magically lowers the IQ scores of White People, leaving one category of spatial reasoning in Yellow people untouched. How does magic lead, and noise, and air pollution do that iceaura?

Just wondering. Because it sounds like bullpoo.

A more reasonable explaination is that Yellow People have a higher IQ score in spatial reasoning because they have inherited a slightly different genetic code. One that was under environmental pressure and was selected in a away that now reflects a brain built out of proteins and lipids and carbohydrates slightly differently than that of White people's brains. This difference becomes evident on an IQ test.

That argument is still garbage. The stuff after "thus" doesn't follow from the stuff before "thus" - you are mistaken in your assumptions, and your reasoning, both.

I didn't make an argument. I presented a number of scientific articles that demonstrate IQ along with many other behaviors as being mostly genetic.

Incidentally, this "insight" is one most parents of large families have had for millennia. Which is why the idea of "blood" importance is still prevalent in modern day Asia. "Bad Blood" was that kid that just seemed to be born with a bad temperament. See? We now understand that yes, indeed, temperament is influenced by genetics to a large degree. The idea of a "Blank Slate" (a cherished superstition of the Socialists / Communists) is completely wrong.

100% incorrect.

Once again, keeping it simple: When you say "IQ is to a large extent genetic" you are saying something equivalent to "height is to a large extent genetic".

Did you know that on average boys are taller than girls? Why do you suppose that's the case? Oh, perhaps, mmmm.... maybe genetics?

LOL

Or I could make the obvious point: if you discriminated on the basis of IQ, there would be no such thing as blacks - or whites.

Outside of the mind of racists, there is no such thing as White, Yellow or Black people. It's a subjective experience.

IQ, fMRI, reflex, etc... on the other hand, measure brain function - objectively. Which is actually much better, if you care about Scientific reasoning anyway

And get this iceaura, we do discriminate based on IQ. It's the entire bases of 'higher' education in the USA (as well as every other country in the world). SAT, ACT, MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, etc... these are all various forms of IQ tests. They work very well are eliminating IQ of 85 people from entering higher post education, you know, because magical "Socialism" will Progressively ensure the 'best people' are selected for their role as Rent-Seekers in our lovely Progressive Paradise of hyper-Regulated Markets because We Use The Roads and For the Good of Gawd and Da' Nation.

Thus, someone with an IQ of 110, who could easily work in any professional field, will be locked out by people with IQ 125.

Which is okay, because then they can go live in Socialistic GiverMint Welfare Ghettos in our Progressive Paradise. Plus, hey, they get 'free' GiverMint School. And nothing says Virtue Signalling better than free-shit for poor people. Yup, they can live in GiverMint Housing, ride on GiverMint Buses to their GiverMint Schools where they can learn one thing (not to read or do math) but instead all about how they belong to a Race of People who GiverMint is trying it's Damn best to help out with GiverMint minimum wages and GiverMint Central Bank inflation. A GiverMint that's hyper-Regulating everything (and everyone) to ensure all the Colors of the Rainbow are treated FAIRLY (if you have a high IQ, which is mostly genetic) and oh, I forgot, to keep you safe from yourself and those around you. Let Nanny take care of everything. Now, just sit your IQ tests / 12 years of GiverMint School assessment and see if you too can become a Rent-Seeker. You have just as good a chance as anyone else. And if you not, if you score low, or quit school because a pump and dump style of 'education' isn't suited to your temperament .... then....there's always this: Because White.

 

[iceaura]

Did you know that on average boys are taller than girls? Why do you suppose that's the case? Oh, perhaps, mmmm.... maybe genetics?

The girls in the Netherlands are taller than the boys in the Indian towns of northern South America.

The women in modern France are taller and heavier than the men who led the storming of the Bastille in France in 1789.

According to John Komlos and dozens of others who have done the research, neither of those population differences is genetic.

You are trying to compare different populations using familial heritability within a given population. That wouldn't work even if you had defined your populations genetically in the first place. The fact that you haven't even made that initial first step makes your entire fantasy ridiculous, beyond mere error.

Outside of the mind of racists, there is no such thing as White, Yellow or Black people. It's a subjective experience

Regardless of how racist Michelle Obama is or is not, she is a US Black person in the US and cannot choose to be otherwise. So are her children. If she fails to recognize and account for that fact, she endangers herself and her children.

 

[iceaura]

Further, Yellow People have IQ scores that are ONLY higher in non-verbal parts of the IQ test. Particularly spatial reasoning. The sort of intelligence an arctic tundra may have selected for (along with epicanthic folds with high fat levels). How does lead work it's magic by LIFTING the IQ scores of Yellow People living in White Patriarchies to the same levels as that of Yellow People living in lead polluted Chinese cities? Or is it that lead magically lowers the IQ scores of White People, leaving one category of spatial reasoning in Yellow people untouched. How does magic lead, and noise, and air pollution do that iceaura?

None of this has anything to do with any of the influences of white racism on black people in the US. None of it has anything to do with any of the known (or unknown) environmental influences on anybody's IQ scores in the US - or anywhere else.

If all the Chinese were genetically geniuses and the violently imposed authoritarian menace these geniuses set up to be their government were the peaceful efficiency of universal benefit such high IQs are expected - by you - to create among themselves, my argument would remain unaffected.

None of your various confused deflections remove the reality you are attempting to deny: the significant effects of white racism against black people in the US.

Changing the subject, as you insist on doing here, is a tactic of denial.