Andrew Sabisky's comments on intelligence

[Pamela]

Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.

"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).

"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.

"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.

"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."

There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.

James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
chancellor after he told the Sunday Times he was:

"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".

The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

[Pancho]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).

Lol! prophetic.

But of course the journalists don't care about the facts.

Hopefully Boris will have learnt the lesson from Corbyn and will not
appease this type of nonsense. I note he is threatening to abolish the
TV licence, I hope he does.

[abelard]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish

it's fake 'science'

Post by Pamela
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

[Greekbastard®™]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

It's also jew disinformation.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:57:48 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous

Post by Greekbastard®™

Post by abelard
near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

It's also jew disinformation.

Nope, it's another demonstration of your clinical insanity!

[Michael Ejercito]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

In what way is it fake science?


Michael

[Grikbassturder®™]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:53:45 -0800, "NOT Michael Ejercito"

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

In what way is it fake science?

WE aks the questions, gook.

What is a gook illegally infesting the Gerat Satan doing in a
UKrainian legal group?

[Peeler]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:57:23 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassturder®™", farted

Post by Grikbassturder®™

Post by Michael Ejercito
In what way is it fake science?

WE aks the questions, gook.

No you don't, dreckserb! YOU only get your bleeding psychopathic ass
clobbered here and your stupid serbian gob filled with the shit people
enjoy dumping in it, you poor psychopathic shiteating serbian asshole.

And now open your big filthy serbian gob WIDE...

Post by Grikbassturder®™
What is a gook illegally infesting the Gerat Satan doing in a
UKrainian legal group?

<BG> More of the usual ridiculous psychotic bullshit!

[abelard]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:53:45 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

In what way is it fake science?

i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php

if you do have the ability, then ask further

[Vidcapper]

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

[Pamela]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

Is that site still up? I thought the original owner might have taken it down
by now.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

Is that site still up? I thought the original owner might have taken it down
by now.

Not only is it still in existence, there is a Twitter account as well.

https://twitter.com/abelard_org

It has yet to rival Ed Sheehan in its millions of followers, but everyone has
to start somewhere.

The website reminds me of something produced by Clarisworks in the 1990s.

[Pamela]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

Is that site still up? I thought the original owner might have taken it
down by now.

Not only is it still in existence, there is a Twitter account as well.
https://twitter.com/abelard_org
It has yet to rival Ed Sheehan in its millions of followers, but
everyone has to start somewhere.
The website reminds me of something produced by Clarisworks in the 1990s.

His Twitter site has the byline, "an informative educational knowledge source
for all".

Right.

[abelard]

Post by Pamela

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

Is that site still up? I thought the original owner might have taken it
down by now.

Not only is it still in existence, there is a Twitter account as well.
https://twitter.com/abelard_org
It has yet to rival Ed Sheehan in its millions of followers, but
everyone has to start somewhere.
The website reminds me of something produced by Clarisworks in the 1990s.

His Twitter site has the byline, "an informative educational knowledge source
for all".
Right.

it wouldn't sound good if i said 'excluding idiots'

[abelard]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

[Keema's Nan]

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

I think you have that the wrong way around.

It is eyes that *are* capable of colour discrimination which are offended the
most.

[abelard]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:43:59 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

I think you have that the wrong way around.
It is eyes that *are* capable of colour discrimination which are offended the
most.

if your eye offend thee...cut them off

[Vidcapper]

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

IMO you'd get more repeat visitors if you just toned it down though.

Regards,

[abelard]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

IMO you'd get more repeat visitors if you just toned it down though.

that would take considerable experimentation...it's doing fine
at present

the available efforts are going into making the site mobile
...i expect that to take at least a year..

[Incubus]

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

IMO you'd get more repeat visitors if you just toned it down though.

that would take considerable experimentation...it's doing fine
at present
the available efforts are going into making the site mobile
...i expect that to take at least a year..

It shouldn't take anywhere close to a year. It's a relatively simple site -
plain text and some images. We're not talking about a single-page responsive
app.

Using agent detection and some CSS is a traditional approach. There are
prepackaged CSS files that could be used to facilitate this and you can edit
them to your heart's content if the colours are too aesthetically pleasing for
you.

Skeleton looks quite good:

http://getskeleton.com/

A lot of people just use Wordpress these days.

[abelard]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:25:24 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

IMO you'd get more repeat visitors if you just toned it down though.

that would take considerable experimentation...it's doing fine
at present
the available efforts are going into making the site mobile
...i expect that to take at least a year..

It shouldn't take anywhere close to a year. It's a relatively simple site -
plain text and some images. We're not talking about a single-page responsive
app.
Using agent detection and some CSS is a traditional approach. There are
prepackaged CSS files that could be used to facilitate this and you can edit
them to your heart's content if the colours are too aesthetically pleasing for
you.
http://getskeleton.com/
A lot of people just use Wordpress these days.

i've passed your advice on

i'm told its like a shanty town :-)
people have many other calls on their skills and time...
there are also some rather complex pages

at least it functions at present and does much of its job

thanx for your comments

[WWWWWWWWDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW]

Post by Incubus

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:09:09 +0000, Vidcapper

Post by Vidcapper

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:09:54 +0000, Vidcapper

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site,
though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

IMO you'd get more repeat visitors if you just toned it down
though.

that would take considerable experimentation...it's doing fine
at present
the available efforts are going into making the site mobile
...i expect that to take at least a year..

It shouldn't take anywhere close to a year. It's a relatively simple
site - plain text and some images. We're not talking about a
single-page responsive app.
Using agent detection and some CSS is a traditional approach. There
are prepackaged CSS files that could be used to facilitate this and
you can edit them to your heart's content if the colours are too
aesthetically pleasing for you.
http://getskeleton.com/
A lot of people just use Wordpress these days.

Have you got any tips on SEO, I could use some.

[Pamela]

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard

Post by Vidcapper

Post by abelard
i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

The usual 'wear sunglasses' warning if visiting that site, though. :P

or learn to adjust your browser to you tastes if your
eyes are not capable of colour discrimination

IMO you'd get more repeat visitors if you just toned it down though.
Regards,

Maybe Babbelard is partially colour-blind and can't see the lurid dayglow
spectacle every one else sees on that site.

[Martin Brown]

Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:53:45 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish

It may become possible to establish as and when the DNA sequences that
code for the most important brain proteins become fully established.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intelligence-and-the-dna-revolution/

They have already found about 3 dozen gene mutations correlated with IQ.
Interesting that height is also correlated with IQ too.

In the USA I'd say parental wealth was the major factor in their quality
of education since their state funded education system is at best patchy
and at worst intentionally designed to keep the underclass in its place.
Teaching to the SATS test and external tutoring further skews the data
in favour of the rich kids.

