Almost serious: Has it been tested, wether those 10 women scientists, whose “average estimate was that 77% of the genetic group difference was environmental”, regard men as – part of the enviornment?

Great article, as so often. There’s even some hope in it.

Lots of interesting material in that presentation. Thanks!

I find it interesting (and surprising) that the hereditarian hardliners (0% environmental contribution) are all centrists (4-6). Any thoughts on that?

Looking at the distribution of estimates I wonder about explanations for the most frequent opinions. I suspect:
- 100% environmental = PC, unsurprising
- 50% = a baseline given uncertainty?
- 20% = between group h^2 same as within group h^2?

I actually find the hereditarian hardliner position the most surprising. Can anyone outline the arguments supporting that? I assume it includes the idea that many US B/W cultural differences are genetic in origin. Are the people holding that opinion familiar with US culture? Could the data be broken out by familiarity with US culture (perhaps nationality as a proxy, but too identifiable to use directly)? Say whether someone has ever lived in the US? I see Table 12 sort of does this. The low Child-SES and USA correlations are surprising to me. Correlations of Pol. Pos (-0.49) and Gender (0.48) based on definitions: “Pol.Pos: higher score = more conservative; Gender: 1=female, 0=male; US-B/W-dif.: higher score = dif. more due to environmental factors and less due to genetic factors. ”

I think many people underestimate just how dysfunctional Black culture is for large proportions of their US population. This increases my environmental component estimate, but I don’t know how to separate out the genetic contribution to that.

Is it possible to outline the arguments most frequently used to justify differing estimates for G/E balance?

Would it be possible to break down the answers to the affirmative answer questions (averages) for each of the buckets here? Does genetic vs. environmental belief impact AA opinions systematically? Perhaps using an expanded version of Table 12?

Table 13 (regression model for B/W data) is interesting. Is “R” in the notes really R or is it R^2 (more commonly quoted in my experience)? What is the R^2 for a two variable model using Pol. Pos and Gender (or maybe do an ANOVA instead?)? Could you include the intercepts to help make the models more interpretable? More models to compare the explanatory power of those two variables alone (their correlation is -0.26 per Table 12) would also be interesting.

P.S. Sorry for this turning into a bit of a question dump, but hopefully they are at least interesting questions.

I think Linda Gottfredson – professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Delaware. – is the gold standard on this subject.

Listen … and you won’t be able to tear yourself away…

then there is Jordan Peterson…. here is a tidbit… you will want more

You might want to rethink the HOPE

the environmental component has been discredited because we now know that if a low IQ couple have a child with a high IQ – the grandchildren revert to the mean..

the only reason “experts” keep thumping for more research on the environmental component is to keep the subject alive in a deadly environment of human genome FACTS ….

Low IQ is a death sentence in a highly competitive complex economy… there are no fixes, no interventions..l. or Head Start solutions. The reversion to the mean is the explosive finding.

As regards the burning question: “what is the source of the black-white difference in IQ?” 45% said both genetics and environment, 15% entirely environmental, 14% did not respond, and 1% said entirely genetic.

I’m trying to imagine what answer 25% of those surveyed could conceivably have given that would not fall into one of the four categories

– Entirely environmental
– Entirely genetic
– Neither entirely environmental nor entirely genetic
– No response

But I don’t think it’s possible. Why do those numbers only add up to 75%?

More blah, blah, blah, ….. from the pseudo-science psychology. To start with, the survey includes only about 20% of the “experts” that were asked to respond – that alone makes it questionable. The distribution of the replies obtained indicates that amongst that 20% their only agreement is that: there is no conclusive evidence and therefore our (equally valid) “expert” opinions vary from 0 to 100% on the influence of environment on IQ.

By the way, if these “experts” are going to continue doing these pseudo-studies, they should at least take into account the environmental factors that are known to contribute to cognitive function.

I find it interesting (and surprising) that the hereditarian hardliners (0% environmental contribution) are all centrists (4-6). Any thoughts on that?

Centrists by there very nature might be risk averse energy savers. So their opinions might reflect what (still? – or maybe better: Up until lately) allows you to stay perfectly unbothered.

The hope part lies in these lines especially:

From my perspective, the political affiliations come as a partial surprise. It is informative that this group put the genetic contribution at 49% despite the fact that they lean left. I hope this finding about a willingness to countenance (anonymously) a genetic compontent will not feed them to the wolves.

Sorry, I mixed up two perspectives – here’s my thought in the proper form: Being centrist is a safe space – and therefor the best one, to make risky statements.

Interesting. That seems similar to an idea of mine about it being easier to be different if one makes an effort to appear superficially conventional.

To what extent does the “expert” class now contain recent Affirmative Action beneficiaries?

”Lower classe” people is likely to born in very polluted places but i don’t think this study find any causation, i mean, empirically proven causation, but correlation..

These studies analysed all social classes, properly**

In any case, blame iodine by my fallen english..

Intelligence research and IQ research is not the exactly the same thing but it’s very difficult for ”experts” which is strongly attracted to study this matter//intelligence, to understand this, because seems majority of people who do it tend to have such higher esteem about their own…

First of all, intelligence was not appeared abruptly only among humans… = One of the biggest mistakes about intelligence concept.

Is “necessary reading” really necessary all that much? Beyond the occasional Lynch, Vanhaanen Nyborg, Jensen and condensations by smart men like Sailer and Derbyshire, does one really need to cover the entire literature of the field when he also has a lifetime of his own witness confirming “racist” group stereotypes? The Chinese are doing very well conducting themselves by 500 and 5000 year-old group stereotypes relative to Whites, Blacks, women, Muslims, and Jews too. They don’t need to read books to know how to play stupid white ruling elites like an expert fiddler.

“The argument from authority is of questionable merit. … That does not preclude the possibility that they are all wrong.”

Doctors, nutritionists, dieticians were practically unanimous for decades that eating food high in cholesterol would kill you by heart attack. Governments tried to impose corresponding policies on their populaces. Yet the belief was utter junk. Practitioners of those trades are now retreating from the pernicious proposition while laying smokescreens about new research showing that ….

Rubbish! No new research was needed. There never was any evidence worth tuppence for the proposition in the first place.

One man who is right is worth a hundred thousand who are wrong, though he may need to be nimble if the hundred thousand are not to hang him.

Stefan just can’t shut up…he loves to ramble about himself.

Prof. Thompson, thanks for contributing here. I’m a layman, and it seems to me commonsensical that science ought to pursue a better understanding of what it means to be “bright” or “dull”.

dearieme-”One man who is right is worth a hundred thousand who are wrong, though he may need to be nimble if the hundred thousand are not to hang him.” That had me laughing over my very early morning coffee. So, anyway, I thought I’d offer two brief observations that struck me, although not quite on topic:

(1) The provost at our local less selective state university recently stepped down to return to teaching. He was a hard science guy, an academic entrepeneur, and a good fund-raiser. He also rankled local worthies who like to use the university for vanity projects and patronage hiring. Ditto, senior faculty. I thought him smart as a whip, and expect he’ll move on.

His replacement is a likeable guy who has a mushy, humanities-based vocational degree, and I know to a certainty he’s squandered a seven-figure grant given by a local foundation that likely doesn’t know it’s been “handled” by an academic gamesman. I’m not sure there’s a lesson there.

(2) There’s a program for very severely disabled schoolchildren on the same state university campus. I guesstimated the cost of merely transporting one child of about 10 years to and from his residence about 15 miles away at about USD $30,000 for a 9-month school year. A small bus, plus a driver, plus one attendant.

I’d like to think we’d at least pay the same quality of attention to the youngster bristling with intellectual energy, and who’s stifled by dull schoolmates or a bad neighborhood.

Many concepts look like russian or matrioshka dolls, they are layers and not the essence, the final understanding of such reality. If intelligence is fundamentally the capacity to adapt, so all living beings are in someway smart. So, what is really adaptation**

The main life behavior to reflect, emulate, embody fundamental features of its environment resulting in its conformity OR stability.

How human adaptation differ from non-human adaptation**

Humans have amplified awareness about environment they are, we are the most holistic living beings.

IQ is mostly the comparative analysis of how capable we are/has been to internalize accumulated cultural informations as well to manipulate them, aka, language and numeracy. Of course, we have non-verbal issues, but reasoning itself is also non-verbal because language and numeracy is ”just”’ like clothes of thiking. So, we use them to signalize, to make salient/recognizable our thoughts, but our thinking style is mostly innate or biologically-determined.

It’s help us to explain one of the decisive men cognitive advantages, less excessively-subjective thinking style, at least to do science.

Language is a convention, what or how you write is not factually correct or not. A word worth less than a rock. Language is the mean and never the end. And the end is the expansion of our understanding of reality, creating a symbolic map of itself.

Many typical mistakes people with lower verbal skills commit when they are writing is indeed because they apply logic over convention, because they can’t understand intuitively the conventional nature of language. I teach to those people and i perceive this easily.

Humans are ”self”-domesticated and most about our intelligence, OR the mechanisms we use to apply our intelligence have a ”domesticated nature”. Learn a language, a conventional way to communicate one each other, [conventional: defined by people], it’s basically the same than learn new social rules. The big difference is that language is so important for us ”we has been selected” to learn them easily or intuitively. But we still can debate how faster people are to learn social rules, independently of its moral/factual quality. I define this skills as accessory or secondary. So our capacity to learn is directly related with our capacity to obey. Domestication is not ”just” psychological or noncognitive but cognitive too, and language is one of this example, even because most people bully those who write in ”wrong’ way.

One of the possible and very-rational evolution of human culture would be the selection for self-knowledge, and much better, self-understanding, if understand is the essence of knowledge. In the same way language become indispensable, the next stage could be the indispensability of self-knowledge. Much of mistakes people commit is strongly associated with this lack or undervelopment of this supra-fundamental skills, absolutely derived from self-awareness.

“severely disabled schoolchildren …”

I’ve often wondered whether anyone has ever done the sums on the costs, and the effectiveness of the costs, of educating those poor mites. I suppose anyone who dared would be told he’s Literally Hitler.

“I’d like to think we’d at least pay the same quality of attention to the youngster bristling with intellectual energy, and who’s stifled by dull schoolmates or a bad neighborhood.” No doubt recommending that would also invite a barrage of abuse.

I was chatting to a woman the other day who actually believes that Somalis can be educated enough to perform Scientific work. I was so stunned I let my coffee go cold.

There’s an easy way to test for the USA’s environmental impact on the average IQ of those in the USA who are of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry: Measure the average IQ of populations not in the USA who are of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry. IIRC such studies usually find even lower average IQs than the studies of such populations in the USA.

Fluoride is put into drinking water in most parts of the US without any particular rich/poor division. Iodine is not a contaminant, but rather an essential element during fetal and infant development.

dearieme, bright students here (in the States) do well in suburban and exurban school districts, many of which are well-regarded, and also in parochial schools. But, one’s parents have to be residents of those school districts (with some exceptions), and housing prices tend to be relatively high, an implicit surtax. Parochial schools require tuition, which may be relieved by scholarships.

Per-pupil costs for disabled students run around two-and-a-half times or more that of state mean per-pupil costs, if my memory’s okay, and not counting extraordinary transportation and other costs. Per-pupil costs in the predominantly Black school district near me, where so many students have neither the interest nor aptitude for book-learning, are, I think, nearly double that of mean per-pupil costs. State government pipes money into that district. Results are dismal last I checked.

You’re right, of course, that it’s impossible to speak plainly. To suggest realistic and humane alternatives would have you up against powerful constituencies that benefit from the political equilibrium as it is.

Ok, so most people must be suffering the effects… any evidence of that* Are you suggesting black-white differences is mostly due to fluoride*

We don’t need to administer an IQ test to know that you’re a fucking idiot.

Once again: the far right overstates the importance of IQ differences between different groups.

The racial gap is closing, though slowly. Probably better public schools in the inner city would close it faster. But considering that the average American in 1900 would have an IQ of 70 today, there is no reason to worry.

We are living in an age where facts and real hard science no longer matter – MH-17, 9/11, Salisbury, Douma, JFK, RFK, WMD, Lech Kaczynski, Christophe de Margerie and many others. – why should it be any different for the social sciences?

Funny how things happen to people who don’t do as they are told. I never heard of any Neocon having an accident – have you? There many advantages to being a person with a low IQ.

Dear hyperbola,

We invited all scientists which were authors in a number of journals in which articles about intelligence were oublished, so the statistical population was not just experts and even experts in intelligence research are not experts of every subject. On conferences on intelligence and related issues there are rarely more than 100 individuals and mostly the same faces, therefore a rate of response of 50-80 is far above 20%.

Posting a collection of studies about environmental decelerators of cognitive development is goes past the thing because heredity is measured in twin and adoption studies, where the distorting effects of these factors are largely neutralized.

Best regards

David Becker

It is not my recollection that official bodies warned us off eating food with cholesterol in it but that the big emphasis was on avoiding saturated fats from which our bodies would produce cholesterol. That seems to have gone out of fashion now though keeping down one’s blood cholesterol still seems to be promoted as desirable.

” 1020 intelligence experts, data having been collected in 1984. The experts were in agreement (99.3%) that intelligence involved “abstract thinking or reasoning”. As regards the burning question: “what is the source of the black-white difference in IQ?” 45% said both genetics and environment, 15% entirely environmental, 14% did not respond, and 1% said entirely genetic. ”

Here we go again, in a few lines intelligence is equated with IQ.
The idea that IQ tests are culturally biased does not seem to exist with these ‘experts’.
Read
Richard F. Burton, ‘First Footsteps in East Africa’, 1856, 2000, Köln
or
Jan Vansina, ‘Kingdoms of the savanna, A history of Central African states until the European occupation’, London 1966
about the ‘stupid’ blacks.

Low IQ is a death sentence in a highly competitive complex economy… there are no fixes, no interventions..l. or Head Start solutions.

I don’t agree with this at all. Firstly, most economic activity is medium to low skilled. There’s always a learning curve, but for most occupations it’s quite possible for anyone around average intelligence (including Blacks) to master the activities over time – some needing more -some needing less. Take for example playing a musical instrument. That needs long term commitment – and there are plenty of Black musicians.

