A Reality Check on Race and IQ

The smart ones got out of Africa.

 

Bad sampling.
In the USA, Nigerian Immigrants have higher rates of college graduation than whites.
Of course, that's because many come here TO go to college and, are/were the IQ ELITE of their native countries.
see
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/31/the-impressive-intelligence-of-african-immigrants/
'Extreme selection for education', and
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/0...-high-iqs-of-african-immigrants-in-britain-2/
perhaps 1-2 SD above their former countrymen.
This really is Classic Fudgery.

Rushton on this precise issue: "In search of high African IQ"
(12 mins)
[video=youtube;RxAhwYoZQKU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAhwYoZQKU[/video]

Full length
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1mgrTGeDPM
Where he found that in South Africa (as well as everywhere in general) University students were app 1 SD above the native population.
Those good enough to go overseas, perhaps higher yet.
But this is highly selective/inaccurate/bogus sampling for a Race in General.
+

 

exactly.

 

Trinidad, and Tobago a fairly rich country has a 85 IQ, lower than a fairly poor Ukraine with a 94 IQ.

How come?

As for Irish Travelers having such low IQ's, sure some of it's probably environment, but also a lot of it's probably that low end Irish ended up as travelers, and also the high end Irish travelers moved up out of the lifestyle.

 

And the idea that there is more than one dog breed is a social construct.

 

Neoteny as a modern trait favors East Asians heavily, and Eastern Europeans to a lesser degree.

Brachycephaly as a modern trait favors Eastern Europeans heavily, and East Asians to a lesser degree.

Skull vault as a modern trait favors Eastern Europeans heavily, and Southern Europeans to a lesser degree.

Cranial capacity as a modern trait favors East Asians, and Native Americans to a lesser degree.

So, what can be gathered by the data?
That Eastern Europeans, and East Asians are the most modern Humans.

 

I think it's hilarious when Afro-Centrists use Nigerians being so educated in the U.S.A, to suggest that Nigerians as a collective are ridiculously smart.

Meanwhile, nearly 3/4th of Nigeria is illiterate, compared to about 1/99th of Europe being illiterate.

 

Actually you missed my point, but I'm not surprised.

A single sapient species. Minor variations between members of the same species using a flawed measuring stick that relies disproportionately on education (IQ) doesn't tell the whole picture.

This is a racialist and racism debate using genetics as evidence for "racial superiority" justification, which imho, is almost entirely irrelevant in the big picture of our humanity, our survival and our development.

 

Dingoes are a separate sub-species of Dog, and only separated from Dogs some 4,000 years ago, or so.

Meanwhile, some Humans have been separated for about 40,000 years ago, or so. (Especially Mongoloids)

Sure, Dogs have children earlier, by about 10 X, which actually makes the figure nearly identical.

So, if Dingoes are a separate sub-species of Dog, some Races could be considered as such too.

It just shows how ridiculously biased science has become.

 

No, as I said, Current Human Taxonomy is a POLITICAL issue, not a science one.
Unlike You I got the point.
If you want to talk about "the big picture of humanity" GO ELSEWHERE.
This is the Race section of PF, and a String on their respective IQs.
You know NOTHING of this topic and have posted NOTHING.
+

 

Despite the right idea and commons sense, you have a rough edge on this.
Domestic 'Dogs' are one of 37 subspecies of the SPECIE Grey Wolves.
+

 

this, amongst other things.

 

True, but the Dingo split off from Dogs for only about 4,000 years.

 

Probably because Poles value education.

 

So Graves is saying he doesn't know whether the tropics or the North are more predictable? How can he claim Rushton got it backwards? Sounds like Rushton could be correct. The data seem to support his formulation.

 

very important point. studies mean nothing without this.

 

Indeed, 37.8% of Polish Americans had a Bachelor's degree, or higher, at a time when 30.0% of White Americans did.

But, how does that work out exactly?

Considering the bulk of these Polish Americans came to the U.S.A near the WW1 era, and have since been well assimilated into White society?

Actually considering the prejudices Polish Americans have experienced, and how many Polish Americans fled oppression when Poland was destroyed, wouldn't it actually be more likely using "Liberal logic" that Polish Americans would be less educated than the average White American?

 

The highest Human twinning rates in Africans, with Asians having the lowest twinning rates, and Whites being intermediate can't be explained away by environment, as Whites have had it better off as a whole than both Africans, and Asians, largely due to colonial wealth amassed, and the industrial revolution starting in Europe.

 

I'm confused by your post. You say twinning rates aren't explained by the environment, which I think is probably correct, then cite an environmental variable. BTW colonial wealth was max 10% consisting of cotton and tea while Whites were mining coal and iron and designing engines for the industrial revolution.

Of course the billions of brown people want some free stuff and Jews want to destroy White nations so they make up this "muh resources" lie. These people were garbage before we went there, they were slightly less garbage while we were there, and they are garbage after we left.

 

Indeed, I think twinning rates are definitely genetic.

Colonialism definitely gave some countries a boost , but you're correct it's not everything.

 

Well, Ethiopia, and Liberia which weren't colonized officially, are poor by African standards.

So much for the Liberal argument that colonialism caused the African condition.

 

He's saying that there is no evidence to validate Rushton's claim not that he doesn't know whether or not it is correct.

 

If he thinks there is no evidence how can he say it is backwards?

 

Only when what they claim is obvious, is obviously racist.

If you put a 100 people in a room and find the average IQ of those wearing loafers is different than those wearing tennis shoes, it does not mean the shoes they are wearing caused that difference. Same with their skin.



​

 

Northern Italians who are Brachycephalic have IQ's as high as 103, and Southern Italians who are Dolichocephalic have IQ's as low as 89.

What seems to save North-Western Europeans from mediocrity is Histamine.

Histamine makes people hyper-motivated.

http://www.academia.edu/10657471/Histamine_and_motivation

Histamine is definitely higher in North-West Europeans, Rosacea is most common in North-Western Europeans, and is caused by excessive Histamine.

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