Bad news for the ignorant white racists though is that true pure bred
Homo Sapiens is the African form. Now that genetic sequencing has become
routine white Eurasians are typically found with about 1-4% Neanderthal
DNA and so better adapted to northern climes with lower light levels.

https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html

It isn't clear if that makes us smarter or dumber on a population
average, but it would be very surprising if it had no effect at all. The
individual variation in any given population is huge though so finding
any such race based differences by testing will be nigh on impossible.

However, finding DNA sequences that correlate with IQ is already
possible. I suspect there will be many different genes but who knows...

I am not convinced that there is a significant race difference in
intelligence as such but there can still be a very big difference in
motivation to study based on home circumstances.

Post by abelard

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard
it's fake 'science'

In what way is it fake science?

i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

OK. Lets see if we can find some common ground then.

IQ tests measure something broadly correlated with "intelligence"
(but not with common sense).

One manifestation of people who are often good at such tests is that
they have an inherent ability to do pattern matching and remember things
that interest them in great detail (forgetting things that don't).

Self taught chess prodigies that come from nowhere an obvious example.

Whilst I agree with your point that the IQ measure is almost certainly
not normally distributed (since it has a potentially infinite high side
tail and stops at zero) the weak law of large numbers means that it is a
reasonable approximation to Gaussian out to 3 sigma or so from the mean.
(assuming the test is reasonably designed for the IQ range being tested)

The places where IQ tests really fail badly are in cultures where the
outside environment is so hostile that making any mistake can be life
threatening. Children brought up in such cultures tend to stop at the
first question that they cannot answer. Seriously skewing the results.

You can teach them better exam technique to try and counteract it, but
culture to get things right is deeply ingrained and for good reason.

[abelard]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:27:32 +0000, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:53:45 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish

It may become possible to establish as and when the DNA sequences that
code for the most important brain proteins become fully established.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intelligence-and-the-dna-revolution/
They have already found about 3 dozen gene mutations correlated with IQ.
Interesting that height is also correlated with IQ too.
In the USA I'd say parental wealth was the major factor in their quality
of education since their state funded education system is at best patchy
and at worst intentionally designed to keep the underclass in its place.
Teaching to the SATS test and external tutoring further skews the data
in favour of the rich kids.
Bad news for the ignorant white racists though is that true pure bred
Homo Sapiens is the African form. Now that genetic sequencing has become
routine white Eurasians are typically found with about 1-4% Neanderthal
DNA and so better adapted to northern climes with lower light levels.
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html
It isn't clear if that makes us smarter or dumber on a population
average, but it would be very surprising if it had no effect at all. The
individual variation in any given population is huge though so finding
any such race based differences by testing will be nigh on impossible.
However, finding DNA sequences that correlate with IQ is already
possible. I suspect there will be many different genes but who knows...
I am not convinced that there is a significant race difference in
intelligence as such but there can still be a very big difference in
motivation to study based on home circumstances.

Post by abelard

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard
it's fake 'science'

In what way is it fake science?

i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

OK. Lets see if we can find some common ground then.
IQ tests measure something broadly correlated with "intelligence"
(but not with common sense).
One manifestation of people who are often good at such tests is that
they have an inherent ability to do pattern matching and remember things
that interest them in great detail (forgetting things that don't).
Self taught chess prodigies that come from nowhere an obvious example.
Whilst I agree with your point that the IQ measure is almost certainly
not normally distributed (since it has a potentially infinite high side
tail and stops at zero) the weak law of large numbers means that it is a
reasonable approximation to Gaussian out to 3 sigma or so from the mean.
(assuming the test is reasonably designed for the IQ range being tested)
The places where IQ tests really fail badly are in cultures where the
outside environment is so hostile that making any mistake can be life
threatening. Children brought up in such cultures tend to stop at the
first question that they cannot answer. Seriously skewing the results.
You can teach them better exam technique to try and counteract it, but
culture to get things right is deeply ingrained and for good reason.

that lot seems generally reasonable to me...

[Pancho]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:27:32 +0000, Martin Brown
that lot seems generally reasonable to me...

lol!

[Farmer Giles]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:27:32 +0000, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:53:45 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish

It may become possible to establish as and when the DNA sequences that
code for the most important brain proteins become fully established.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intelligence-and-the-dna-revolution/
They have already found about 3 dozen gene mutations correlated with IQ.
Interesting that height is also correlated with IQ too.
In the USA I'd say parental wealth was the major factor in their quality
of education since their state funded education system is at best patchy
and at worst intentionally designed to keep the underclass in its place.
Teaching to the SATS test and external tutoring further skews the data
in favour of the rich kids.
Bad news for the ignorant white racists though is that true pure bred
Homo Sapiens is the African form. Now that genetic sequencing has become
routine white Eurasians are typically found with about 1-4% Neanderthal
DNA and so better adapted to northern climes with lower light levels.
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html
It isn't clear if that makes us smarter or dumber on a population
average, but it would be very surprising if it had no effect at all. The
individual variation in any given population is huge though so finding
any such race based differences by testing will be nigh on impossible.
However, finding DNA sequences that correlate with IQ is already
possible. I suspect there will be many different genes but who knows...
I am not convinced that there is a significant race difference in
intelligence as such but there can still be a very big difference in
motivation to study based on home circumstances.

Post by abelard

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard
it's fake 'science'

In what way is it fake science?

i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

OK. Lets see if we can find some common ground then.
IQ tests measure something broadly correlated with "intelligence"
(but not with common sense).
One manifestation of people who are often good at such tests is that
they have an inherent ability to do pattern matching and remember things
that interest them in great detail (forgetting things that don't).
Self taught chess prodigies that come from nowhere an obvious example.
Whilst I agree with your point that the IQ measure is almost certainly
not normally distributed (since it has a potentially infinite high side
tail and stops at zero) the weak law of large numbers means that it is a
reasonable approximation to Gaussian out to 3 sigma or so from the mean.
(assuming the test is reasonably designed for the IQ range being tested)
The places where IQ tests really fail badly are in cultures where the
outside environment is so hostile that making any mistake can be life
threatening. Children brought up in such cultures tend to stop at the
first question that they cannot answer. Seriously skewing the results.
You can teach them better exam technique to try and counteract it, but
culture to get things right is deeply ingrained and for good reason.

that lot seems generally reasonable to me...

It must be wrong then.