An issue that can get in the way is emotional control. Modern society needs “tame” people (for want of a better word), who quietly do what they are told, show helpfulness and defuse difficult situations. This isn’t directly intelligence, it’s more hereditary nature, the same that some dog breeds are more aggressive than others, so there are other factors at play. To get steady work perhaps the lower intelligence/tame combination is better than higher intelligence with poor emotional control.

There’s also the critical question of how society is organized. Rather than demeaning below average intelligence (“Low IQ is a death sentence”) a more useful strategy is to accept it as normal, with suitable training for the many useful types of lower intelligence work (i.e. society showing a more inclusive family attitude).

The nature/nurture debate is a little irritating because it tends to assume that the only important things are the genetics of the child (nature) and the education of the child (nurture), whereas something like pre-natal nutrition, which has been shown to effect IQ, is ignored and seen as outside the nature-nurture worldview. I know it’s technically nurture, but it’s ignored.

If nature is fixed, and nurture has little effect, why not concentrate on pre-natal nutrition which has an effect? Even if you could raise IQ by 10 points in the low scoring groups, then that would be worth it. With enough micronutrients, low-mercury fish, iodine, choline etc.

https://archive.is/7RULL

A confusing presentation which any good editor (Mr. Unz?) should have rejected. Am I to understand that this ‘London School of Intelligence conference, May 11-13th’ has just taken place?

There was, in the UK, at least, certainly an officially sanctioned prescription against the over-consumption of eggs related directly to its cholesterol content. Three a week is a figure that sticks in my mind. And the margarine industry from the late 1980s onwards literally dined out on the idea of it being low in cholesterol.

Just give us the highlights – what are the towering intellectual achievements of these societies and states? I hesitate to suggest fields such as astronomy, medicine, law, architecture and economics, in case these are themselves too Eurocentric. I fear you will still insist I read the books. alas, I won’t read the books. And never the twain shall meet.

It seems that intelligence is genetically determined and it is modulated by the environment. Since the environment by and large is similar in the US, the difference in intelligence is due to genetics. Family environment differs, but that environment itself is shaped by the genetics of the parents (that’s my understanding from listening to JF Gariepy).

Why the ad hominem attack?

Prenatal diet of 9 eggs a day (!) improves the baby’s IQ:

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/01/adequate-choline-pregnancy-may-have-cognitive-benefits-offspring

Oh yes, the results would be EXPLOSIVE!

Maybe a tiny minority of somalis as well a tiny minority but less-tiny of … NATIVE english people can work as scientists.

I think you’re overemotionalitet or wrong-use-of-emotion [maybe ''emotional intelligence''] here say opposed thing about him and it’s reflects on you.

Intelligence is first of all = survive.

His ”colleague” is dangerously wrong.

Most higher IQ people is quantitatively smarter but not in qualitatively ways.

Why*

Because as a domesticated creatures they has been selected to be just like efficient ants but not to be capable to defend themselves or to understand the most important aspects/functions of intelligence.

Human border collie..

I also think they are more chrystallized than fluid, or, better to memorize but not think.

Can anyone imagine chemists arguing over whether Planck’s constant was 6.67 x 10 to the -27 erg-sec or, instead, 6.023 times ten to the 23, with sixty-four percent of Democrats favoring the first and eighty-six percent of Republicans the latter?

Oh, Fred, geeze! You must be feeling better, having resumed your lifelong hobby of bomb-throwing.

Remember when psychology was behaviorism, so much so that the field toyed with renaming itself “Behavioristics”? What sort of coinage do you think they will come up with in combinations of “IQ”, genetics, environmental effect, nutritive effect, etc? How about “nugenenvintists”? “Nutgen psychology”?

Naah…needs work, and to be split into more sub-genres so that sucker-money can be made.

Good show, Mr. Thompson — in the British sense of the phrase.

Take for example playing a musical instrument. That needs long term commitment – and there are plenty of Black musicians.

Are there? Really? Where? I see plenty of Asian (oriental) musicians. But not many negro pianists, violinists, cellists, flutists, etc. What “musical instruments” are “plenty” of negroes playing?

The negro musical exceptionalism is a fabrication of leftist political culture. African aboriginal invention of instruments is abundant evidence, with only the crudest percussion (hollow logs) and horns (sticks with holes at best). Where is the African oboe? Harp? Full drum kit?

Probably better public schools in the inner city would close it faster.

Wow, nobody ever thought about that before. Exactly how much more money do we need to throw at inner city schools that we already aren’t now? Well, since more money doesn’t seem to work, what would you suggest to make the schools better? Removing most of the students has also been tried during the forced busing era and that didn’t seem to work either? Doesn’t it seem funny that all the “bad” schools are in places where all the blacks and Hispanics are? Doesn’t it seem funny that once “good” schools became majority black or Hispanic that they suddenly became “bad” schools?

Why the ad hominem attack?

Because it’s Sunday — national ad hominem day.

A horse walks into a bar, orders a vodka martini. The bartender brings it, puts it on the bar in front of the horse, pauses, says, “Why the long face?”

Nobody ever calls these things ad equestris.

And with just one comment you proved you are.

There’s also the critical question of how society is organized. Rather than demeaning below average intelligence (“Low IQ is a death sentence”) a more useful strategy is to accept it as normal, with suitable training for the many useful types of lower intelligence work (i.e. society showing a more inclusive family attitude).

Exactly. People of moderate intelligence aren’t going to just “go away”. It better suits society to make the best of any hand dealt — to anyone — doesn’t it?

There’s also the critical question of how society is organized. Rather than demeaning below average intelligence (“Low IQ is a death sentence”) a more useful strategy is to accept it as normal, with suitable training for the many useful types of lower intelligence work (i.e. society showing a more inclusive family attitude).

Given the military can find NO use for individuals with an IQ below 85 and given that is the average for American negroes with African aboriginals much lower still, how exactly do you envision that working? These people aren’t even suitable for use as a wall of meat to stop bullets from hitting their smarter fellow soldiers.

Are they smart enough to know they’re stupid? To understand their stupidity is the cause of their station in life? At some point, despite their cognitive limitations, surely they’ll notice that they comprise the majority of ditch diggers, toilet cleaners, and street sweepers. Are they smart enough to realize that even these jobs may stretch their intellectual resources and that they should be grateful for the paycheck? Or will they riot and demand CEO jobs?

Pardon my unnecessarily scatological observation, but a shitload*squared of money has been made, and a more basic shitload continues to be made, in manufacture and sale of anti-cholesterol drugs.

If nature is fixed, and nurture has little effect, why not concentrate on pre-natal nutrition which has an effect?

Have you ever seen any American negro women? If you can even find one that isn’t morbidly obese, you’ve accomplished something. Mesoamerican women are very close behind with mestizo women in tow. These mothers of low IQ infants are not underfed. They may well lack many essential nutrients, but any attempt to focus on changing their dietary habits is politicized as “fat shaming” or “racism.”

Every statement you make here is demonstrably false.

What about lead?

At some point, despite their cognitive limitations, surely they’ll notice that they comprise the majority of ditch diggers, toilet cleaners, and street sweepers.

I don’t see a problem with that, if they get money and respect for the work. Society has many jobs like this, and I’m grateful that they’re doing them, because I’m not going to. Also, there’s a basic equality in useful work of any kind.

BTW I also think that everyone should pay taxes (low flat rate %age), even on low wages, because there’s a basic equality in that as well.

I do remember the phoney claims for low cholesterol products but not any government encouragement. It must have been a brave (as Sir Humphrey would have said) minister who risked the ire of chook farmers – or maybe he/she was urban Labour

The fact that I actually pay taxes doesn’t stop me enjoyng Australia’s relatively low priced pharmaceuticals and I am happy to take statin drugs which allow me to enjoy cheese and ice cream

Oh yes, cholesterol-laden food was a no-no. Think how many women have spoiled their complexions avoiding egg yolk.

If you are a woman, statins do nothing to lengthen your life. If you are an asymptomatic man, ditto. For men who have had a heart attack, or angina, they have a tiny beneficial effect. But everyone who takes them is at risk of the side-effects. The whole hoo-ha seems to be just junk science.

Actually that shit-load is a consequence of the bad science, not its origin. The nonsense started with a megalomaniac medical scientist, Ancel Keys, not with money-grubbing capitalists.

Capitalists are simple souls – they go where the money is. The money was put in play by bad science, amplified by doltish politicians.

Supporting the idea of genetics being a rather precise predictor: I’ve raised two kids. And it was difficult and tiresome, because they largely had EVERY stupid problem I did growing up myself, especially the most embarrassing ones. All those difficult moments I had managed to forget as a part of good mental health, back they came and I had to process them again.

(or maybe they didn’t have every one of the same problems I had, so some have managed to stay forgotten in the past)

But maybe I was able to help them avoid some difficulties.

Interesting paper. Thanks. Where do you see the 9 eggs a day equivalency?

The study in question looks like a solid experimental design. The big issue is small sample size. Data was only for a total of 24 people (12 in each group). In addition, there were some population differences (e.g. education, race, whether child was first born). One of the problems of such a small sample is the randomizations don’t average out so well.

I don’t see a problem with that, if they get money and respect for the work. Society has many jobs like this, and I’m grateful that they’re doing them, because I’m not going to.

I wasn’t asking if YOU saw a problem with that.

The question is whether THEY see a problem with that. A highly visible minority relegated to the crap jobs you and I don’t want (and have the intelligence to escape) will eventually realize that there’s something happening that disproportionately effects them, no? White imbeciles in a white nation doing the poop-scooping at the dog park is one thing. Negro imbeciles doing the job in a “diverse” and “multi-cultural” nation is another.

And while I’m straying from IQ perhaps, my lifelong exposure and experience with American negroes informs me that this is a highly volatile over-emotional and extraordinarily LOUD demographic (any research on this topic? The behavior appears consistent wherever you find African aboriginals). Will THEY quietly accept what you (and I) regard as good honest work suitable to their intellectual capacities? Will this get worse or better with introduction of new populations (ie South Asians, East Asians, mestizos, mesoamericans) who all possess greater cognitive gifts and thereby also avoid the poop-scooping jobs at the dog park?

Capitalists are simple souls – they go where the money is. The money was put in play by bad science, amplified by doltish politicians.

Exactly so! And the process is repeated ad nauseum.

“1. Yes, women have traditionally been traditional. Wombs make you responsible.”

I would amend that statement to read “Tradition make you (as in, women) potentially more responsible.

54 million abortions later, it is clear to me that wombs to do make women responsible. The absence of tradition, and not wombs, has contributed to the observable rejection of responsibility.

” What “musical instruments” are “plenty” of negroes playing?”

Don’t you ever go downtown? There’s a black guy drumming on the bottom of a 5 gallon bucket at every elevated train entrance.

“54 million abortions later, it is clear to me that wombs to do make women responsible. ”

This should read “54 million abortions later, it is clear to me that wombs do not make women responsible. “

Well I’ld rather have a v. good LDL/HDL ratio and total cholesterol of 4 mmol/l rather than >7 [or 6 for that matter] and that’s why I have been taking statins for many years. I also recall a professor of cardiology 20 years ago advising that the statins made any plaques in the arteries less likely to rupture snd cause thrombosis.

Can’t we just get the right women to have abortions….. Many of them retrospective would be ideal.

This should read “54 million abortions later, it is clear to me that wombs do not make women responsible. “

It’s just as much wrong-think, religio-think, faux-ethics-think either way.

A woman who cannot support herself and child, who gets an abortion, is the very definition of responsible.

And religious fruitcakes who believe that the venomous God in which they believe has given them the right to pass judgment on wisely-made ethical decisions are just as fucked up now as they’ve always been,

Did you mean “retroactive”? “Retrospective” is amusing, but a disconnect.

See Edwina Currie, but I was thinking less of central government diktat, and more of NHS guidelines which would then be amplified though the media.

I also recall a professor of cardiology 20 years ago advising that the statins made any plaques in the arteries less likely to rupture snd cause thrombosis.

Um, no they don’t. More likely, in fact.

Statins make me ill — digestively and venously (muscle pain). My rule of thumb for 50 years — if it makes you sick, don’t take it.

Are there? Really? Where? I see plenty of Asian (oriental) musicians. But not many negro pianists, violinists, cellists, flutists, etc. What “musical instruments” are “plenty” of negroes playing?

Yeah, dummy, there were black maestros and pioneers on those instruments before most Asians had ever seen one.

The negro musical exceptionalism is a fabrication of leftist political culture.

It always makes me chuckle some random ignoramuses on Unz Review try to denigrate the intelligence of the people who invented jazz, blues, rock & roll, ragtime, swing, R&B, soul, funk, hip-hop, rap, techno, etc. The genius and aesthetic of black people have informed every popular musical genre of the past 100+ years.

Can you guarantee that the twin and adoption studies (which have sample sizes too small to be statistically significant in relationship to the ca. 19,000 genes of the human genome) were corrected for the influences of environmental factors such as iodine, fluoride, ….. ?

As for the sample size of your “expert” population, Fig.10 (above) reports on the “opinions” of 86 individuals. It then seems that there has been a massive decline in the number of “intelligence experts” since the 1020 surveyed in 1987 by Snyderman and Rothman – OR – your sample size represents only a (self)-selected minority of “experts”. Whichever the case, the long ensuing paragraphs on the (statistical) distribution of characteristics of the “experts” (all 86 of them) seem to be rubbish for the gullible.

The original assertion was about rich vs poor not blacks vs whites. I suspect that there is not (statistically) reliable data distinguishing the effects of iodine and fluoride on rich/poor or black/white. BUT, the effects of iodine and fluoride can be detected in the general population – the main point is that MANY known contributive environmental factors are NOT corrected for in many (most?) attempts to establish genetic influences on intelligence. Since there may be (probably are) many other, unknown environmental influences on IQ, it may well be that such corrections are impossible to make. This problem is in addition to the evidence that IQ is a highly complex trait that involves hundreds of genes, making statisticly reliable predictions for any individual essentially impossible.

Lead has long been known to negatively impact child neuro-development. There is a LOT of literature. Maybe this helps you start?

Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2011 Mar;24(1):1-7. doi: 10.2478/s13382-011-0009-z. Epub 2011 Feb 16.
Low-level environmental lead exposure and intellectual impairment in children–the current concepts of risk assessment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21468897

I am not religious, so save your assumptions.

“A woman who cannot support herself and child, who gets an abortion, is the very definition of responsible.”

This statement is the very essence of intellectual dishonesty. Getting pregnant when you are not financially capable of caring for the child IS the very definition of irresponsible. An abortion after the fact does not correct that.

If you want to go the eugenics route, then let’s go the FULL eugenics route, not the selective route.

White imbeciles in a white nation doing the poop-scooping at the dog park is one thing. Negro imbeciles doing the job in a “diverse” and “multi-cultural” nation is another.

The MSM have a lot to answer for here, looking for divisive White vs. Black stories and framing everything around “racism”, “white guilt” etc. Traditional USA is under attack from radical Jews and their Progressive “useful idiots” with Blacks being fed the “victim” narrative.

And while I’m straying from IQ perhaps, my lifelong exposure and experience with American negroes informs me that this is a highly volatile over-emotional and extraordinarily LOUD demographic (any research on this topic?).

That’s a different issue, and IMO it’s more important than IQ. Volatile over-emotional reactions just don’t work in complex highly organized societies – and Blacks have some bad problems with this (again encouraged by the MSM).

Frankly the people that pick up my garbage are more useful to me than the NY bankers/brokers. Perhaps we should readjust the relative wages paid to the two groups.

Except that the bad, censored “science” is very often paid for by the “capitalists” as a precondition to the money grubbing.

NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”

https://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/

“I actually find the hereditarian hardliner position the most surprising. Can anyone outline the arguments supporting that? ”

Is there any reason to presuppose, as the survey does, that the US environment must have negative rather than positive effects on Blacks? I think it almost certain that the difference is more than 100% genetic, with the environment in the US compensating partially for the genetic difference.

*environmental differences between Blacks and Whites in the US are small. Both are born in hospitals, have access to more than adequate nutrition and medical care, spend their early years in houses with electricity, running water, and TV and their childhoods in schools with standard curricula and manageable class sizes

*Environmental differences between Blacks in Africa and people of any race in the US are large, those in Africa typically having none of the US environmental advantages listed

*These environmental differences between continents are much larger than the genetic differences between US and African Blacks

*the IQ advantage of US Blacks relative to African Blacks of ~10-15 points must be largely due to this better environment (in the UK there is a strong argument that the reduced gap compared to the US is due to UK Blacks being more selected than US Blacks rather than any US-UK environmental difference)

*no environmental intervention for Blacks in the US has been shown to reduce the Black-White gap in a lasting or substantial manner, this includes infant adoption. (Though White-adopted Black infants have higher IQs as adults, this is entirely due to their biological parents having higher IQs.)

*therefore the environment of US Blacks is much better relative to what their original peoples are able to sustain for themselves and this has an observable positive effect on their intelligence, however improving their environment further has no further positive effect, indicating that the positive effect of environment is already saturated and they are performing to their maximum genetic potential

IF YOU’RE TAKING A STATIN MEDICATION YOU MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER

https://www.healthy-heart-guide.com/statin-side-effects.html

BMJ. 2014 Jul 17;349:g3743. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3743.
Non-cardiovascular effects associated with statins.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25035309

Nothing is 100% genetic in that nutrition, disease, and injury play a role. However, it might be that in the absence of outright malnutrition or infection of the brain, the variation is genetic. Since IQ tests normally include verbal questions, one would expect a component reflecting education. But here too it might be that any school that gets basic vocabulary across is as good as Andover or Choate when it comes to fostering IQ.

People who say it’s X% this and Y% that need to explain what the percentages mean.

(((Linda Gottfredson))) and (((Stefan Molyneux))) don’t count. (((Molyneux)))’s mother was a German Jewess. He will constantly babble about “high IQ” Ashkenazis, East Asians and Nigerians. As a Western woman their opinions on intelligence are worthless. The West is not black/Asian/Jewish/Muslim. Jews had nothing to do with the West’s development. They are not a part of the West.

The Ashkenazi Jew is disappearing. They have high intermarriage rates with blacks/Asians. It is the evil Zioevangizers who perpetuate the myth of their “choseness” and intelligence. The little IQ they developed over centuries of European persecution is gone. Here is a perfect example of the “new Jews:” https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/07/chloe-green-jeremy-meeks-welcome-first-baby-7612778/
Marc Zuckerberg and his Chinese wife are another example.

Hyperbola is one of the posters most obdurately resistant to evidence and logical arguments here, responding to him isn’t a good use of your time.

Since you’re here, I would like to know why you assumed in your survey that in developed countries environment must have a negative effect on Black’s IQs (or at best no effect) rather than raising them.

The environmental differences between US (or developed nations’) Blacks and US Whites are much smaller than between US Blacks and their close relatives in Africa, which gives a direct test of different environments while holding genetics virtually constant. This shows that the US environment (whose differences are largely due to Whites being most of the population) has a strong positive effect in intelligence compared to Blacks’ native African environment. So why would one assume that the difference in environments between Blacks and Whites in the US must be depressing Black intelligence relative to Whites when it clearly has a positive effect on Blacks’ performance relative to their close relatives?

Is there any reason to presuppose, as the survey does, that the US environment must have negative rather than positive effects on Blacks? I think it almost certain that the difference is more than 100% genetic, with the environment in the US compensating partially for the genetic difference.

Given what black Americans have been through and given the smallness of the IQ gap, the hypothesis that blacks start out with an innate intellectual advantage is much more persuasive than the poop you’re flinging. So, yes, the difference may be 100% genetic in favor of blacks.

As James Flynn has observed, it is very possible that the 10-point black/white IQ difference we see reflects a 12 point environmental difference and a negative two point genetic difference. I think Flynn is entirely too conservative here. In my view whites should have a 30 point IQ advantage, rather than a mere 9 or 10. And even that gap is shrinking.

environmental differences between continents are much larger than the genetic differences between US and African Blacks

Given that American negroes are something like 25% white genetically, this is hard to believe.

Hyperbola, Wizard of Oz, I’ve been working as a doctor since summer 2012. In that time I have seen two STEMIs, the rush-you-to-the-cath-lab-for-a-stent type of heart attack; the last one was early last Sunday, in a woman who had previous heart attacks and had stopped her cholesterol-lowering medication, with a very elevated recent serum cholesterol. Speaking to doctors who have been working longer, they saw much more of these severe heart attacks twenty, twenty-five years ago, when statins hadn’t had the same opportunity to have an effect on the population.

Qrisk3, a online tool that provides the current NHS guidance on the basis of risk factors, does not advise that I take a statin, as a 37 year old man with no significant risk factors. Despite that, I have started one, prompted chiefly by online discussion with dearieme, thank you dearieme! I am completely happy with the side-effect profile, and as well as the benefit for coronary artery disease and stroke, I am reasonably confident there is an underlying benefit for vascular dementia that hasn’t been picked up by the studies, certainly confident enough that the risk outweighs the benefit for me.

Right. Because this is so clearly the equal of Beethoven or Mozart…

https://youtu.be/bJgD3ttyTLcs

The very pinnacle of human achievement here.

I am not religious, so save your assumptions.

Fine. It is a reasonable assumption under most circumstances. Few things set me off like religionists forcing their nutty nonsense on other people.

This statement is the very essence of intellectual dishonesty. Getting pregnant when you are not financially capable of caring for the child IS the very definition of irresponsible. An abortion after the fact does not correct that.

Yes, it does. Stay consistent, Miguel. Getting pregnant sans resources is irresponsible. Bearing the child is even more irresponsible. Aborting the fetus restores balance. Not perfect, but responsible.

Now, be very careful how you bullshit in response.

And Blacks raised by upper-middle class White parents still do poorly because…
And half-Black, half-Whites raised by upper middle class Whites score intermediate of Whites and Blacks because…

Most of the IQ gains have been on particular types of questions. The most heritable and least culturally loaded questions show the biggest Black-White gaps.

I’ve digested more data on this than I care to recall and from both sides of the debate. At the end of the day, across time and space, from Oregon and Alaska to Florida and Tennessee, from Brazil to France, Blacks always produce the same results. So do Whites, Asians, Samoans, Australoids, Jews, et al

Here’s an analogy regarding IQ gains. 200 years ago the Dutch were below 5 foot 5 inches, IIRC. Today (by my estimation living in the Bay Area) Filipinos born in the US average about 5-8. So, Filipinos born in the US today are taller than the Dutch 200 years ago. Does this mean the difference in height between Filipinos and Dutch is entirely genetic? Hint: this is not a trick question.

dearieme:

Any good arising from statins arise from inflammation reduction.

“I’d rather have a v. good LDL/HDL ratio and total cholesterol of 4 mmol/l rather than >7 [or 6 for that matter]“: but why would you rather? Where’s the evidence that any of this rubbish is right? Where’s the evidence that one value of that ratio is good and another one bad?

Every time some hugely conspicuous example shows that the premises are wrong the example gets called a “paradox” and cardiologists give themselves carte blanche to ignore it. Thus: the French eat far more fats than Americans. They have higher blood cholesterol than Americans. They die of heart attacks markedly less frequently than Americans. Aha, zut alors, it’s The French Paradox. What twaddle it all is.

Very possibly, but it didn’t start there. It started with corruption by scientists, and then imposition of propaganda by politicians.

“Speaking to doctors who have been working longer, they saw much more of these severe heart attacks twenty, twenty-five years ago, when statins hadn’t had the same opportunity to have an effect on the population.”

What a bogus argument. Heart attack rates peaked in the US in the sixties: the precipitate decline thereafter happened far too soon to be influenced by change of diet or by statination (or even by cessation of smoking). Look at the published curves: there’s not a hint of any change of slope when use of statins suddenly became widespread.

Ah, those magic risk factors that mysteriously apply to the British (and Americans) but not to the French. Fatuous rubbish!

Is there any reason to presuppose, as the survey does, that the US environment must have negative rather than positive effects on Blacks? I think it almost certain that the difference is more than 100% genetic, with the environment in the US compensating partially for the genetic difference.

I see a few reasons:
- The observed phenotypic difference. Not conclusive I know, but I do consider that circumstantial evidence. I think it places the burden of proof on demonstrating a non-negative relative Black environment in the US.
- Observational (anecdotal, whatever) evidence that it is hard to justify that the average Black environment is superior to the average white environment in the US (and that is what matters here, not other country comparisons).
- Any number of relatively objective measures (e.g. words spoken, books in household, lead exposure) that indicate a worse average environment for Blacks. How important those are and how much caused by genetics anyway are other questions though.

I do think you make a valid point about the US Black environment relative to the African Black environment, but that is not really relevant to the US B/W gap (except as a sanity check). I also agree with you about the differences in the US/UK gaps.

I think you make a reasonable argument that the US environmental difference is small (even though I’m not sure I agree), but I don’t think your argument is at all compelling for claiming that in the US the average Black environment is better than the average white environment.

Nothing is 100% genetic in that nutrition, disease, and injury play a role.

Agreed about that in the limit. The question is how true is that within the typical (and statistically averaged) environments we see in practice?

People who say it’s X% this and Y% that need to explain what the percentages mean.

Also agreed about the need for clarity. I think the survey question is reasonably clear. I think it can reasonably be assumed that the percentages refer to the specified US Black and white populations in their natural environments. There is some complexity because the environmental/genetic split is not really measurable (barring special circumstances like a twins study) so we are trying to infer theoretical quantities.

But here too it might be that any school that gets basic vocabulary across is as good as Andover or Choate when it comes to fostering IQ.

This is where things get interesting. I have some sympathy for the view that once a certain baseline is achieved the environment does not matter (in the sense of contributing appreciable variance to group differences), but I think that neglects possibly important interventions for individuals. PKU is the classic example. Rare enough that it does not contribute much to overall variance, but treatment is critical for individuals. And worth noting that treatment must be targeted. It is highly unlikely someone will stumble upon a PKU diet accidentally (especially since the damage is done so early). And I doubt anyone will follow a rigorous PKU diet unless they have to.

I consider it an open question whether we can:
1. Come up with interventions that appreciably impact group IQ.
2. Convince people to follow them.

Good test cases are minimizing lead exposure and fixing things like iodine deficiency. Taking today in the US as a baseline, I think the low hanging fruit has already been picked so I am not sure how much further improvement is possible.

The nine eggs comes from some of the popular reporting based on the research: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5238871/Pregnant-women-eat-eggs-babies-higher-IQs.html

In reality, other foods contain choline too, so you might not need 9. But it makes sense in an intuitive way that eggs are a good pre-natal food source, since that’s what nature has designed them for.

Right. Because this is so clearly the equal of Beethoven or Mozart…

What you’re doing is romanticizing and idealizing people who were the popular musicians of their times. Their musical forms died for a reason. Beethoven and Mozart weren’t more groundbreaking or artistically sublime than pop musicians of any era, including present day hip-hop artists. Transport Jay-Z or Kenya West or Nas or Dr. Dre to the era of Mozart or Beethoven and they would create the same kind of music because that was what was popular, hence pop music.

Speaking of dead musical forms, I’m not a fan of jazz but I understand that musicians like Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong were at least on par with any white classical musician in terms of artistic and creative merit.

That sounds too high; 12/13% is the figure I have in mind.

Low IQ is a death sentence in a highly competitive complex economy… there are no fixes, no interventions..l. or Head Start solutions.

not true – there’s EBT and afro-firmative action

so the low IQ can keep breeding and breeding and breeding

projection

also presumes with the “we”

What a bogus argument. Heart attack rates peaked in the US in the sixties: the precipitate decline thereafter happened far too soon to be influenced by change of diet or by statination (or even by cessation of smoking). Look at the published curves: there’s not a hint of any change of slope when use of statins suddenly became widespread.

Give me a link to those curves; I can’t find them with ten minutes’ searching. I will mention that serum troponin levels, which are the most useful blood test reflecting myocardial infarction, have only been available from the late 1990s, and so I would expect heart attack rates in the US to peak in the early 2000s, all other things being equal, as doctors slowly worked out that not all raised troponins were acute myocardial infarctions.

STEMI should be most historically useful, and, similar to homicide in crime statistics, that bit harder to ignore, but I would be surprised if the data on that were actually available before about 1999 for the US as a whole.

The genius and aesthetic of black people have informed every popular musical genre of the past 100+ years.

maybe invent the wheel one of these days then inform everyone what a genius you are

There are a variety of numbers bandied about. Here is one set: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html

On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans.

Latinos, on the other hand, had genes that were on average 65.1 percent European, 18 percent Native American, and 6.2 percent African. The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.