[Pamela]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:27:32 +0000, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown
SNIP
OK. Lets see if we can find some common ground then.
IQ tests measure something broadly correlated with "intelligence"
(but not with common sense).
One manifestation of people who are often good at such tests is that
they have an inherent ability to do pattern matching and remember
things that interest them in great detail (forgetting things that
don't).
Self taught chess prodigies that come from nowhere an obvious example.
Whilst I agree with your point that the IQ measure is almost certainly
not normally distributed (since it has a potentially infinite high
side tail and stops at zero) the weak law of large numbers means that
it is a reasonable approximation to Gaussian out to 3 sigma or so from
the mean. (assuming the test is reasonably designed for the IQ range
being tested)
The places where IQ tests really fail badly are in cultures where the
outside environment is so hostile that making any mistake can be life
threatening. Children brought up in such cultures tend to stop at the
first question that they cannot answer. Seriously skewing the results.
You can teach them better exam technique to try and counteract it, but
culture to get things right is deeply ingrained and for good reason.

that lot seems generally reasonable to me...

It must be wrong then.

Heh heh!

[Pancho]

Post by Martin Brown
It isn't clear if that makes us smarter or dumber on a population
average, but it would be very surprising if it had no effect at all. The
individual variation in any given population is huge though so finding
any such race based differences by testing will be nigh on impossible.

This is nonsense. Even small average differences could be detected with
large sample sizes. Additionally claimed racial average IQ differences
are often relatively large wrt variance, sometimes > 1 standard deviation.


[snip]

Post by Martin Brown
Whilst I agree with your point that the IQ measure is almost certainly
not normally distributed (since it has a potentially infinite high side
tail and stops at zero) the weak law of large numbers means that it is a
reasonable approximation to Gaussian out to 3 sigma or so from the mean.
(assuming the test is reasonably designed for the IQ range being tested)

This is utter nonsense. How does the weak law of large numbers show
this? The weak law applies to adding and averaging random variables,
what are these random variables? If I were bullshitting on the subject I
would quote a central limit theorem, but that would be nonsense too.

There is no reason to assume, or suspect, individual intelligence is
approximately normally distributed. Indeed, a racial average
intelligence difference provides a simple mechanism that would lead to
it not being normally distributed.

The reason that IQ approximates a normal distribution is because they
manipulate the results of tests to fit a normal distribution.

[abelard]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:59:37 +0000, Pancho

Post by Pancho

Post by Martin Brown
It isn't clear if that makes us smarter or dumber on a population
average, but it would be very surprising if it had no effect at all. The
individual variation in any given population is huge though so finding
any such race based differences by testing will be nigh on impossible.

This is nonsense. Even small average differences could be detected with
large sample sizes. Additionally claimed racial average IQ differences
are often relatively large wrt variance, sometimes > 1 standard deviation.
[snip]

Post by Martin Brown
Whilst I agree with your point that the IQ measure is almost certainly
not normally distributed (since it has a potentially infinite high side
tail and stops at zero) the weak law of large numbers means that it is a
reasonable approximation to Gaussian out to 3 sigma or so from the mean.
(assuming the test is reasonably designed for the IQ range being tested)

This is utter nonsense. How does the weak law of large numbers show
this? The weak law applies to adding and averaging random variables,
what are these random variables? If I were bullshitting on the subject I
would quote a central limit theorem, but that would be nonsense too.
There is no reason to assume, or suspect, individual intelligence is
approximately normally distributed. Indeed, a racial average
intelligence difference provides a simple mechanism that would lead to
it not being normally distributed.
The reason that IQ approximates a normal distribution is because they
manipulate the results of tests to fit a normal distribution.

'race science' in arab times

1068 - the arab master race
Sa’id Ibn Ahmadi
“In 1068, before the arrival of the almoravids, the cadi of Muslim
Toledo, the Arab Sa’id Ibn Ahmadi, wrote a book classifying the
nations of the world. In it he accounted the inhabitants of the
extreme North and South as barbarians, describing Europeans as white
and mentally deficient because of undercooking by the sun, and
Africans as black, stupid, and violent because of overcooking. In
contrast, Arabs were done just right.”
[Quoted from firstprinciplesjournal.com]

[Greekbastard®™]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:27:32 +0000, Martin Brown

Post by Martin Brown

Post by abelard
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:53:45 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish

It may become possible to establish as and when the DNA sequences that
code for the most important brain proteins become fully established.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intelligence-and-the-dna-revolution/
They have already found about 3 dozen gene mutations correlated with IQ.
Interesting that height is also correlated with IQ too.
In the USA I'd say parental wealth was the major factor in their quality
of education since their state funded education system is at best patchy
and at worst intentionally designed to keep the underclass in its place.
Teaching to the SATS test and external tutoring further skews the data
in favour of the rich kids.
Bad news for the ignorant white racists though is that true pure bred
Homo Sapiens is the African form. Now that genetic sequencing has become
routine white Eurasians are typically found with about 1-4% Neanderthal
DNA and so better adapted to northern climes with lower light levels.
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html
It isn't clear if that makes us smarter or dumber on a population
average, but it would be very surprising if it had no effect at all. The
individual variation in any given population is huge though so finding
any such race based differences by testing will be nigh on impossible.
However, finding DNA sequences that correlate with IQ is already
possible. I suspect there will be many different genes but who knows...
I am not convinced that there is a significant race difference in
intelligence as such but there can still be a very big difference in
motivation to study based on home circumstances.

Post by abelard

Post by Michael Ejercito

Post by abelard
it's fake 'science'

In what way is it fake science?

i get the impression you don't have the ability to understand
the whys...
here is just a very easy start
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
if you do have the ability, then ask further

OK. Lets see if we can find some common ground then.
IQ tests measure something broadly correlated with "intelligence"
(but not with common sense).
One manifestation of people who are often good at such tests is that
they have an inherent ability to do pattern matching and remember things
that interest them in great detail (forgetting things that don't).
Self taught chess prodigies that come from nowhere an obvious example.
Whilst I agree with your point that the IQ measure is almost certainly
not normally distributed (since it has a potentially infinite high side
tail and stops at zero) the weak law of large numbers means that it is a
reasonable approximation to Gaussian out to 3 sigma or so from the mean.
(assuming the test is reasonably designed for the IQ range being tested)
The places where IQ tests really fail badly are in cultures where the
outside environment is so hostile that making any mistake can be life
threatening. Children brought up in such cultures tend to stop at the
first question that they cannot answer. Seriously skewing the results.
You can teach them better exam technique to try and counteract it, but
culture to get things right is deeply ingrained and for good reason.

Pretentious poppycock!

[Peeler]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 04:59:37 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous

Post by Greekbastard®™
Pretentious poppycock!

Clinically insane psychopath!