My guess is the 23andMe numbers are biased and give higher numbers for percent European in Blacks than a random sample would show.

Another study: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/science/african-american-dna.html

In the new study, Dr. Gravel and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of 3,726 African-Americans who participated in three separate medical studies.

The scientists were able to pinpoint stretches of DNA in the subjects that originated on different continents. According to their calculations, the ancestors of the average African-American today were 82.1 percent African, 16.7 percent European and 1.2 percent Native American.

Does anyone have more definitive numbers?

“Few things set me off like religionists forcing their nutty nonsense on other people.”

That would tend to include atheist zealots.

“Yes, it does. Stay consistent, Miguel. Getting pregnant sans resources is irresponsible. Bearing the child is even more irresponsible. Aborting the fetus restores balance. Not perfect, but responsible.”

LOL what a load of unrefined horseshit. Restores balance? What are you, a Buddhist?

I suppose robbing a bank and then giving the money back restores balance. Why haven’t defense attorneys thought of that?

I suppose killing someone who witnesses me stealing a car is the imperfectly responsible thing to do in that situation. LOL

No. The proverb you are looking for is ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. Maybe that line isn’t in your copy of “Contrarianism for Dummies”.

Careful? Please; stealing a baby’s lollipop does not require care.

Now seeing as you are an unhinged last word obsessive, knock yourself out. I’m done wasting time with you.

it seem funny that all the “bad” schools are in places where all the blacks and Hispanics are?

Funny? No. It makes perfect sense that poor schools are in poor areas since property taxes are generally used to fund education.

As for how much to spend the answer is: enough. I’ve seen disintegrating textbooks and crumbling buildings so don’t pretend that too much is being spent. That’s nonsense.

Yeah, the Flynn Effect isn’t real just because you say it isn’t.

maybe invent the wheel one of these days then inform everyone what a genius you are

You first.

Now seeing as you are an unhinged last word obsessive, knock yourself out. I’m done wasting time with you.

Your reply is a profusion of wacky pseudo-ethics, quite obviously based in a typical religion, probably Catholicism. Nothing you said makes any sense at all in terms of logical process, philosophy, or derived ethics (versus prescribed ethics).

Glad to read that you’re done wasting my time.

And Blacks raised by upper-middle class White parents still do poorly because…

Because of environmental factors? Adoption doesn’t actually change one’s appearance or prenatal environment.

At the end of the day, across time and space, from Oregon and Alaska to Florida and Tennessee, from Brazil to France, Blacks always produce the same results.

This is wrong. Blacks today are more intelligent on average than whites in 1960. And they have closed the gap by between 3 and 7 points. It would be pretty foolish to think any of this is genetic.

This guy definitely puts “Ancestors invented the wheel.” on his resume.

I see what you mean: not just abortions, tubes tied and vasectomies but castrations. (Difficult to know what to do about the Pope’s potential castrati once you are back to good old reliable measures. I suppose you can preserve the genes without the balls for future choirs).

Thank you, thank you! I am devastated by my appalling solecism.

Ignoring the old saw about perfume and pigs, I’ll attempt to correct your apparent misunderstanding of what Murray and Herrnstein characterized as the “Flynn Effect”. Flynn noticed a recent modest rise in average scores on certain types of IQ tests, most particularly those in categories similar to Raven’s Progressive Matrices. As anyone familiar with Flynn’s research is aware, this rising tide has affected all boats equally. For example, in the USA both White and Negro scores on these types of IQ test have risen by about the same amount. The 1.1 SD difference in average IQ score between Negroes and Whites in the USA remains as constant as it always has.

As I said before, every single assertion you have made is demonstrably false. Why don’t you buckle down and learn a little bit about current research.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2202437/John-Major-sexy-beast-Trust-I-didn-t-teach-man-ANYTHING-Shameless-astonishingly-rude-new-diaries-eye-popping-reading-So-does-Edwina-Currie-regret-letting-rip-Take-wild-guess-.html

Yes, I see, while distracted by John Major’s raging libido she allowed pasty faced little bureaucrats to do in egg producers.

Does your last paragraph mean that any of the difference – or lack of difference – between blacks today and whites in 1960 relates to “intelligence” in any sense other than IQ scores? (I suppose you are referring to the Flynn Effect which is about IQ scores).

If the closing of the gap over that period is as you say it suggests that the Flynn Effect began operating in black communities later than amongst whites. That seems plausible – and gives hope for Africa, if not much.

Apoe4 is associated with heart disease, as well as Alzheimers disease. Apoe4 is also less common in folks of Mediterranean ancestry than those from northern Europe. It may be Mediterranean genes, rather than Mediterranean diet that leads to less heart disease in those that eat a Mediterranean diet.

Solipsism?

I suppose you can preserve the genes without the balls for future choirs

Tight genes play hell with balls.

Aha, zut alors, it’s The French Paradox. What twaddle it all is.

Twaddle? Is that a new brand of resveratrol at GNC?

“– the main point is that MANY known contributive environmental factors are NOT corrected for in many (most?) attempts to establish genetic influences on intelligence. Since there may be (probably are) many other, unknown environmental influences on IQ, it may well be that such corrections are impossible to make.”

It may be useful to note that in the US iodized salt is not used in prepackaged foods. When folks get much of their salt from snack foods, canned goods, or other preprocessed foods, they may salt their food less frequently with iodized salt. Also, seafood, (ocean seafood) which is a good source of iodine, selenium DHA and EPH is less common (and economical) than farmed freshwater fish. There may be many ways that poorer folks, and the less intelligent, are disadvantaged by the environment and/or genes.

It may also be that there are gene-environmental interactions that disadvantage some folks. Perhaps people whose ancestors survived relatively lead polluted environments are more resistant to the effects of lead in the environment than are folks who’s ancestors never were selected for lead tolerance. Likewise, people from historic environments that included agriculture, and alcohol, may be more susceptible to alcoholism, and children effected by fetal alcohol syndrome.

I suspect that folks that think that ‘those people’ are just dumb (genetics, only) and folks that think everyone has exactly the same potential except for discrimination, both miss the opportunity to identify ways to optimize life prospects for individuals of the next generation.

Perhaps the public policy that most leads to unhelpful discrimination against individuals, is affirmative action carried to extremes. If you know an individuals accurate IQ, or honest academic achievements, and can select from prospective employees on that basis, then you can select to some extent on individual merit.

If all that you are allowed to be sure of is their race, or skin tone, then that is the only metric available to use.

Funny? No. It makes perfect sense that poor schools are in poor areas since property taxes are generally used to fund education.

State and federal funds make Detroit Public Schools one of the top funded systems in the State. DPS spending per pupil is as much as double many other districts. Yet DPS manages to graduate only a percentage of its kids and of those it does graduate half are functionally illiterate. Money is NOT the issue.

As for how much to spend the answer is: enough. I’ve seen disintegrating textbooks and crumbling buildings so don’t pretend that too much is being spent. That’s nonsense.

A child can learn just as much (probably more) from an old textbook as a new “social justice-y” textbook. Spin your nonsense elsewhere.

Because of environmental factors? Adoption doesn’t actually change one’s appearance or prenatal environment.

Wait, are you saying negro failure is due to their “appearance”?

This guy definitely puts “Ancestors invented the wheel.” on his resume.

In his defense, I’d probably hire him over a guy who puts, “second cousin of General Butt Naked” on his resume..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333465/Liberias-General-Butt-Naked-The-evil-man-world.html

We know from studies of identical twins separated at birth (along with numerous other types of heritability studies) that IQ is roughly 80% heritable between people living in the West (depending on age) and that socioeconomic status has NO statistical impact on IQ. Yes, they’ve even been able to test some twins where one grows up working class and the other upper-middle class. Returning to Blacks, whatever state (or country) you go to they score a full standard deviation below Whites. So, for their under performance to be attributable to environment:

1) There would have to be a unique environmental factor affecting all Blacks and only Blacks (whether they live in Alaska or Tennessee) but not poor Whites or poor Asian boat people;
2) it would have to affect all Black communities to the same degree (accounting for admixture differences); and
3) is not ameliorated by having Blacks adopted at birth by White families (unless they’re half White, then it’s magically half ameliorated).

The environmental gains in IQ in the West have been sweeping and not limited to Whites. Even if they were limited to Whites, why do Blacks in every community consistently score one standard deviation below Whites? Why isn’t there any variation (not attributable to the amount of White admixture). Why do Mexican mestizos score intermediate of the two groups?

I see you conveniently only addressed parts of my argument. Again, the IQ gains are limited to certain sections, and other sections have actually gone down slightly. See the G-factor, inbreeding depression, et al.

You also have to explain why Blacks have smaller brains as measured by MRI and are less likely to carry the many intelligence producing alleles that have been found thus far (and Whites are slightly less likely to carry these alleles than Northeast Asians – oh, how convenient).

Return to my analogy with Filipinos and Dutch. 200 Years ago the Dutch were, let’s say, 5-4 (if someone could find the exact number that’d be great – thanks in advance). Filipinos were likely extremely short. Now the Filipinos raised in the Bay Area that I see average roughly 5-8 (it’s not unusual to see a 6-footer) and the Dutch average 6-feet, even. So Filipinos today are taller than the Dutch were 200 years ago. Will the Filipinos in the US eventually average 6-feet? Are the current height differences between these two groups the result of environment? (Hint, this is a rhetorical question). The rising tide lifted all boats equally. Whites and Blacks in America, and Filipinos born in the US compared to the Dutch.

The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Here, the data is overwhelming and also corresponds with 2,000 years of observation by every civilization and person that has come into contact with Blacks, myself included. I’m one of the few people here that’s had the opportunity to grow up with Blacks and was able to observe the majority of them (not just the top 10%) in an academic setting. It’s incredible how difficult it is for the vast majority of them to master basic academic tasks. I observed the same things as every other perceptive, thinking person across 2,000 years and the width of the globe: markedly low intelligence; always keeping time (eg drumming on their desks); gullible and child-like; quick to aggression; high/positive self-image; highly sexual; positive mood; gregarious and extroverted; precocious physical development; etc.

APOE-4 is also less common in East Asians, but more common in Blacks. I read somewhere that (nearly?) all the NFL players that suffered early onset CTE had at least one copy of E-4. To make matters worse, Blacks are over-represented in the NFL, and I assume Northern Euros are compared to other Whites.

I’m guessing the E-3 x E3 NFL players are the ones that don’t get CTE until later and with milder symptoms. But it looks like they all get it in some form eventually (except maybe the kickers that didn’t play another position in college).

this one sees a nahtzi behind every tree

Speak for yourself!

I can’t keep up. Sniff. You are polluting a serious comment thread with childish frivolity. Sniff and snuff. And from my kindergarten … well you know what is the lowest form of wit…. See yer later

Flynn himself showed the IQ gap had closed by 5 to 6 points since 1970,. I’m surprised you didn’t know this given how familiar you are with his work.

Wait, are you saying negro failure is due to their “appearance”?

Those who discriminate against black people tend to go by their appearance, as I’m sure you well know.

IQ gains are limited to certain sections, and other sections have actually gone down slightly

So IQ is not a good measure of intelligence after all?

You can’t have it both ways here. You can’t go on and on about the racial IQ gap and then say that the closing of that gap is because the tests don’t match your expectations.

The brain size argument seems nonsensical. The difference in brain size between men and women doesn’t lead to much of an IQ gap, if any.

As for your observations, they are not convincing in the least.

Those who discriminate against black people tend to go by their appearance, as I’m sure you well know.

Fascinating. And despite having been born in Detroit and living my entire life in close proximity to or among hundreds of thousands of negroes, I can’t recall anyone complaining that appearance (other than saggy drawers) was a “problem” with them.

Your comments are extremely revealing. Please do continue.

IQ is a good measure, but when making these types of comparisons it’s best to rely on the subsets that are the most G-loaded and heritable. I recommend familiarizing yourself with the literature before forming a strong opinion.

Same with brain size. Too much to go into. Read the source material and then come back.

You still haven’t addressed the Scarr & Weinberg transracial adoption study or frequency of intelligence producing alleles.

Everyone who has had close and extended contact with Black Africans, across cultures and across time, has the same observations about them. In what world is this not relevant? The entire human race is hallucinating about a single subject and in the same direction? Yeah, sure.

All the voluminous evidence on the matter adds up and points in one, and only one(!), direction.

I can’t recall anyone complaining that appearance (other than saggy drawers) was a “problem” with them.

Maybe use some of that “superior” white intellect to figure out what I’m saying. There is no “problem” other than the way racists like you treat African-Americans.

There is no “problem” other than the way racists like you treat African-Americans.

What nonsense are you on about now? I’m a huge fan of Elon Musk, Charlize Theron, and Neill Blomkamp.

You seem to have a serious problem with the way negroes look. Maybe you ought to live amongst them until you get over your issues?

Corruption by scientists? This is a bit of chicken-vs-egg argument. When the “capitalists” have enough financial/political power to provide “irrestible enticements” to scientists, who is initiating the corruption?

Hmm. Then the fact that your sect has been thrown out of over 100 countries over the past couple of millenia (with consistent accusations of abuse of the majority population) must also be a valid observation subject to remedial action whereever the sect currently exists?

In the case of heart attacks the evidence is unambiguous. The scientists: it started with Ancel Keys.

The Turtle and the Scorpion/Snake?

Low IQ is a death sentence in a highly competitive complex economy… there are no fixes, no interventions..l. or Head Start solutions.

No, high-IQ is, that’s why there are so many suicides.

I have taken a wide range of courses from an online University to get the feel for what a typical college academic experience would be like. One of my greatest surprises has been how much learning is possible with virtually no contact with teachers. I have found this to be highly surprising. I think of all the rhetoric related to funding our public school system, how the schools of the disadvantaged are so inferior to those of people of means etc. … All this public expenditure and yet more resources are desperately needed because the money that has been spent is so inadequate to the problems of modern society.

Yet, I have received none of this funding. I have very minimal contact with my tutors. Admittedly some contact is essential, though it might be little more than a weekly log in to say hi. I have been able to maintain a very high level of academic achievement and at the same time have avoided almost all the modern sociopathology present in typical school environments. I am not receiving any psychotropic medication, though I suspect that such treatment would have been necessary if I were in a physical learning setting.

I can well remember all the non – virtual courses in which a textbook upwards of 1,000 pages would be assigned without any further instructions. One was somehow expected to read and absorb the totality of the 1,000 pages leading to subject mastery. Of course, with distance learning such silliness is not pursued. Using the latest in learning techniques, a list of a mere 200 learnable questions is given in order to make mastering the courses highly achievable.

I would have to think how many children have been pushed into some pharmaceutical haze because they somehow believe that something is wrong with them for not mastering a few thousand pages of textbooks each year. Believe me mastering those 200 course study questions makes learning a breeze.

Sad old men scrabbling around for “statistics” to justify their stupid prejudices.

no af
not exuctly

This ”guy” think [a way to say] racism and prejewdice is only-white, just white have this capacity to be biasedly wrong… and know this ”guy” said this absolute idiocy, and some movies still predicting idiocracy…

the REAL racist here is that NEGRO guy…

maybe we are on the same biological species, but ABSOLUTELY not on the same INTELLECTUAL SPECIES where this type of absolute intellectual corruption is a death sentence.

It will be interesting if they ever uncover what the genetic code or codes are for intelligence/IQ. and whether withing that coding the sequence for what is known as high intelligence and whether said code is tiered with each code moving in any unique direction.

The next stage will be uncovering if and what environmental factors interplay and impact said thinking.

Since high IQ is rare, it’s a safe bet that it is an anomaly as opposed to a unique feature. But until said steady state marker is uncovered the artifact of something as intangible and liquid as IQ is going to remain in social constructs of meaning.

Jews were expelled because – before the dawn of our multicultural rainbow utopia – confident nations rightly expelled foreigners. Heck, that’s what we did to as many as 2,000,000 Mexicans in the 1930s. And Mexicans aren’t half as annoying as Jews. What have countless nations/people observed about the [Ashkenazi] Jews? They’re generally intelligent, ambitious, ethnocentric, and have low levels of “agreeableness” (per the big-5 psychological traits). Looking at my friends and family, these stereotypes are more or less true. No one has ever called Ashkenazi Jews stupid or Blacks smart.

Re “subject to remedial action” WTH? My arguments never mentioned any “remedial action” to be taken against American Blacks because they have, on average, an IQ of 85. No you’re just putting words in my mouth. Besides ending affirmative action I support no remedial action. Just leave people the hell alone and let the chips fall where they may. And let other groups naturally segregate themselves away from the Black masses. I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

I have one final question for all you magical-thinking egalitarians: How in the heck does racism make you stupid? Did it make the Chinese dumb? Near-black South Asians? What about the minority of Blacks that do excel? Forget IQ tests, the Black masses that I grew up with were, by and large, simply unable to learn. We’re talking 15-year-olds that literally couldn’t read. Math classes were even more painful. You could stand me against a swastika-covered wall for 8 hours a day, call me brown Hymie…whatever, and I’d still learn how to read. Never mind doing well on standardized tests.

How do you distinguish direct genetic effects (contribution to IQ) from environmental effects where the dose response is a function of genes? It strikes me that the mean dose of genetically variable dose response environmental variables should appear to be heritable, e.g. per the Falconer equations.

You have a peculiar notion of what constitutes learning. Anyone who claims that the online experiences is superior is clearly not comprehending the value that some skills and critical thinking are acquired via the real time exchange between instructor and students(s) and more importantly, some courses require hands on experience in fact, the most important courses you will ever take will be those that demand one one one experience.

You might be able to learn 2×2 equals, but how that plays out in analyzing data sets to artifacts is another matter that required critical thinking sets among a grey that are not quantifiable.

Curious if you can identify which skill set is the most salient to your every day life.

Note: No point bothering with online classwork — when all you need s is read a book and take a trest to its content.

correction: Note: No point bothering with online classwork — when all you need do is read a book and take a test to its content.

“It makes perfect sense that poor schools are in poor areas since property taxes are generally used to fund education.”

You only show your geo-jurisdictional ignorance of the country with that assertion as it is only applicable in some states in the US. (New Jersey being a prime example) A lot (perhaps most) of the states have unified county school districts and those counties all have, to one degree or another, areas of all socio-economic status and bus their children all over the place and spend EXTRA on a per pupil basis on Blacks and ESL (read: products of illegal immigration primarily from Latin America) students. Besides, substantial funding for public education comes from the respective state capitals. (primarily base teacher and administrator pay, textbooks and other materials). Not to mention federal funding also.

In other words, people in those counties who have to pay thousands a year in property taxes are funding all kinds of piss hole remedial and affirmative esteem building education programs and juvenile detention hall services for your darlings and this has been the case for about 50 years give or take some.

Oakland and many inner-city school districts spend a lot per student. Bad management of supplies and infrastructure go hand in hand with bad students.

Are bad people the result of a bad environment, or is a bad environment the result of bad people? Causation is possible in either direction. Plomin (e.g., his behavioral genetics textbook), Christainsen (Intelligence, 2013) and Rindermann (e.g., “Cognitive Capitalism”) have found that there may be two-way causality, but it is more the case that people shape the environment; they are not blank slates at birth.

See Robert Weissberg on “Taj Mahal” schools in “Bad Students, Not Bad Schools.” See Hanushek on returns to school spending.

are there not things that chemists and physicists argue over?

Meh. You have to admit Mike at least had a very clever twist of phrase.

Meh. You have to admit Mike at least had a very clever twist of phrase.

I suppose, if one is the sort of person who is inclined to believe such utter claptrap, then one might also be inclined to smile secretly at any declaration of women as “irresponsible”.

To others, such is pure, undiluted boloney, typical of male insecurities that translate into a hatred of women.

By all means, sir, indulge yourself.

A survey of official science departments found that 100% of environmentalists believed more funding, defunding DNA research, banning psychometry, and hiring more SJWs would dispel nasty racial theories of intelligence. Censorship, arrests and hiring secret police to find nasty racial theorists was also recommended.
Science should not benefit White people at all they said. Only by more diverse staffing and preventing White Men from going into science can make a much more fair environment for research that seeks more holistic methods and prevents hateful facts from destroying such a wonderful feeling amongst people from countries that aren’t White are acceptable they said.

These recommendations are supported by globalists, bankers, slavers and charlatans.

These “experts “ are full of crap… these matters were resolved decades ago and one need not read for decades to determine the answer…Nature fought Nurture and Nurture was routed….a few references will do… try Audrey Shuey ’s The Testing of Negro Intelligence, 1958, 1966… The Coleman Report by sociologist James Coleman circa 1966, Arthur Jensen “s monograph in Harvard Ed Review in 1969 and Bias in Mental Testing, 1980, while Straight Talk about Mental Testing is a good beginning….Race by John Baker, 1974 …a book or articles by Richard Lynn and J Philippe Rushton, the articles by Jensen and Rushton circa 2005, and summaries by Linda Gottfredson …the origin and nature of race differences in IQ was resolved 50 years ago and the only controversay is political….the evidence is so overwhelming that quibbles exist only at the margins

Your reply is a profusion of wacky pseudo-ethics, quite obviously based in a typical religion, probably Catholicism.

Have you been sodomized by a faggot priest in your youth? Certainly sounds like it.

Nothing you said makes any sense at all in terms of logical process, philosophy, or derived ethics (versus prescribed ethics)

Does not make sense to whom? Your tossing around generic, low-information-content expressions does not reflect well on your debating abilities.

Does not make sense to whom? Your tossing around generic, low-information-content expressions does not reflect well on your debating abilities.

Ye Olde ID-Change ploy, eh, Watson?

Grow up, kid.

EliteCommInc, thank you for replying.

My experience with online learning has been an overwhelming success.
I can hardly believe how successful and contended I have been with the online learning style.
I have read others from an elite background dismissing online learning as somehow inferior
in my personal experience it certainly has not been. It constantly astonishes me how much better
online learning is compared to a physical class environment.

Research into home schooling has largely confirmed what I have observed with my own learning
experiences. Home schoolers have been found to up to multiple grade levels ahead of their school based peers. This difference can be present in people of all racial groups.

I could go on and on endlessly about how great online learning is. For example, a fundamental flaw
in the traditional classroom environment is that students never really have even a few minutes in their entire school day in which they could actually study by themselves. I was startled when I recognized this fairly obvious limitation of a school environment. The typical student will spend 10-15 years or more of their life surrounded by a social environment and not an academic environment. It is hardly surprising to me under these circumstances that school based students have performed so poorly. It is not plausible that anything else could occur under such conditions.

With a home school/ online experience all of the issues of the class environment disappear. It is truly remarkable. When I go to my home office and study a subject, I study the subject and nothing else. I do not need to worry about a school shooting, what current drugs are in the bloodstream of my fellow classmates, nor what how fast the current pace of the course is and on and on. In my current course I completed half of it before I even started it. When this happened to me before in a typical class context, I did not know what to do with myself. When you are rigidly set into a school schedule, you need to stay with the group no matter what. This just results in class disruption.

In a home school context, none of that matters. If you want to finish the course before you start it, no problem. You can then take another course. The pacing is entirely self-directed. I have also used the course timetable to go the extra mile to submit very thoughtful essays. I hated having to submit the 4 day no sleep essays. Why bother with such drudge? In an online course I always have the opportunity to write what I believe are very high quality pieces of scholarship; from the marks that I have received in a very wide range of courses my tutors fully recognize my efforts.

What has probably been my biggest surprise is how broad a range of courses I have been able to take without being on a physical campus. My online university has done everything possible to make all courses fully online. It is great! Anything that I need they’ll send it to me. They even sent me a home chemistry lab. I did not enjoy my half hour chemistry labs in high school. I did not see the point. With the home lab it was awesome. I had the home lab kit for months and I spent weeks thinking up experiments. I could almost not believe how much fun it was. I needed to request that they send me more chemicals. I did not want to give up the kit when I was supposed to send it back,
so when the shipping company asked what was the nature of the package I somehow managed to them that it contained 10 molar hydrocholoric acid and a probable human CARCINOGEN. I was not sure about what probable human carcinogen meant, but I told the shipper I figured it would be fine. The shipper refused to ship it; the university was absolutely furious. At least I got the kit for another week. I really loved that chemistry course.

I just do not know if I should take any more chemistry courses; I probably would develop cancer if I did.

Same thing with a language course. Typically I would have thought that I would need a social context to actually excel. In almost all the language courses that I remember, the top students in
my French class were from France. Students with actual experience in a language have an overwhelming advantage over all the other students. If I were an employer making the choice of employee who needed a certain language skill, then I would choose someone with 4-5 months of active immersive language engagement over someone with a bachelor’s degree who had never had such experiences. For me, I just bought some language software and practiced relentlessly. It was quite shocking. My tutor thought that I was a native speaker. I have never met a native speaker in the language that I was studying.

Online learning for me has been an overwhelmingly positive experience. If I had been given the opportunity to study at one of the established European universities in any of the years from 1000-2000, then there would be question that I would have leapt up such an opportunity. The resources available to me to fulfill my potential and destiny would have been too obvious to decline.
However, over the last few years I am no longer sure whether I would even leap at all. My online university is committed to continuous innovation. They have made it abundantly clear that the best interests of students is their central driving passion. Time and time again they have made the difficult choice of embracing technological change when doing so would have substantial consequences for the educational economic ecology. I believe that the typical classroom does perhaps have some future, though this will only be true if they are fully committed to embracing change and technology. If this were not to be true, online education will continue its recent rapid increase.

Actually the “evidence” is that it did NOT start with Ancel Keys, but rather with “popular” and “commercial” misrepresentations of what the scientists said. This is a problem that has multiplied exponentially since Keys time. Remember what Solzehenitzyn said about the power of the “media” in western countries. Or remember that “english breakfast” (bacon with eggs) was an invention peddled by Edward Bernays for Gerber Co. (when they were still a meat products company).

Ancel Keys and the Seven Countries Study:
An Evidence – based Response to Revisionist Histories

http://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SCS-White-Paper.THI_.8-1-17.pdf

excuse the delay — i just saw this today.

all that is all very nice.

But you have gone dancing without answering my essential point. None the lesless, i will play;

1. homeschooling requires moderators or onsight instructors as instructors an guides through the material which means in order for homeschooling to work, someone with pre-requisite knowledge is present and available — which utterly destroys your entire charade about online learning in that context. What you are really talking about is student to teacher ratios — they are not the same thing.

2. Furthermore, unless you learned to read, write and engage math via the internet the type of comparisons toy are attempting make are impossible, because those skills were taught hands on by someone else, to you in person — classroom learning by any other name is still classroom learning in a very traditional sense.

3. None of the foundation material you learned was garnered from online instruction. The single most important innovation in education has been the self study courses, that allowed students with issues in traditional settings to excel in some course material outside of class — however they had to learn the fundamentals from someone in person —- taught via human contact one one one — classroom learning.

4. i am very well acquainted with students from home school environments, they are well acquainted with data, not necessarily how to translate that data into meaning in the real world environments in which that knowledge he is applied. As a speech coach i appreciated the one one one attention such students obtained from their instructors.

Note: I have coached in charter school environments among inner city populations — and the same applies to home schoolers — my comments do not in any denigrate either. All of those environments require on site or readily available instruction beyond computers.

5. As i noted in my comments, there are courses that can certainly be taught online. No doubt, once a person has certain pre-requite knowledge at the university level — it is entirely possible to memorize data sets and processes and repeat them — essentially wrote learning. No question. chemistry is just that type of course as is math and some others.

6. I think you are confusing knowledge with learning. You are absolutely correct about your language courses — you do need the social context. In fact, anyone who has taken courses in language to proficient will excel, well beyond what you will garner online — here context, circumstance, environment are crucial to — that demands experiential application.

Laughing, since you references a tudor, I consider the matter closed as to online learning. And I be very curious to know whether your instructor was french — frankly, I don’t but the assessment. I think course programs such as rosetta stone are great — depending on the language . And no doubt that relentless practice makes that skill easier to perform — but that is the case with any skill, in any course, especially language. Further the role lass work has played is betrayed by to your own comments — “french classes” — sounds like classroom instruction. So in otherwords as you relate, online instruction for you in two experiences has been instructive and — but only predicated on pre-requisite knowledge you derived from one one one instruction or assistance.

In conclusion by your own comments classroom instruction is essential. in otherwords, one on one instruction from a skilled professional was mandatory yo your advancement before, and during your online experience.