[Byker]

Bad news for the ignorant white racists though is that true pure bred Homo
Sapiens is the African form. Now that genetic sequencing has become
routine white Eurasians are typically found with about 1-4% Neanderthal
DNA and so better adapted to northern climes with lower light levels.
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html

It's interesting to note that as a put-down, “Neanderthal” is exclusively
used to demean Whites. In fairness, pale skin, blue eyes, and red hair were
all Neanderthal traits. But although being Neanderthal is a White thing, it
is not exclusively so. A landmark 2010 study suggested that not only did
ancient Neanderthals breed with modern humans, all modern groups except for
sub-Saharan Africans possess a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.
Sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA, which modern blacks boast
about so much. That’s all very cute, except for the fact that the places
where people are “100 percent human” tend to fall far behind the cavemen’s
ancestral homelands when it comes to trifles such as civilization,
agriculture, longevity, technology, written languages, and living standards.
And what did the 100-percenters have to show for all those eons of being
Neanderthal-free? The termite stick, although it's possible that the Bonobo
chimps beat them to that too...

[OrigInfoJunkie]

Post by Byker

Bad news for the ignorant white racists though is that true pure bred Homo
Sapiens is the African form. Now that genetic sequencing has become
routine white Eurasians are typically found with about 1-4% Neanderthal
DNA and so better adapted to northern climes with lower light levels.
https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html

It's interesting to note that as a put-down, “Neanderthal” is exclusively
used to demean Whites. In fairness, pale skin, blue eyes, and red hair were
all Neanderthal traits. But although being Neanderthal is a White thing, it
is not exclusively so. A landmark 2010 study suggested that not only did
ancient Neanderthals breed with modern humans, all modern groups except for
sub-Saharan Africans possess a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.
Sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA, which modern blacks boast
about so much. That’s all very cute, except for the fact that the places
where people are “100 percent human” tend to fall far behind the cavemen’s
ancestral homelands when it comes to trifles such as civilization,
agriculture, longevity, technology, written languages, and living standards.

None of that has anything whatever to do with race.

[WWWWWWWWDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW]

Post by abelard
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php

Looks like a site from the 1990's.

[abelard]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:15:00 GMT, WWWWWWWWDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Post by WWWWWWWWDWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Post by abelard
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php

Looks like a site from the 1990's.

i wonder what it will fetch at sotherby's

[True Blue]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

It's called "reality", you dunderhead.

[abelard]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:00:21 -0800 (PST), True Blue

Post by True Blue

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

It's called "reality", you dunderhead.

you have your dogmas...why should i argue
with your dogmas?
you ignorance is of no concern to me...

i do see you're retreating from your silly climate
denialism...perhaps you'll even grow out of your
daft skin reflectivity fetish

[Incubus]

Post by True Blue

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

It's called "reality", you dunderhead.

When Europeans arrived in Africa, they hadn't even discovered the wheel. Each
time a technologically advanced African nation has reverted to African rule, it
has rapidly become a Third World nation. This always gets blamed on
Colonialism and "white supremacy". Meanwhile, Leftists want quotas put in
place because the lack of African engineers, scientists, developers etc. is due
to "oppression" and "racism".

[Byker]

Post by Incubus
When Europeans arrived in Africa, they hadn't even discovered the wheel.
Each time a technologically advanced African nation has reverted to
African rule, it has rapidly become a Third World nation.

I wonder if black Africans would want their European masters back?

Which reminds me: A few years ago we talked about a film called "Africa
Addio," AKA "Africa, Blood and Guts," a mondo film which I saw on VHS
c.1988. The film was so controversial when released (1966) that it had to be
heavily edited for foreign distribution. It's available on YouTube:

Trailer:

Feature:

"What the camera sees it films pitilessly, without sympathy, without taking
sides," it begins. "This film only says farewell to the old Africa and gives
the world a picture of its agony." As colonialism collapsed in 1960s Africa,
Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi rushed to the Dark Continent to
record the horrifying battle for control that followed. Here was a world now
ruled by rebels and refugees, plunderers and poachers, mercenaries and
murderers, a land suddenly aflame with brutality, racism and unspeakable
slaughter. At the risk of their own lives, the filmmakers' cameras captured
it all. The result is a daring and disturbing work that ranks among the
greatest achievements in documentary cinema, an experience that remains as
shocking - and shockingly relevant - as it was 50 years ago. This is AFRICA
BLOOD AND GUTS!"

Has ANYTHING CHANGED for the better in the last half-century?

[RH156RH]

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

Post by Pamela
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

--
www.abelard.org

Andrew Sabisky is correct . IQ population scores do show considerable differences based on race.

The short story is Asians of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean type have the highest average scores followed by white followed by blacks who trail in a poor third. That does not mean blacks have no individuals with a high IQ. What it means is that in the population of blacks there are fewer high IQ blacks than there would be in a popularisation of East Asians or whites.

All if this is well attested by more than a century of IQ testing. . Eminent academics such as J Philip Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck have devoted their lives to the study of IQ and racial differences.

The implications of such differences are profound. An IQ of 75- 80 is the point at which psychologists think that an individual will struggle to live independently in an advanced modern country.

The psychologist Richard Lynn and the economist Tatu Vanhanen have made a study of the average IQ for IQ countries throughout the world. Their findings can be found in two books IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality. Their estimates of the average national IQ for sub-Saharan Africans is 70.

However disagreeable such differences are it is a very dangerous road to go down to forbid any public discussion of reputable research collected over a long period.

The link to IQ and society will give you a more detailed picture.



Robert Henderson



https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/iq-and-society/
IQ and society
Robert Henderson

Contents

1. IQ and national wealth

2. Racial differences in IQ

3. Is IQ innate?

4. What is measured by IQ Tests?

5. Does an IQ test measure general intelligence?

6. The intelligence of erudition

7. Did Darwin have a high IQ?

8. Reason is not the primary driver of Man

9. Sociological forces 10. How primitive is primitive?

11. Speciation by culture

12. Race and Man

13. An analogy with computers

14. The more primitive the society the less it relies on IQ related skills

15. Life in more complex societies

16. The increasing IQ demands of modern society

17. Low IQ behaviour

18. High IQ behaviour

19. Majority and minority

20. The low IQ individual in a high IQ society

21. The High IQ individual in a low IQ society

22. High status jobs and IQ

23. How the IQ level of a society rises

24. Why have Asians not dominated?

25. Why have whites dominated?

26. Blacks: the odd man out

27. A dysgenic future?

28. Conclusion



Appendix A White men can run

Appendix B Digital technology

Appendix C Two high status blacks

[RH156RH]

Post by RH156RH

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

Post by Pamela
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

--
www.abelard.org

Andrew Sabisky is correct . IQ population scores do show considerable differences based on race.
The short story is Asians of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean type have the highest average scores followed by white followed by blacks who trail in a poor third. That does not mean blacks have no individuals with a high IQ. What it means is that in the population of blacks there are fewer high IQ blacks than there would be in a popularisation of East Asians or whites.
All if this is well attested by more than a century of IQ testing. . Eminent academics such as J Philip Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck have devoted their lives to the study of IQ and racial differences.
The implications of such differences are profound. An IQ of 75- 80 is the point at which psychologists think that an individual will struggle to live independently in an advanced modern country.
The psychologist Richard Lynn and the economist Tatu Vanhanen have made a study of the average IQ for IQ countries throughout the world. Their findings can be found in two books IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality. Their estimates of the average national IQ for sub-Saharan Africans is 70.
However disagreeable such differences are it is a very dangerous road to go down to forbid any public discussion of reputable research collected over a long period.
The link to IQ and society will give you a more detailed picture.
Robert Henderson
https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/iq-and-society/
IQ and society
Robert Henderson
Contents
1. IQ and national wealth
2. Racial differences in IQ
3. Is IQ innate?
4. What is measured by IQ Tests?
5. Does an IQ test measure general intelligence?
6. The intelligence of erudition
7. Did Darwin have a high IQ?
8. Reason is not the primary driver of Man
9. Sociological forces 10. How primitive is primitive?
11. Speciation by culture
12. Race and Man
13. An analogy with computers
14. The more primitive the society the less it relies on IQ related skills
15. Life in more complex societies
16. The increasing IQ demands of modern society
17. Low IQ behaviour
18. High IQ behaviour
19. Majority and minority
20. The low IQ individual in a high IQ society
21. The High IQ individual in a low IQ society
22. High status jobs and IQ
23. How the IQ level of a society rises
24. Why have Asians not dominated?
25. Why have whites dominated?
26. Blacks: the odd man out
27. A dysgenic future?
28. Conclusion
Appendix A White men can run
Appendix B Digital technology
Appendix C Two high status blacks

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203160142.htm
Interventions may temporarily raise kids' IQs, but there is fadeout over time
A meta-analysis shows that the beneficial effects of interventions to raise intelligence in young children fade over time
Date:
December 3, 2015
Source:
University of California - Santa Barbara
Summary:
A meta-analysis shows that the beneficial effects of interventions to raise intelligence in young children fade over time.
Share:

FULL STORY
The winner of a decades-old debate about what scientists call the fadeout effect -- one of the most persistent research mysteries in intelligence and psychological development -- may finally have been decided.

Following a meta-analysis of experimental methods to determine whether or not the benefits of early interactions designed to raise intelligence remain over time, UC Santa Barbara postdoctoral researcher John Protzko found that the positive effects on intelligence actually diminish after a particular intervention ends. Protzko's study marks the first quantitative analysis of the fadeout effect across nearly every known intervention that has attempted to improve early intelligence.

The findings, which appear in the journal Intelligence, have important implications for the long-term benefits of programs such as Head Start, a federal initiative that promotes school readiness of children under 5 from low-income families through education, health, social and other services.

"Many theories of cognitive development and the relationship between the environment and intelligence are not able to account for the fadeout effect," said Protzko, who is a member of the META (Memory, Emotion, Thought, Awareness) Lab in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences at UCSB. "Reciprocal interaction models, for example, put forward that no such fading would occur. It turns out that when you raise children's intelligence, they may not go out and select into new, more cognitively demanding environments. Other traits may be driving what environments children select into."

[abelard]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:27:01 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

Post by Pamela
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

--
www.abelard.org

Andrew Sabisky is correct . IQ population scores do show considerable differences based on race.

'race'??!

Post by RH156RH
The short story is Asians of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean type have the highest average scores followed by white followed by blacks who trail in a poor third. That does not mean blacks have no individuals with a high IQ. What it means is that in the population of blacks there are fewer high IQ blacks than there would be in a popularisation of East Asians or whites.
All if this is well attested by more than a century of IQ testing. . Eminent academics such as J Philip Rushton

incredible...the black dick length 'expert'

i'm shocked you're allowed out on your own

Post by RH156RH
, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck have devoted their lives to the study of IQ and racial differences.
The implications of such differences are profound. An IQ of 75- 80 is the point at which psychologists think that an individual will struggle to live independently in an advanced modern country.
The psychologist Richard Lynn and the economist Tatu Vanhanen have made a study of the average IQ for IQ countries throughout the world. Their findings can be found in two books IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality. Their estimates of the average national IQ for sub-Saharan Africans is 70.
However disagreeable such differences are it is a very dangerous road to go down to forbid any public discussion of reputable research collected over a long period.
The link to IQ and society will give you a more detailed picture.
https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/iq-and-society/
IQ and society
Robert Henderson
Contents
1. IQ and national wealth
2. Racial differences in IQ
3. Is IQ innate?
4. What is measured by IQ Tests?
5. Does an IQ test measure general intelligence?
6. The intelligence of erudition
7. Did Darwin have a high IQ?
8. Reason is not the primary driver of Man
9. Sociological forces 10. How primitive is primitive?
11. Speciation by culture
12. Race and Man
13. An analogy with computers
14. The more primitive the society the less it relies on IQ related skills
15. Life in more complex societies
16. The increasing IQ demands of modern society
17. Low IQ behaviour
18. High IQ behaviour
19. Majority and minority
20. The low IQ individual in a high IQ society
21. The High IQ individual in a low IQ society
22. High status jobs and IQ
23. How the IQ level of a society rises
24. Why have Asians not dominated?
25. Why have whites dominated?
26. Blacks: the odd man out
27. A dysgenic future?
28. Conclusion
Appendix A White men can run
Appendix B Digital technology
Appendix C Two high status blacks

i love it when innumerate ignoramuses pontificate
like you on what they cannot understand

[RH156RH]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:27:01 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH

Post by abelard

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,

near to impossible to establish
it's fake 'science'

Post by Pamela
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

--
www.abelard.org

Andrew Sabisky is correct . IQ population scores do show considerable differences based on race.

'race'??!

Post by RH156RH
The short story is Asians of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean type have the highest average scores followed by white followed by blacks who trail in a poor third. That does not mean blacks have no individuals with a high IQ. What it means is that in the population of blacks there are fewer high IQ blacks than there would be in a popularisation of East Asians or whites.
All if this is well attested by more than a century of IQ testing. . Eminent academics such as J Philip Rushton

incredible...the black dick length 'expert'
i'm shocked you're allowed out on your own