I appreciate you making my case for me. You have merely ignored and misunderstood what classroom instruction is and how it has played a role in your life.

I have designed learning labs that included computer instruction and I would tell you the variety of courses — but i prefer you think through and address my essential point —- the most important skills you will use in life and will have the most impact on your life.

Keys’ graph from a 1953 paper (predating the seven countries study):

A 22 country sample from a 1957 rebuttal:

More at http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/02/keys-six-countries-graph/

Looks to me like Keys bears some responsibility here.

Both of those graphs are in your link (pages 22 and 23). Here is how they explain it:

The seemingly stark contrast of these graphs side-by-side has become an enduring argument for the inaccuracy of, and alleged “cherry-picking” of countries for — the SCS. But neither of these graphs is from the SCS.

The first graph of six nations is from an earlier paper by Ancel Keys in 1953, more than a decade before the first publications from SCS. The second is from a paper published in 1957, nearly a year before baseline data collection began in SCS cohorts. Clearly, neither of these graphs uses the same data as the SCS.

OK. So Keys cherry picked countries in his earlier paper then later picked a convenient set of countries for the SCS. But since neither graph is associated with the SCS there is no problem. I also liked “seemingly stark.” What exactly is seemingly about the stark contrast between those two graphs?

P.S. Perhaps you could elaborate on ‘“popular” and “commercial” misrepresentations of what the scientists said.’ Did you have any particulars in mind, or was that just a burst of meaningless rhetoric?

Thanks for this. The graph show that Finland had average fat consumption but very high death rate from hearth attacks and so. Our doctors wanted to reduce fat, and maybe there was some reduction in hearth attacks, but it is genetic, especially in Eastern Finland, where the population grew from few families. Now I cook with butter, knowing better. It is tasty. Yes, many things are genetic and experts are full of shit. (I can say so having been one, though from better fields, but still shit.)

You are welcome. Finland has been doing a lot to try to reduce cardiovascular disease. Have you seen this? https://www.knowablemagazine.org/article/health-disease/2018/finlands-bold-push-change-heart-health-nation

This paper has some information and references: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/100/6/1448/4576505

Since the 1970s, the Finnish government has worked with the food industry to reduce the sodium content of foods by using a variety of substitutes, such as low-sodium, high-potassium, calcium, and magnesium salts (39, 40). This has resulted in a 33% reduction in the population average salt intake, a >10-mm Hg decrease in the population average of both SBP and DBP, and a 75–80% decrease in both stroke and coronary artery disease mortality (39, 40).

If you are able to source them for a reasonable price (and concerned about CVD) I would recommend checking out one of the salt substitutes based on the Finnish research. Pansalt is an example: http://www.mychoicelife.org/Pansalt_FAQ.html

Qn: WHAT IS Pansalt?
Pansalt is made up of 56% sodium chloride, 28% potassium chloride, 12% magnesium sulphate, 2% lysine hydrochloride and 0.0036% iodine, with 2% silicon dioxide (approved anticaking agent).

It is made under GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) conditions which has the high quality equivalent to that of pharmaceutical products, better than most food manufacturing processes.

Qn: WHO INVENTED Pansalt? HOW DID Pansalt COME ABOUT?
Pansalt was formulated by Prof Dr Heikki Karppanen of the University of Helsinki Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Finland. Professor Karppanen took a personal interest in salt and its harms after he discovered the link in the high number of family deaths arising from heart attacks, in the area of North Karelia, Finland where they lived. It was subsequently traced to the high sodium and low mineral content in the soil that went into their food chain and hence the invention of Pansalt to counteract this cycle. Prof Karppanen had great input from the magnesium expert Dr Mildred Seelig of the American College of Nutrition in the development of Pansalt and their relationship is documented in the Journal of the College .

Another example: https://www.amazon.com/GOODSALT-Potassium-Magnesium-Iodized-Substitute/dp/B00UKSA5D4

If you are interested in the salt aspect of this topic, I really like this book: https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Solution-Herb-Boynton/dp/1583330852
It is largely a popular book with the thesis being the importance of balancing sodium and potassium consumption, but there is a technical appendix (written by an MD and targeted at MDs) detailing intra/extra cellular ion transport issues which IMHO provides some compelling support for what they say.

Without going into specific data, I was thinking about the overblown claims for things like “personalized medicine”, genetic testing and inheritance of complex disease, genes and IQ, etc. etc. I would contend that a lot of snake-oil is continuously sold to the gullible public.

When one looks a bit more at the so-called “fudging”, one sees how overly simplistic this whole controversy really is. For example, some sort of average “fat intake” (of what kind??) for thousands of men in a single country is plotted, without any indication of standard deviations. In fact what is needed are plots (correlations) of “fat” intake vs heart disease for all individuals irrespective of country. Even that may be inadequate if there are differences in type of fat between countries. It is exactly this kind of “big data” averages that often obscure (or create) untenable conclusions.

Given the timeline of all this, it still seems that Ancel Keys is pretty much innocent of the allegations of “fudging” (dishonesty). He made an hypothesis in 1953 that was tested with further data in 1957 (and the trend did not change much although the scatter did).

That the president of the World Heart Federation is so poorly informed is a good example of how doctors are often not credible when it comes to science. That coupled with “commercial” interests is a source of many dubious “recommendations”.

Here is another example of a poorly researched topic with commerical pressure that may lead to dangerous recommendations.

International scientists have found autism’s cause while American media and public health officials remain silent

https://www.sott.net/article/388583-International-scientists-have-found-autisms-cause-while-American-media-and-public-health-officials-remain-silent

In early December 2017, Dr. Chris Exley of Keele University in England and his colleagues published a paper that for the first time looked at the brain tissue of subjects with autism to determine the level of aluminum (note: they spell “aluminum” as “aluminium” in the United Kingdom) found within their brain tissue. For anyone trying to convince the world that “the science is settled and vaccines don’t cause autism,” the study’s findings are deeply contradictory to that statement. In a blog post written by Professor Exley on the day his study was published, he explained the groundbreaking results:

“…while the aluminium content of each of the 5 brains [of people with autism] was shockingly high it was the location of the aluminium in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation…The new evidence strongly suggests that aluminium is entering the brain in ASD [autism spectrum disorders] via pro-inflammatory cells which have become loaded up with aluminium in the blood and/or lymph, much as has been demonstrated for monocytes at injection sites for vaccines including aluminium adjuvants.” …..

Black schools are “bad” due to progressive minority rule – incompetence, criminality, corruption. The schools get plenty of money.

https://nypost.com/2016/02/07/city-fires-school-of-no-principal-for-extreme-misconduct/

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2016/03/29/feds-charge-9-current-and-former-detroit-school-principals/82375712/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/28/ex-chicago-schools-chief-faces-sentencing-kickback-scheme/101021272/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/us/baltimore-schools-winter-heating.html

https://www.ajc.com/news/education/atlanta-educators-cheating-scandal-sentenced-prison/1gL2add42XwXgsOCPtAkFM/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/a-short-guide-to-dc-public-schools-scandals/2018/03/08/c40e2c4e-2170-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.661ae48dcb50

Funny? No. It makes perfect sense that poor schools are in poor areas since property taxes are generally used to fund education.

Have you ever looked at statistics of per pupil expenditures in those poor schools? That does not appear to be their problem. Here is a simple comparison of two extreme examples of US school performance: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-girls-outperform-girls-in-math-in-dysfunctional-places-like-detroit-but-not-in-functional-places-like-cupertino/#comment-2376157

The (much) worse performing school outspends the other by over 50%.

I have much more data available if you actually want to have a real conversation about this.

Yes, you are quite correct I replied to your comment more as a monologue than as directly addressing your post. I did this because it has been such an eyeopener to discover what online learning is truly like instead of how it has been protrayed by the media and others.

My interest has been motivated by the question: Could a person achieve excellence at a broad range of subjects at the college level. Similar experiments have been done by choosing a single domain and then devoting all of one’s life energy to achieving extreme success in one highly defined task. With such single minded focus, one could be expected to perhaps be the best at an activity at the level of 1 in a million (or even better). Yet, how about a more diffuse goal of achieving excellence across various subjects typically encountered in college.

After running my experiment for quite some time now I have reached the conclusion with n=1 that it is indeed quite possible to achieve extreme success when one devotes oneself single-mindedly to an assortment of college courses. As an example of the level of success that I am referring to, a central marker in one of my courses noted in an email that my ability demonstrated on the final exam was the highest or very close to the highest that the marker had ever seen. As a rough guess, I think this might reflect achievement at the level of perhaps 1 in a 1000. This might be 3 sigma or roughly 150 IQ level.

Of course, equating excellence in one specific narrowly defined subject to a broader assertion of g is not a psychometrically valid comparison. Nonetheless, there is an enormous contrast that I can perceive when I remember my half hour chemistry labs with possibly a minimal effort and perhaps displaying a 100 IQ or less ability level and the few months I had with a home lab and multiple rounds of creative insights and innovations and perhaps demonstrating a 150 IQ ability level. I am not entirely sure what the point of even measuring the results of all those tepid half hour efforts is supposed to prove. It seems so psychometrically plausible and all the normal curves say exactly what your preconceived assumptions had assumed, and yet it might simply all be totally incorrect.
Someone with their home chem lab, could run the experiment and produce a report that the possibly tens of millions of others in the half hour club never did.

I am not interested in bragging or boosting my ego. I simply find this a very interesting finding. It does lead me to question some of the core beliefs of psychometrics. Specifically, what does it really mean
if you give millions of high school students half an hour to complete their lab assignment and then measure the distribution of their achievement at this task. I would not be at all surprised if a perfectly symmetrical bell curve would result.

The big insight that I have gained is that when you change the underlying assumptions and now say instead of an in class half hour lab, we’ll send you a home lab and your have two months to complete the experiment, then an entirely different result emerges. This was certainly true for me. It was quite extraordinary how much creativity I was able to generate by simply having the time. In fact, with some of the experiments I found ways to substantially improve the experimental design using the existing equipment using a new technique. My instructor found my ideas highly innovative and mentioned that it would be recommended to incorporate this in future versions of the course. Yet, my assertions of intellectual property protection were not viewed with favor.

I have been constantly surprised how I have consistently demonstrated this level of comprehension and innovation across a wide range of courses.

This might have seemed like my second monologue in response to your second post. However, it should be clear now that it really is not.

“Anyone who claims that the online experiences is superior is clearly not comprehending the value that some skills and critical thinking … some courses require hands on experience”

This statement did have plausibility until one remembers the sort of behavior that is actually typically demonstrated in an academic environment. When you timetable a chem lab for half an hour, the opportunity for critical thinking almost vanishes. It is not so much a chem lab but following a baking recipe. With the home lab, when I woke up at midnight and wondered what if I tried this … then I could go right to my lab and try it out. Several times I did just that.

“Curious if you can identify which skill set is the most salient to your every day life.”

The most salient skill that generalizes to my every day life has to be the ability to research anything.
This has to be the most startling lesson that I have picked up from my courses. I have said it on unz before but I think I should keep on saying it because it is a very valuable lesson.

In information age, any well-posed question can be researched and researched more until highly comprehensive and informative answers can be given. This is very surprising to me. I remember in previous academic experiences that I question on an assignment would ask some question that was not directly considered in the textbook. It would then be almost impossible to answer it. Without an infotech database, there was almost zero proximal knowledge. Even the school library likely would be little or no help in finding the solution that you were looking for. However, after all the courses that I have no taken with extensive internet resources provided to me, there has yet to be any questions that I could not research endlessly until finding highly informed responses. In fact, often I have disputed the questions themselves because I have found countering research that might in some way invalidate the question itself. My tutors appear to have given up even bothering reading my assignments because they must realize that the internet is simply too powerful a tool to hide the answer to any question.

The ability to research and find solutions to a variety of problems is an overwhelming helpful and powerful path to a better life. Time and time again I have been confronted with some problem and my initial hunch of how it should best be solved has been shown to be not the best way at all. It is startling how much the internet has extended and magnified my intellectual reach.

Your final point from your first point also was a considerable surprise to me.
Yes, it does appear that reading the textbook goes a long way to achieving extreme course success.
This is something that I has been highly surprising to me.

In all of my online courses, the uni sends/e-transfers me a text. This is the central focus for my course. I then have a tutor. I try to make contact with the tutor at least once a week. Sometimes
I just email to say hi and keep open the connection. In my last course I had no much more than 10 contacts during the entire course. I do know however that even minimal contact makes the course much easier to complete. I have taken correspondence courses in which I had to go to the post office to send a note to my tutor. Those courses were truly brutal. That level of isolation makes the course almost impossible to complete. Email support, even if I only need it a few times in a course makes learning a breeze.

The textbook, thus, has been essentially my central connection to course content in nearly all my subjects. One big trick that I have used to supplement the text is to go online and find related course material. Yet, it is highly surprising to me how little actual interaction I have required. I think about being in a typical classroom where the teacher would provide ongoing instruction perhaps for up to 100 hours in a course. I am just not sure how meaningful that is to helping students learn the course content. Moving more to a flipped classroom model would make a great deal more sense to me and could make classrooms more competitive.

It certainly motivates me to ask: Where does all the education investment go and what are its returns?

I just am not sure whether buying another Olympic sized swimming pool, hiring yet more armed security, or even adding an extra wing to the school library will have any meaningful return on investment. From my personal experience about all that I have necessary is to receive the course textbook and I have then been able to achieve very high levels of success.

For your second post.

1. My current setup is consistent with being described as a home school environment.
There is no onsite moderators or instructors. The only contact is with the virtual tutors.

2. I agree that perhaps at some point in the learning process human interaction might be required,
though this could very well be at a very very early stage in development. After I graduated from primary school, my new school gave me an opportunity to skip my regular math class and go to a computer room and work on course material. The only instruction that I remember being given was here is the computer, and take it from there. That is what I did. From that point on for that academic year, I do not recall any further contact with my math teacher or my classmates. It is hard for me to believe that if I had been given this same opportunity in grade 6, 5, 4, 3,2 or possibly even 1, that the result would have been any different.

I have seen TV shows lately where they show kindergarten children happily working away on their computers apparently with little or no instruction. I have almost no doubt that if I had been placed in such a circumstance I would have greatly enjoyed myself, learning various subjects and would probably have started taking university level math courses before graduating from primary school.