Post by RH156RH
, Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck have devoted their lives to the study of IQ and racial differences.
The implications of such differences are profound. An IQ of 75- 80 is the point at which psychologists think that an individual will struggle to live independently in an advanced modern country.
The psychologist Richard Lynn and the economist Tatu Vanhanen have made a study of the average IQ for IQ countries throughout the world. Their findings can be found in two books IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality. Their estimates of the average national IQ for sub-Saharan Africans is 70.
However disagreeable such differences are it is a very dangerous road to go down to forbid any public discussion of reputable research collected over a long period.
The link to IQ and society will give you a more detailed picture.
https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/iq-and-society/
IQ and society
Robert Henderson
Contents
1. IQ and national wealth
2. Racial differences in IQ
3. Is IQ innate?
4. What is measured by IQ Tests?
5. Does an IQ test measure general intelligence?
6. The intelligence of erudition
7. Did Darwin have a high IQ?
8. Reason is not the primary driver of Man
9. Sociological forces 10. How primitive is primitive?
11. Speciation by culture
12. Race and Man
13. An analogy with computers
14. The more primitive the society the less it relies on IQ related skills
15. Life in more complex societies
16. The increasing IQ demands of modern society
17. Low IQ behaviour
18. High IQ behaviour
19. Majority and minority
20. The low IQ individual in a high IQ society
21. The High IQ individual in a low IQ society
22. High status jobs and IQ
23. How the IQ level of a society rises
24. Why have Asians not dominated?
25. Why have whites dominated?
26. Blacks: the odd man out
27. A dysgenic future?
28. Conclusion
Appendix A White men can run
Appendix B Digital technology
Appendix C Two high status blacks

i love it when innumerate ignoramuses pontificate
like you on what they cannot understand
--
www.abelard.org

Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

[abelard]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...

whatever you may wish to post is of no interest

go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

[Farmer Giles]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve one?

[Pamela]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve one?

I missed that treat but Google found it for me here:
https://tinyurl.com/quadratic-abelard

As you say, Abelard's explanation is totally off target. He goes wrong
right from his first line where he says to square both sides. Huh?

His second line incorrectly expands one side but squares only the other side.

By the end of his post, Abelard has lost his way so much that he doesn't even
solve for x at all.

What a mess. What a laugh.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve one?

https://tinyurl.com/quadratic-abelard
As you say, Abelard's explanation is totally off target. He goes wrong
right from his first line where he says to square both sides. Huh?
His second line incorrectly expands one side but squares only the other side.
By the end of his post, Abelard has lost his way so much that he doesn't even
solve for x at all.
What a mess. What a laugh.

Yep, and the thicko goes round calling others innumerate!

[Pamela]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve one?

https://tinyurl.com/quadratic-abelard
As you say, Abelard's explanation is totally off target. He goes wrong
right from his first line where he says to square both sides. Huh?
His second line incorrectly expands one side but squares only the other side.
By the end of his post, Abelard has lost his way so much that he
doesn't even solve for x at all.
What a mess. What a laugh.

Yep, and the thicko goes round calling others innumerate!

I had a hunch Abelard was once reasonably clever but that post shows he
was thick even then.

Worse still, he didn't show any insight into his mathematical limitations
but instead asserted his nonsense as a fact. I wonder how much of his web
site is similarly misinformed, despite him being certain it's alright.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve one?

https://tinyurl.com/quadratic-abelard
As you say, Abelard's explanation is totally off target. He goes wrong
right from his first line where he says to square both sides. Huh?
His second line incorrectly expands one side but squares only the other side.
By the end of his post, Abelard has lost his way so much that he
doesn't even solve for x at all.
What a mess. What a laugh.

Yep, and the thicko goes round calling others innumerate!

I had a hunch Abelard was once reasonably clever but that post shows he
was thick even then.
Worse still, he didn't show any insight into his mathematical limitations
but instead asserted his nonsense as a fact. I wonder how much of his web
site is similarly misinformed, despite him being certain it's alright.

I would guess that none of it is his work, just copy and pasted from
elsewhere.

If you think his maths one is funny, you should try and find one from
some years ago where I tried to teach him about verbs - because he
insisted that there was no difference between nouns and verbs. He is a
moron - and worse, because they don't usually believe that they're
cleverer and have greater insight than everyone else.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Oh dear, more pure  GIIGO  from the 1947 vintage  valve computer ...
rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve one?

       https://tinyurl.com/quadratic-abelard
As you say, Abelard's explanation is totally off target.  He goes wrong
right from his first line where he says to square both sides.  Huh?
His second line incorrectly expands one side but squares only the other side.
By the end of his post, Abelard has lost his way so much that he
doesn't even solve for x at all.
What a mess.  What a laugh.

Yep, and the thicko goes round calling others innumerate!

I had a hunch Abelard was once reasonably clever but that post shows he
was thick even then.
Worse still, he didn't show any insight into his mathematical limitations
but instead asserted his nonsense as a fact.  I wonder how much of his
web
site is similarly misinformed, despite him being certain it's alright.

I would guess that none of it is his work, just copy and pasted from
elsewhere.
If you think his maths one is funny, you should try and find one from
some years ago where I tried to teach him about verbs - because he
insisted that there was no difference between nouns and verbs. He is a
moron - and worse, because they don't usually believe that they're
cleverer and have greater insight than everyone else.

Here it is:

https://tinyurl.com/vzcqh42

Almost ten years he gave that exhibition of extreme stupidity, and you
believe he was bright once! He's a moron, and always has been.

[Pamela]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Oh dear, more pure  GIIGO  from the 1947 vintage  valve
computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve one?

I missed that treat but Google found it for me here:       
https://tinyurl.com/quadratic-abelard
As you say, Abelard's explanation is totally off target.  He goes
wrong right from his first line where he says to square both
sides.  Huh?
His second line incorrectly expands one side but squares only the other side.
By the end of his post, Abelard has lost his way so much that he
doesn't even solve for x at all.
What a mess.  What a laugh.

Yep, and the thicko goes round calling others innumerate!

I had a hunch Abelard was once reasonably clever but that post shows
he was thick even then.
Worse still, he didn't show any insight into his mathematical
limitations but instead asserted his nonsense as a fact.  I wonder
how much of his web site is similarly misinformed, despite him being
certain it's alright.

I would guess that none of it is his work, just copy and pasted from
elsewhere.
If you think his maths one is funny, you should try and find one from
some years ago where I tried to teach him about verbs - because he
insisted that there was no difference between nouns and verbs. He is a
moron - and worse, because they don't usually believe that they're
cleverer and have greater insight than everyone else.

https://tinyurl.com/vzcqh42
Almost ten years he gave that exhibition of extreme stupidity, and you
believe he was bright once! He's a moron, and always has been.

I see that in response to you pointing out "practise" and "practise",
Abelard says:

"i don't believe there is any real difference...you seem to believe
there is...therefore i want to know why you believe there is a
difference... and what you believe that difference to be"

Abelard doesn't speak much French but his knowledge of English isn't much
good either.

Perhaps his jabbering style of posting is designed to mask the difficulty
he has with sentence structure and capitalisation.

[Pancho]

Post by Pamela
I see that in response to you pointing out "practise" and "practise",
"i don't believe there is any real difference...you seem to believe
there is...therefore i want to know why you believe there is a
difference... and what you believe that difference to be"
Abelard doesn't speak much French but his knowledge of English isn't much
good either.

To be fair to lardy, I can't see a lot of difference between "practise"
and "practise". ;o)

[Pamela]

Post by Pancho

Post by Pamela
I see that in response to you pointing out "practise" and "practise",
"i don't believe there is any real difference...you seem to believe
there is...therefore i want to know why you believe there is a
difference... and what you believe that difference to be"
Abelard doesn't speak much French but his knowledge of English isn't much
good either.

To be fair to lardy, I can't see a lot of difference between "practise"
and "practise". ;o)

Oops! But you know what I mean. :)

[abelard]

Post by Pamela

Post by Pancho

Post by Pamela
I see that in response to you pointing out "practise" and "practise",
"i don't believe there is any real difference...you seem to believe
there is...therefore i want to know why you believe there is a
difference... and what you believe that difference to be"
Abelard doesn't speak much French but his knowledge of English isn't much
good either.

To be fair to lardy, I can't see a lot of difference between "practise"
and "practise". ;o)

Oops! But you know what I mean. :)

yip yip yip

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Pamela

Post by Pancho
To be fair to lardy, I can't see a lot of difference between "practise"
and "practise". ;o)

Oops! But you know what I mean. :)

From time to time, we all suffer from the curse of the evil
spoolchucker.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Pamela

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ...
rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, anyone remember his pathetic attempt to solve a quadratic
equation - or rather his laughable attempt to tell Maria how to solve
one?

https://tinyurl.com/quadratic-abelard
As you say, Abelard's explanation is totally off target. He goes wrong
right from his first line where he says to square both sides. Huh?
His second line incorrectly expands one side but squares only the other
side.
By the end of his post, Abelard has lost his way so much that he
doesn't even solve for x at all.
What a mess. What a laugh.

Yep, and the thicko goes round calling others innumerate!

I had a hunch Abelard was once reasonably clever but that post shows he
was thick even then.
Worse still, he didn't show any insight into his mathematical limitations
but instead asserted his nonsense as a fact. I wonder how much of his
web
site is similarly misinformed, despite him being certain it's alright.

I would guess that none of it is his work, just copy and pasted from
elsewhere.
If you think his maths one is funny, you should try and find one from
some years ago where I tried to teach him about verbs - because he
insisted that there was no difference between nouns and verbs. He is a
moron - and worse, because they don't usually believe that they're
cleverer and have greater insight than everyone else.

https://tinyurl.com/vzcqh42

Goodness me. Some nostalgic names there.

Post by Farmer Giles
Almost ten years he gave that exhibition of extreme stupidity, and you
believe he was bright once! He's a moron, and always has been.

He had probably had a bad sample of unpasteurised yak milk.

[RH156RH]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy
--
www.abelard.org

Oh dear, another dozen valves have blown... RH

[abelard]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:53:54 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Post by RH156RH
Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ... rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy

Oh dear, another dozen valves have blown... RH

a full set!
i was so disappointed when you didn't join in with your
fellow marching morons

now i am content

[Pamela]

Post by RH156RH

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ...
rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy
-- www.abelard.org

Oh dear, another dozen valves have blown... RH

It's sad to see Abelard's decline being displayed so publicly. If he had
any sense, he would refrain from parading his dotage for all to see.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Pamela

Post by RH156RH

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ...
rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy
-- www.abelard.org

Oh dear, another dozen valves have blown... RH

It's sad to see Abelard's decline being displayed so publicly. If he had
any sense, he would refrain from parading his dotage for all to see.

All? You're the only one here who hasn't killfiled him!

[Pamela]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Pamela

Post by RH156RH

Post by abelard
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:18:45 -0800 (PST), RH156RH

Oh dear, more pure GIIGO from the 1947 vintage valve computer ...
rH

you're not in a position to discuss matters involving maths...
whatever you may wish to post is of no interest
go wank off with farmer swedehead and miss spammy
-- www.abelard.org

Oh dear, another dozen valves have blown... RH

It's sad to see Abelard's decline being displayed so publicly. If he had
any sense, he would refrain from parading his dotage for all to see.

All? You're the only one here who hasn't killfiled him!

Abelard is indeed in my killfile and has been for some time but occasionally
I see his comments when someone quotes him.

[Pamela]

TRIMMED
Andrew Sabisky is correct . IQ population scores do show considerable
differences based on race.
The short story is Asians of the Chinese/Japanese/Korean type have the
highest average scores followed by white followed by blacks who trail
in a poor third. That does not mean blacks have no individuals with a
high IQ. What it means is that in the population of blacks there are
fewer high IQ blacks than there would be in a popularisation of East
Asians or whites.
All if this is well attested by more than a century of IQ testing. .
Eminent academics such as J Philip Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Hans
Eysenck have devoted their lives to the study of IQ and racial
differences.
The implications of such differences are profound. An IQ of 75- 80 is
the point at which psychologists think that an individual will
struggle to live independently in an advanced modern country.
The psychologist Richard Lynn and the economist Tatu Vanhanen have
made a study of the average IQ for IQ countries throughout the world.
Their findings can be found in two books IQ and the Wealth of Nations
and IQ and Global Inequality. Their estimates of the average national
IQ for sub-Saharan Africans is 70.
However disagreeable such differences are it is a very dangerous road
to go down to forbid any public discussion of reputable research
collected over a long period.
The link to IQ and society will give you a more detailed picture.
Robert Henderson
https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/iq-and-society/
IQ and society Robert Henderson
Contents
1. IQ and national wealth
2. Racial differences in IQ
3. Is IQ innate?
4. What is measured by IQ Tests?
5. Does an IQ test measure general intelligence?
6. The intelligence of erudition
7. Did Darwin have a high IQ?
8. Reason is not the primary driver of Man
9. Sociological forces 10. How primitive is primitive?
11. Speciation by culture
12. Race and Man
13. An analogy with computers
14. The more primitive the society the less it relies on IQ related skills
15. Life in more complex societies
16. The increasing IQ demands of modern society
17. Low IQ behaviour
18. High IQ behaviour
19. Majority and minority
20. The low IQ individual in a high IQ society
21. The High IQ individual in a low IQ society
22. High status jobs and IQ
23. How the IQ level of a society rises
24. Why have Asians not dominated?
25. Why have whites dominated?
26. Blacks: the odd man out
27. A dysgenic future?
28. Conclusion
Appendix A White men can run
Appendix B Digital technology
Appendix C Two high status blacks

Quite an interesting read. Well done.

[Greekbastard®™]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

The really disturbing thing is that he's a jew and that people
actually listened to him!

[Peeler]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:57:08 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous

Post by Greekbastard®™
The really disturbing thing is that he's a jew and that people
actually listened to him!