3. The math and science courses that I took via the computer hookup really were largely foundational style courses. I do not remember much abstract math content from my primary schools days. I was able to transition into this higher level abstraction purely by working with a computer interface.

4. –

5. I have found it difficult to believe that the range of courses that I could master with only an online interface is so large. I would thought that purely answer driven subjects such as math, perhaps physics would have been the near limits of subjects for a virtual environment. This is not my experience. I have taken courses that are beyond merely rote learning and remembering datasets. For example, I took a foreign language. I would certainly have guessed that having social contacts with others in a real world context would be essentially an unbeatable road to succeeding at learning almost any language. This is quite possibly true. Yet, for me social interaction is an overwhelming barrier. Without current technology I would never have even bothered with many of the courses that I have taken. Many of the courses I have taken are the ones that I felt I had the least chance of success mostly because of a range of social or other barriers.

With the foreign language software I have there was zero social barrier to conquer. The software along with online language corpi, audio processing technology, and freely available online foreign language content resulted in a truly epic success in my online foreign language studies. Fortunately, no human contact was necessary. If such contact were required, then I do not believe my success would then have been possible.

6. Real world contact is clearly an enormous advantage and I think that if I could rewind the clock, then I would have jumped on a plane to a foreign land and experienced a foreign language and culture first hand. I think that such an opportunity is almost too great a chance to evolve as a person not to try. For many this can be such a psychological shock that they simply cannot cope with it (i.e. travelers’ syndrome).

However, the virtual simulations of language is impressive. Even with the technology that I was using, I had the sense that I was in a realistic depiction of what the real world encounter would be like. The latest software in English has essentially allowed virtual bots to duplicate to near perfection a high end simulation of conversation. It is no longer possible to know who is the bot and who is the person. I would tend to believe that this should be enough to pass one version of the Turing test.

The tutor that I referred to was my assigned virtual tutor. In many courses the actual tutor contact can be very limited.

My reference to “French classes” was related to past in class experiences, as you inferred. However, I was really considering this as a comparison to my experience in another language that I learned from scratch online. With my online learning there was never any real world contact with those who had even slight language ability. My online learning experience resulted in language proficiency that was orders of magnitude better than with the classroom instruction. My online instructor even appeared to believe that I was a native speaker.

Similar experiences that I have described above have also occurred in a range of other subjects. Most of these other subjects have been entirely novel to me and yet even starting from a zero knowledge base I have been able to excel at them.

My main message is that online learning can greatly magnify academic success and this could be considered by those who are concerned about the various problems in the school system and want an alternative. It is only by adding a competitive alternative that our current schools will finally make the changes that are necessary to better serve our kids.

“My interest has been motivated by the question: Could a person achieve excellence at a broad range of subjects at the college level. Similar experiments have been done by choosing a single domain and then devoting all of one’s life energy to achieving extreme success in one highly defined task. With such single minded focus, one could be expected to perhaps be the best at an activity at the level of 1 in a million (or even better). Yet, how about a more diffuse goal of achieving excellence across various subjects typically encountered in college. ”

My advice as an old person who did this what you ask is, do not do it. Yes, you can do it. Only that academic people in every field are against outsiders coming to their fields, so you will be easily ignored or pushed out. Harder time. Take one field, not for the reason that one could not excel in many fields, but because the others think that one cannot and should not, so must not. A narrowly scoped expert will go forward in his field, partially because he is not asked to do something else as he cannot do anything else, but if you can do many things, you will be asked to do them and you can never focus on one issue long and deep enough to get forward in any field. What you can achieve with IQ 3+ (or maybe should be a bit more) is to become professor in more than one discipline, but that is only more work and one salary. Better you select one field and stick on it. That is the ideal in this non-ideal world. Earlier, when we were hunter-gatherers, you had to be good in everything, then the specialists took over and they do not want to give their power back.

Quite true. But ignoring the biological realities is not helpful either, as it promotes actions that are harmful to the host society, such as mass immigration, demonizing achievements of the successful, and enforcing equality-of-outcome.

Quite true. But ignoring the biological realities is not helpful either, as it promotes actions that are harmful to the host society, such as mass immigration, demonizing achievements of the successful, and enforcing equality-of-outcome.

This is the same exact thing they said about Southern, Central and Northern European immigrants. I suspect you can trace your lineage back to one or more of those regions.

It’s better to be prepared to compete instead of hoping to get a free ride on an uneven playing field based on the remarkable achievement of being born white. Increasingly, those days are coming to an end. So get to work.

I appreciate you making my case for me. You have merely ignored and misunderstood what classroom instruction is and how it has played a role in your life.

What is it with guys like you? Online and/or self-study courses have excellent track records. Better than most classroom instruction for specific or specialized knowledge.

No one has yet learned to read via online learning, that I know of. So what? You can’t learn how to milk a cow from classroom teaching, either.

So, take a wider view, my good man. Learning is the object. Method of teaching is not.

But ignoring the biological realities is not helpful either

Who said anything about ignoring reality? Accepting reality, and dealing with it, is what I had in mind.

Try to hold back on your screaming case of racial purity, just a bit, huh?

I was going to break out the various problem you have used or will use in your life. s with your response. But instead i will keep it simple.

1. research is not the most used and therefore the most valuable skill tou need to know in your life.

2, Your phenomenological experience has a good many problems before making a case for mass online education as exceeding traditional courses, not the least of which is sample size, noted variables in question to the outcome and the interrelations said variables have on each other.

3. in my view given you previous response, you are changing several circumstances to justify your case such as the level of classroom course experiences with at least one tutor in your language skills classes. There are no specific comparisons between outcomes and to expectations that make your self assessment valid beyond you and even then there are some categorical and quantification issues.

The best I get from this response, it was good for me, it will be good for everyone, and despite the factor you note some unique features to you that would not apply the public in general. There are no controls to the crossover variables/factors. even in its simplest form –

schools require x at x cost.
online required x at x cost
i accomplished x by online study at x cost.
my achievements only met or surpassed those required in a classroom for less cost.

Nothing in your comments makes the case. But what undermines even what you have attempted to repair is that your evidence is based not on online education but sample size. You yourself state that it was the interference of the class environment that hindered your learning — hence my reference to independent study courses introduced into education for students with this cognitive interference issues — learning styles. That is not a case for online learning as a primary means for doing so.

let me skip you what you claim is your primary goal — since traditional classrooms have included online and computer technologies since the late seventies and in mass during the eighties forward — there is no question that of the assistance that online tech skills bring to learning — nothing new there. And the icing on the cake, students get the benefit of an experienced educator plus online tutoring access, etc with another huge and vital bonus –

the mandatory skills required to engage in human communication not via a computer — but face to face in real time. the residual and tangential learnings on top of direct instruction that takes place in classroom environments has no price tag

You sound like one of those online advocates from silicon valley pressing to online education — not improve efficiency, but to make a buck or two. Academia could always use more efficiency, but the inefficiency in the way is in bureaucracy, not dumping classrooms. But governors everywhere, especially in CA applaud your advocacy, after all, if we dump the classroom we could increase diverse learning by offering all courses in the language of the student —-

Oy veh. No sale here not even close.

off to your own little race. None of my comments is against online learning. And if you had actually read my comments you’d know that.

But your failure not the least of which is understanding what constitutes a classroom environment.

for this comment,

“Better than most classroom instruction for specific or specialized knowledge.”

there is but one response — vocational learning, trademanships, apprenticeships, ojt . . . . Apparently you are unfamiliar with most course work as well as what constitutes a classroom

off to your own little race. None of my comments is against online learning. And if you had actually read my comments you’d know that.

I read your comments. The bullshit level was significantly elevated.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Yeah, I know you’ve got your ego intertwined. My sympathies. However, I will put this is blunt terms: I wrote both self-study and online-study courses for about five years, ending in 2003; you are wrong in the majority of your assessment.

Since the discussion is not about online course design or assessments, you’ll have a very difficult time making a case that my comments have anything to with course design.

you’ll have a very difficult time making a case that my comments have anything to with course design.

LOL. I love a good non sequitur as much as the next guy.

You are wrong in the majority of your assessment.

At the moment, I don’t think you know

– what was being assessed or
– what constitutes a nonsequitor.

but as i noted, it would be interesting to see you try. this was one individuals experience to two very specific referenced courses and general references to what might be applicable to others as to this individual’s experience.

it did not even consist of a comparative advantage comparison —-
it does not include any test of a multiple variables introduced by the author.

nothing in my comments invalidates or challenges his experience in relation to online education for this person, save the references which contradicted each other or in some manner changed in as described and some issues with variable testing and inter-relatedness to each other or as stand alones to either mode of learning.

You are making hay where none exists.

Yes, this is very true that this is only my particular experience, though I thought it was worth sharing because I found the contrast between a class based experience and an online experience so very very large.

The online school experience has large advantages even getting the basic setup right.

For example, there have been recent reports that schools in our city have warmed up so much on occasions that teachers have reported temperatures in some classrooms approaching 100F. Shockingly, instead of being sensible and finding a creative solution of rescheduling classes, they simply trudge through. I suppose they will keep being heroic until they need to call in an ambulance to help those with heat stroke. I think the line has already been crossed between making the best of things and child abuse. Strangely, the easy solution to this problem would be to simply start and end the school year two weeks earlier. With my home school, I call class dismissed when the thermometer hits over 80. Great thing is that I can shift around the school day so that I am not hitting the high heat.

The overcrowding problem in some schools apparently was solved by having students arrive as early as 7:30 AM to their classes. This is pointless. If students have not rested properly and are not
in good sync with their circadian clock, optimal learning will not occur. I find that when I am truly immersed in deep learning, I start sleeping a great deal more. Forcing students to merely be present and not follow their natural learning clocks does is not sensible. Proper sleep is essential for learning. I even try to include daytime naps to further consolidate my learning. Of course, napping is another activity typically absent from traditional school environments.

Another trick I learned lately is the importance of production. Instead of reading a book silently, it is a better learning experience to actually read it out loud, or sing it out loud, or dance it out. The entire idea that study should be done in silence arises because when you have dozens of others in your class, if everyone were to actually be producing at the same time it would be bedlam. Schools never incorporated this basic idea into their physical design.

Aside from extraordinary learning and tremendous sense of joy that I have experienced during my online education, there is perhaps even more importantly the realization that this could be the solution for the ongoing deterioration of the social environment of much of the developed world’s educational system. The entire conception of a government based school system based largely on a geographic monopoly probably will inevitably need to be reconsidered. It should not be overly surprising to anyone that many of the worst acts of violence in the modern world are now committed in schools often by schoolchildren. This follows as a natural consequence of the near absence of innovation.

In my vision of the future of schools, students could choose their educational experiences from a great range of available options. For example, perhaps they might like to start their day off with 3-4 hours of home schooling, and then perhaps go to a chem lab where they could pursue their interest in a particular experience, or perhaps share their research findings to their peers in a collaborative less structured style of learning. I think the idea of incorporating a travel component would also be a great way to learn a language. By creating a less rigid system and introducing competition and innovation, much of the increasingly disturbing school pathology would correct itself. For whatever reason this more positive vision of education has yet to emerge to the extent that I would have expected.

Well, I am not going to critique your personal experience beyond what I have already said.

Well, temperature can certainly hinder one’s study environment. I don’t have a view about what an institution should or should not do about heat or cold — myriads of societies manage with no control over either than fire place.

I doubt that teachers will disappear anytime soon, though I suspect we could save a good deal of money bu hiring teachers from other countries for basic math, science and social studies and save some serious money.

Sure there are a myriad of learning formats, traditional , group, Montessori, collective and co-op environments as well as independent study, charter schools and home school systems. Given societies where most parents work and some hold two jobs, the public system of education is probably the most cost effective all ’round. Though post high school, vocational and some trades might be able to transition to online only —- doubtful. However, it is unlikely that most students will arrive at online education with your aptitude, education, experience and IQ as noted by you.

Your experience while feasible and profitable to you is probably not effective for most people seeking higher education.

Not that traditional education is not without serious issues — that is not my contention.

about hiring foreigners –

that’s me being sarcastic.

build the wall

It seems to me that the IQ of American people in government (with some exceptions) is extremely low, they are easily fooled by migrants with IQ of 70 or 80, and by Mexican rulers with IQ of 85.
Now the Mexican chancellor Videgaray, considered as a fool by most Mexicans since he invited Trump to Mexico before the elections in 2016, is trying to be the Emperor of the world, he wants to dictate his orders to USA for immigration policy. He says he and Mexico will push international organizations to obligate Trump to treat the Mexican illegals like royalty. Maybe he wants them to be sent to 5 stars hotels and all the bills paid by USA. He says USA and Trump are very bad for the treatment given to illegals. USA should order Central Americans NOT to send more people to USA, crossing all Mexican land. Central Americans go to USA because Mex government invites them to migrate and invade USA. Mexico wants to place more Latins in some States of USA, for evil purposes. After that, Texas will be next, then New Mexico, and so on. One by one Mexico will steal a lot of States. Most politicians of USA still dont see this Mexican plan to steal big territory from USA.
Americans need to breed with white Europeans, not with brown Mexicans, if they want to increase the IQ of population.

IQ is a good measure

A good measure does not fluctuate up and down the way IQ does. Give us a genetic explanation for this.

Btw, the IQ of african-americans is greater than the IQ of Lebanon, Syria and the rest of MENA. And the IQ of Israel (95) is almost a full SD lower than the IQ of Singapore (108). How does that fit into your racial narrative?

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

Same with brain size.

Find the correlation on this map:

Looks like 10 Sub-Saharan African countries are in the same category as Japan, UK, MENA, Southern Europe, Turkey, Caucasus, the Balkans.

Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole is bigger brained than South Asia and mainland Southeast Asia.

The biggest brains are found among the arctic mongoloids (Siberians, Inuit etc) who are not known for their intelligence. On the other hand ashkenazi jews aren’t known to have big brains.

Maybe you should google a bit before posting your bullshit?

Equating brain size with intelligence is another example of pseudoscience:

https://phys.org/news/2005-01-einsteins-brain.html

Einstein’s brain weighed only 1,230 grams, less than the average adult brain which weighs about 1,400 grams.