There is NO ONE, listen carefully, really NO ONE around as disturbed as you,
pedophilic gay Razovic!

[Peter Percival]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky

He's gone (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51538493). Whether
the claims about negros and IQ are true or false I don't know, but there
was nothing morally wrong with him making them.

As for eugenics, note that with abortion on demand (de facto if not de
jure) eugenics thrives as never before.

Post by Pamela
writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

[Pancho]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky

He's gone (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51538493).  Whether
the claims about negros and IQ are true or false I don't know, but there
was nothing morally wrong with him making them.

AIUI They are true. IQ is the result of a test, it is an observable fact.

There are obvious things apart from genetically inherited intelligence
that affect the result of an IQ test, but the result, itself, is an
observable fact.

As for eugenics, note that with abortion on demand (de facto if not de
jure) eugenics thrives as never before.

It is actually de jure too. The 1967 Abortion Act specifically allowed
abortion if there was : 'substantial risk that if the child were born,
it would "suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be
seriously handicapped"'


Dawkins has also caused a furore wrt Eugenics.

<https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/02/17/reactions-richard-dawkins-thoughts-on-eugenics/>

Is it my imagination or are we having a faith based backlash against
science.

What is the opposite of renaissance?

[abelard]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:48:34 +0000, Pancho

Post by Pancho

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky

He's gone (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51538493).  Whether
the claims about negros and IQ are true or false I don't know, but there
was nothing morally wrong with him making them.

AIUI They are true. IQ is the result of a test, it is an observable fact.
There are obvious things apart from genetically inherited intelligence
that affect the result of an IQ test, but the result, itself, is an
observable fact.

your post 'equates' iq with 'genetically inherited intelligence'...
you re thoroughly confused...

you are retailing junk 'science'

don't comment on things you don't understand, especially
'controversial matters'

read and *start* to inform yourself
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php

you're not an idiot, stop making posts that suggest that you are!

[Pancho]

Post by abelard
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:48:34 +0000, Pancho

Post by Pancho

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky

He's gone (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51538493).  Whether
the claims about negros and IQ are true or false I don't know, but there
was nothing morally wrong with him making them.

AIUI They are true. IQ is the result of a test, it is an observable fact.
There are obvious things apart from genetically inherited intelligence
that affect the result of an IQ test, but the result, itself, is an
observable fact.

your post 'equates' iq with 'genetically inherited intelligence'...
you re thoroughly confused...
you are retailing junk 'science'
don't comment on things you don't understand, especially
'controversial matters'
read and *start* to inform yourself
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
you're not an idiot, stop making posts that suggest that you are!

Are you a simple bot. You search for a predefined set of words and if
found you make a standard response.

You don't appear to be sophisticated enough to interpret the context. I
thought current technology was better than this.

[Pamela]

Post by Pancho

Post by abelard
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:48:34 +0000, Pancho

Post by Pancho

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky

He's gone (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51538493). 
Whether the claims about negros and IQ are true or false I don't
know, but there was nothing morally wrong with him making them.

AIUI They are true. IQ is the result of a test, it is an observable fact.
There are obvious things apart from genetically inherited intelligence
that affect the result of an IQ test, but the result, itself, is an
observable fact.

your post 'equates' iq with 'genetically inherited intelligence'...
you re thoroughly confused...
you are retailing junk 'science'
don't comment on things you don't understand, especially
'controversial matters'
read and *start* to inform yourself
https://www.abelard.org/statistics_intelligence.php
you're not an idiot, stop making posts that suggest that you are!

Are you a simple bot. You search for a predefined set of words and if
found you make a standard response.
You don't appear to be sophisticated enough to interpret the context. I
thought current technology was better than this.

I often consider the current Abelard as an imposter of the old one, or
alternatively he's experienced severe cognitive decline in recent years.
However a bot would explain the canned responses and inability to properly
understand the point being made.

He never makes any useful comments. I filter out all his babbling and I
don't seem to miss anything.

[Incubus]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

Indeed, his comments make sense. I have advocated similar things here in the
past but have been called a Nazi as a result.

[Pamela]

Post by Incubus

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see
what is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone
who has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do
appreciate is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial
differences in intelligence are significantly - even mostly -
genetic in origin, though the degree is of course a very serious
subject of scholarly debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians
will pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying
bushmen have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's
a weak argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced
to retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our
social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the
same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

Indeed, his comments make sense. I have advocated similar things here
in the past but have been called a Nazi as a result.

More the pity. The facts seem self-evident but there's a strange mental
block in many politically correct people when it comes to accepting them.

[JNugent]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

Exactly so.

Differential IQ between races (with the European race *not* being at the
top) is hardly new stuff.

[Vidcapper]

Post by JNugent

Post by Pamela
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

Exactly so.
Differential IQ between races (with the European race *not* being at the
top) is hardly new stuff.

Woe betide anyone who dares raise the topic though...

[Byker]

Post by Pamela
Tory advisor Andrew Sabisky writes the following. It's hard to see what
is so appalling.
"As for race and IQ, I can only excuse the journalists here on the
grounds of laziness, since the facts are perfectly clear to anyone who
has researched the issue for more than 5 minutes (which I do appreciate
is an awfully long time).
"There are excellent reasons to think the very real racial differences
in intelligence are significantly - even mostly - genetic in origin,
though the degree is of course a very serious subject of scholarly
debate.
"That debate busily bustles on, and I'm sure we'll have more precise
answers in another 5 years or so, though whether the politicians will
pay any attention is debatable.
"It would be nice if they did from the standpoint of immigration
control (in the UK, that is)."
There a growing politically correct claim that all races are of equal
intelligence. Surely no one truly thinks pygmies and bushmen have the
same intelligence as the Han Chinese? It's all very well saying bushmen
have their intelligence relative to their environment but it's a weak
argument.
James Watson, who won the nobel prize for discovering DNA, was forced to
retire for stating this inconvenient truth. In 2007, his lab removed him as
"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social
policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as
ours, whereas all the testing says, not really".
The disturbing thing is not what he said but the reaction to it.

Back in grade school when I was eleven years old, we were reading the
story of Stanley and Livingstone, and our first clue at just how backward
these savages were was when we read of how Henry Stanley, setting off on his
quest in a donkey-drawn cart, attracted huge crowds of kaffirs. They'd seen
White men before, and donkeys before, but this was the first time they'd
seen -- a WHEEL! Over 6,000 natives, some of whom had traveled for weeks,
stood in astonishment at watching a wheel turn on its axle. We'd been
taking turns reading the story aloud in class, and when this little gem of
afro-ignorance was read aloud, the class' reaction could best be described
as spontaneous mass laughter. Even the teacher was cracking up...