According to this book Ashkenazi Jews have smaller brains than gentile Europeans:

https://archive.org/stream/jewsstudyofracee00fish/jewsstudyofracee00fish_djvu.txt

As to the weight of the brain, there are also very few
observations on record. The author knows only of twenty-
three Jewish brains reported by Giltchenko,^ four by
Weisbach,* and three by Weinberg.” The average weight
of these brains, as calculated by Weinberg, was 1320.4 gm.
Since the average weight of the brain of the European
is 1350 gms., the brain of Jews is rather lighter by 30

The there is this:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”

Some believe the erosion of our gray matter means that modern humans are indeed getting dumber. (Late-night talk show hosts, take note—there’s got to be some good comic material to mine here.) Other authorities argue just the opposite: As the brain shrank, its wiring became more efficient, transforming us into quicker, more agile thinkers.

Same with brain size.

Find the correlation on this map:

Or you could just look at the numbers.

From this presentation by Heiner Rindermann (slide 17): https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/hsw/psychologie/professuren/entwpsy/team/rindermann/pdfs/London15V.pdf

Brain size (cranial capacity)

Brain size and intelligence are related:

– individually: r=.56 (Deary et al., 2007, meta-analyses lower at around r=.40, Rushton & Ankney, 2009);
– evolutionarily: increase of brain size in evolution (r=.95; Henneberg & de Miguel, 2004, p. 27);
– historically: in 20th century head and brain sizes increased and similarly average intelligence of each generation (Lynn, 1990);
– cross-nationally (N=164) using data from Beals et al. (1984) cranial capacity and intelligence correlate at r=.77 (and cranial capacity with absolute latitude at r=.70 [Meisenberg, personal communication]).

Both cranial capacity (Table A.4) and cognitive ability (Table A.2) data for countries are available in https://www.unz.com/jthompson/rindermann-supplies-cognitive-capitalism-appendixes-free/
if anyone wants to look at the country correlations themselves.

Equating brain size with intelligence is another example of pseudoscience:

Arguing against “Equating brain size with intelligence” is another example of a strawman.

As the brain shrank, its wiring became more efficient, transforming us into quicker, more agile thinkers.

Wouldn’t the best of both worlds be having more efficient wiring as well as larger physical size? I am guessing at some point we will be able to see the size/efficiency contributions separately in genetic data.

https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/daily-reading-2c3/

Academics are cultural illiterates. Paper and pencil tests can’t distinguish the best tracker in the Kalahari from the worst. Also, John Ioannidis’s (Stanford epidemiology) research on reproducibility in research shows psychology to be 30% reproducible, among the worst in science.

The IQ-brain size studies are the hardest evidence for IQ differences. Flynn Effect blows them out of the water, there can be no culturally-independent IQ test, we can’t even make one across generations in our own populations. Beyond that, neural architecture must be a factor, Grey Parrots are as intelligent as chimps.

Bushels of salt and wide knowledge are necessary to evaluate the IQ-genetics literature, not life-long study of it.

I came West with two other white guys and a white girl. One of the guys was into drumming. He would go down to Aquatic Park in San Francisco and beat his drums (conga drums) with the black drummers. But he was not fully accepted. He told me that after beating the same pattern for a long time he would get bored and introduce a variation. That annoyed the blacks who just preferred to continue to do the same pattern over and over. They rejected white style drumming. They thought that authentic African drumming was endlessly repetitive.

There has never been a serious black composer. The Chinese-Japanese-Koreans are all symphony and opera attendees but few blacks. I think it’s IQ.

Extraordinary comment, Pat.

I was a young percussion student many years ago. I practiced, I learned most of the rudiments, I had a second-hand drum kit my Mom had bought me, and I spent my own money when I had it to buy “traps”, and add interest to my playing. After six or seven years I developed some proficiency, I think, and had the makings of what I believed to be my own style, a sort of jazz-rock “thing” that was popular.

Nonetheless, my school had become increasingly Black, and my school music teacher was no exception to the rule that Black plodders were to be advanced while Whites would just have to make do. The Black kid who was picked as “first percussionist”, or whatever we called it, only understood “loud”, and, if my memory’s okay, he was permanently stuck in 2/4 time.

I quit drumming after high school. Drums don’t quite fit a dormitory. But, I still recall the satisfaction of playing a musical instrument that people enjoyed.

Blacks were always good musical interpreters, specially in regards to rhythmic innovation.
However, all those genres you mention, make use of white-created instruments, not to mention European musical scales, chords, and notation. True, percussion has been invented the world over, yet the current standard drum set used in most pop was also invented by whites.

Would black geniuses have invented the blues and rock n’ roll and funk without borrowing the Spaniard’s guitar, or Scotch-Irish ballads and hymns? Or would they have come up with said guitar’s electrification by white Americans who wanted a “Hawaiian” sound? Would black creators invent the upright piano for ragtime or swing, or the bass guitar for disco, or the sax for jazz? (Or Jesus for their spirituals? Well the Cuban santeros still sing to Changó I reckon, though quite differently.) Would hip hop have been invented by black aesthetes if whites (plus Asians) had not invented the sequencer and synth and sampler and other multitude studio contraptions? What would Afrikaa Bambataa and the Zulu Nation’s Planet Rock be without Kraftwerk’s Radio-Aktivitat? (yes, in German – if there is a bright shining lie in your comment is that blacks created electronic music).

Oh, but then you will say “music instruments are universal”. If so, the sounds they produce are universal too, and black music isn’t black anymore, but universal as well. It is a silly proposition; but there is some truth to it in regards that in the current mass-commercialized music era, your music isn’t only directed at your tribe anymore, specially if you want to sell. Which explains why Jay Z et al have to talk about consumerism and exaggerated bravado, so bored whites buy the albums – blacks don’t tend to. In fact, if anything, black American music has also been shaped by white American consumers’ sensibilities for decades, more and more thanks to integration. There’s a reason why today mulatto-Jew-Canadian Drake is more culturally relevant than Queens’ much more authentic Nas.

I will concede, regarding this last point, that at least current black American music uplifts its creators’ ethnicity (and virility) on purpose, and gets released and lauded for it, whether in the shiny mainstream or the gritty underground scenes. Current white music outside of country seems the weepiest, cuckiest folk rock ever, or more cuck-hipster revivalism of anything between 60s and 80s, or just more electronic dance rhythms. Is this maybe a signal that a new whiter musical trend is dying to appear? Guess the future will tell.

signed – a Hispanic with little to no musical talent who digs Metallica, Kanye, Soda Stereo, and many others…

So you just boil it down to the tired old argument of “everything is the same, you just prefer something different”… that applies to sonic fads in the commercial pop music environment. But as for musicians who prefer aesthetics over commercial value (and their fans), their favorite genres live forever in their performances. This last statement could apply to any musician of any color, really; for example, you’d prefer the aesthetics of hip hop to jazz or rock, regardless of the prowess of jazz or rock players, and even if for some reason jazz or rock became more popular than hip hop again.

Can Jay Z arrange a string quartet piece? Or play the keyboard without looking down?
Or rather, what would Jay Z do without white producer Rick Rubin doing the arrangements for 99 Problems? In fact, a lot of pop music today wouldn’t exist without white-composed music from Bach to the Beatles providing templates (Jew-mulatto Jimi Hendrix covered them and even pastier Bob Dylan, ironically his guitar pyrotechnics being liked more by whites than by blacks still). Specially since, the consumers (not mere listeners, PAYING consumers) of Western pop music are mostly Western whites.

Dre and Kanye and others do have great skills as producers, they are clearly musically trained to some degree (specially suburban, Trumpist, Kanye) or at least got musical ear. But again, the genre’s musical background pretty much depends on more or less the same sampling and sequencing techniques used decades ago by the Grandmaster Flash, Beastie Boys and others – just made more complex and easier to arrange due to (white and Asian) electronics and software. Starting with the microphone, then loudspeakers, then turntables, then synthesizing and sampling, and then later compression and leveling techniques and other software tricks that make every record less dynamic and more loud – in detriment of rock and classical and world music, in favor of thumping pop/edm/rap/reggaetón/etc.

As for jazz, it is probably the highest form of black American music – and yet, it is the one blacks listen to the least today (your anecdote included), their spot taken by old Jewish NPR listeners who probably saw Coltrane or Davis live… Now that it comes to mention, black culture at the time of the creation of jazz was much less separatist than today’s; why do you think they used so many white/ instruments? And, was this better? Again, perhaps you don’t aesthetically like jazz, but recognize that there was more logistical and technical ability involved in playing that genre…

At any rate, a much better hypothetical question would be, what would Beethoven or Mozart or Chopin compose with the technology available today…

There’s a lot more to black (And African) music than rhythm. Many native types of music in subsaharan Africa are quite melodic. Stringed instruments—e.g harps, lutes, harp-lutes (like the 21-stinged kora used by bards and the ancient donso ngoni harp used by hunters which is the ancestor of the kora and whose roots are likely meso-neolithic/even predating metallurgy, both native to Southern Mali, and the also very ancient Malian hunter’s harp the bolon—as elsewhere, harp-lutes began simpler an evolved to greater complexity) pluriarcs and stick zithers (especially seen in West Central Africa around Cameroon/Congo), musical bows (as well as a great variety of winds/flutes/horns and llamelophones such as the thumb piano and xylophone called balafon in Mali) are widespread and indigenous in West and Central Africa (and other regions).

Of course those black American genres (listed) have (varying amounts of) European influence (certainly Jazz and ragtime have a good amount), but the blues (classic/early country blues) is heavily African/African influenced melodically (with usually only minor British Isles influence in certain cases. Whereas country/Appalachian music is mostly of British folk origin—especially from Northern England/Southern Scotland, where the so-called Scotch-Irish mostly originated—with usually only very minor African influences in some cases). It’s tunes (those of much classic county blues that is) derive more from the music of the West African savannah and Sahel region (of peoples such as the Bambara, Wolof and Soninke, and to a lesser extent the Mandinka who’s scales and instruments are native to the Western savannah), as well as to some extent from the peoples of Western Central Africa (who were also quite common/fairly common among the slaves brought to the Americas).

“Poyi! Bamana jeli music, Mali, and the blues” by Lucy Duran

http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/19491/1/CJAC_A_792725.pdf

Also see the work of Gerhard Kubik on the Blues (where he also discusses the distinctive melodic traditions native to the Western savannah/at the core of Western Savannah music, and also those of Central Africa, and the influence of both on blues), or of African musicologist Kofu Agawu.

(re Malian harps)
“Mande Music: Traditional and Modern Music of the Maninka and Mandinka of Western Africa”
By Eric S. Charry, p. 27

Full drum kit no (but I would not really call the pressure drum or the talking drums of West and West Central Africa crude)
And there are many indigenous subsaharan African harps, lutes pluriarcs, etc and other stringed instruments—see my reply to commenter Disordered—(which are diverse and widespread in Africa—most of which evolved indigenously, as all tinged instruments ultimately do, from the musical bow); as well as other complex melodic instruments such as various multi-chord flutes, the thumb piano/aka mbira or sansa (which is indigenous to and very ancient in the forest region of West Africa around S.E Nigeria, later spreading to Central and Southern Africa millennia ago), and the xylophone (which is popular in Western savannah countries like Mali, Burkina Faso and parts of the Ivory Coast, as well as Central Africa/the general Congo area and the greater Zimbabwe region: and large xylophone also ensembles exist among tribes such as the Chopi of Mozambique). I would not exactly say that negroes are musically exceptional (not in the sense of being inherently better than other groups; as other peoples—i.e in Europe, Asia, the Near East etc—obviously also have their own great native musical traditions as well.) but I would say that blacks (of various/certain black cultures) have held their own/been notable musically.

Edit:
“Many native types of music in subsaharan Africa are quite melodic (e.g. the music of the Western savannah and sahel; the Seperewa harp music of the Ghanaian Ashanti and other Akan tribes; of the East Central African lakes region e.g Uganda/Rwanda—; the flute and other music of the Igbo, Edo and other various similar ethnic groups in South Nigeria; the Xylophone music of various bantu tribes of Southern, South Central, and parts of Central Africa—e.g around Mozambique, Zimbabwe—and the choral music of tribes like the Zulu and Xosa or South Africa.”

” the ancient indigenous donso ngoni (and bolon) harp-lutes used traditionally by hunters in the Western savannah, which is the ancestor of the Malian kora (used by bards), and whose roots in are likely mesolithic-neolithic (or possibly earlier)…”

Edits:
“…and the also very ancient Malian hunter’s harp the bolon—as elsewhere, harp-lutes there began simpler an evolved to greater complexity)
“…pluriarcs (a kind of multi-necked harp, especially seen around Cameroon/Congo/Gabon) and stick zithers (seen in various parts of Central Africa, as well as some parts of West and Eastern Central Africa, along with other harps).”

Edit:
“I would not exactly say that blacks are musically exceptional, at least not in the sense of necessarily being better than most other groups musically; as other peoples—i.e in Europe…have their own great musical traditions) Exceptional perhaps yes in the sense of having their own notable traditions of music and producing many talented musicians/composers

they has been selected

Don’t ever post about intelligence again, pal.

I read something years ago, [70s?] about a correlation with when the mother began having children, and their IQ, a general optimum being 25, is this in the stats anywhere? It was also reflected in better health and longevity and extended fertility. I guess I’m asking if a cultural shift could affect the outcomes?

It was interesting to follow the long debate between Factorize and Elitecomminc (sorry for the spelling). I attended university before there was an internet, studying chemistry and physics. It became evident early on that 99% of my learning was accomplished with several hours per day with texts. The class time was mostly a waste of time. If one thoroughly and relentlessly mastered the text there were few questions for a professor or lecturer. It was necessary to show up each week to take one of the tests which added up to a percentage of the final grade. I wasted much time going back and forth to classes.

Lab work is harder to do by oneself because of the considerable expense of glassware, scales, the chromatography equipment and so on. Going onto the working world I was chagrinned to realize the universities were decades behind the private sector in technology. All the university lab work had to be relearned.

Maybe there is some benefit in sitting at the feet of some charismatic, or especially brilliant, professor. I didn’t have the good fortune to meet one of those. I don’t think many talented people enter the education business. The best teachers were people who had worked in industry and chose to teach some classes in their retirement years.

If a person can systematically study any subject he or she can master it. The purpose of education is to bring one to the point where he can self-educate. Some learn this early. Some never learn. Factorize seems to be moving in the right direction.

Who are they? Why, idiots of course.