Interested to discover that Rebecca Sear has failed to update her own webpage to include her trendy blueski ID to go with her Xitter one (or maybe to replace it? she hasn't Xeeted for a couple of months)
Looking at her blueski blatherings she seems to personify the "AWFUL" (affluent, white, female, urban, liberal) stereotype. Censorship is of course a requirement for such people
What was I surprised by when I started reading Lynn and Vanhanen's National IQ work in 2002?
I was surprised Israel is mediocre. I expected France to score a little above the European average. The big gap between India and China was not unanticipated but still strikingly large. Maybe I expected Switzerland to be above average.
It's paywalled, but you probably pay for Crem. Israel does worse on PISA mostly because of low effort (bad K-12 education doesn't help either probably) and do much better on high-stakes tests than low-stakes test like the PISA see https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoedu/v98y2024ics0272775723001371.html for instance. You know, they're national culture. These are non-g effects. Adjust for g and their scores go way up. They do comparatively better on g-loaded questions.
Personally neither interested in that sports game nor in the colour scheme. Free speech is an expression of ranking intelligence and pursuit of truth higher than both group synchrony feelings and the non-truth-pursuing advantages that arise for mediocre people from cutting intelligence peaks. Intelligence is the thing that should not be eradicated, and that would be better for all, even for those who are not equipped to understand that. Complicated additionally, because assimiliation might be a strong survival strategy... Simplification down to "eradication of whiteness" is not an interesting way to look at it.
The reason why people want this survey and others like it to be suppressed is to deny proof of there being any evidence of people of European descent being inherently more intelligent than "people of colour "as the language of the civil rights legislation dictated US zeitgeists would describe it. W
Whiteness is the polar opposite of poc so less of the former and more of the latter is what the US and the UN desire in western countries.Much less to do with" looking at it in an uninteresting way "than just acknowledging the global reality
The reason why people, especially in the plural, would want this survey to be surpressed is for sure not monocausal. There are layers and dimensions involved. I also think that using such incorrect models as "colour is the opposite of white" for human skin is nonproductive. That is just words doing no work. If we want to talk about colours, we first need to get back to what the words mean, agreement on what colours there are and what colours we see. Otherwise it's mainly language games.
With the US, EU and the UK all viewing their societies through a racial lens and deeming that "only whites can be racist" the western world is under the hegemony of the white/poc binary so there's going to be a lot of people who will toe the line for self preservation.
As long as people can build their careers on it, it will not stop. It is not only self preservation, it is the whole range of opportunism plus interest groups and a few true believers probably. Some sort of mixed situation.
While intelligence is not the sole measure of value, as you say, "Intelligence is the thing that should not be eradicated," and individuals do not exist in nature. Anywhere. Individuals, such as they are, come from groups. Northwestern European Whites in particular have a decent average intelligence and, according to some, quite higher than nearly everyone else on Earth - as groups.
But there's more. I don't know the genes, and I suspect you do not either, but it is clear to me such may be present in particular European groups presenting as people who have more markedly balanced individual/collectivist mentalities, creativity of certain types, and leadership/managerial traits. Why are China, Korea, Japan so collectivist? Nature/Nurture - sure - but which comes first, the chicken or the egg? After working with so many people in Asia from all over Taiwan to Mongolia, it is clear to me we are different. This is a lovely thing. It makes the world beautiful. Opposing eradication of the Japanese, or the Sioux, or all the various and diverse populations we know as White - is a good thing. Naming a thing is good. Eradication of Whiteness is real. Just as eradication of Tibetans, and Amazonians, and others - and our genes such as they are - is real. It is not interesting to you to preserve anything but the intelligence. You're not interested in preservation of the ability to oxygenate blood at high altitude Tibetans pass on to their own? Really? You're not interested in preservation of European coloring? Really?
You're not tribalistic. You find this uninteresting. I find attempting to transcend such, which is actually an attempt to transcend nature, self-defeating and, over the long-haul, grossly counter productive toward achieving preservation of valued traits like intelligence. Eradication of Whiteness is happening because so many Whites allow it to happen, assuming other groups are valuing the "intelligence" as something separate from differing groups just as they are. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. Individuals do not exist in nature.
Yes, really. I also don't care for Panda bears to survive. And of course individuals do exist in nature. Selection happens upon genes and genes are inseparably bundled in individuals. Differences between single human entities constitute individuals. That does even count for chicken. And don't mix up Asian collectivism with basic tribal behaviour. It is not the same. The one is high level control the other low level control, to put it simple for the moment. "Eradication" can happen on the level of the colour scheme, but very improbable that it will happen on the level of the whole genpool that is carried along with it. Intelligence is sexy, so it will anyway bew carried on by assimilation, independent from the extinction of "whiteness".
Yeah, I'm not sure how I "mixed up" Asian collectivism with tribalism (?) If I did, it was unintentional. What I'd meant was that there seems to be some kind of genetic disposition at play there - in that all Asian societies seem to be a lot more collectivist than White societies are.
Exceptions exist within groups, yes. Genetic battles happen within ethnic and racial groups as well as outside of them, yes. But take the exceptional exceptions in Eritrea, the Congo, or Papa New Guinea out of Eritrea, Congo, and Papa New Guinea - and put these, who require the infrastructure, classification and systems of learning, the buildings, the high-trust society of another racial group in order to demonstrate their own exceptionalism (what is measured as exceptional for their own group anyway), simply demonstrates these "individuals" are not really capable of particular exceptionalism outside of their own groups without subsidization and intervention by willing others.
Whether one is Korean or Kenyan or Swiss or Sudanese, if you cannot recognize you come from a people, you belong to this people, then you are as Ed Dutton puts it, a walking example of maladaptive traits for that particular group. Spiteful mutants, as he puts it. Ideologies are often masks for genetic markers. If who you are and what you are doesn't foster your species as a carrot or an orca or a virus, you're destined to die out. As you say, you don't care.
Intelligence is sexy to some. If it comes with preference for foreign out-groups over one's own, and as a result your group dies out, who cares?
You would need to define "your group". Is that meant to be kinship? Or does that beat kinship? If I have a grandfather with brown skin, is he not of my group? For what reason? For colour scheme reasons?
Americans are much more likely to have encountered an Indian-American than an Iranian-American. There are many more Indian-Americans, and they are spread more evenly across the country.
To me it seems more obvious that my Iranian friends are outliers vs Iran (atheist, feminist, drinking, not a hijab in sight, many cannot go back or even had family killed by the regime) than my Indian friends (Hindu, go back for a month every year, considering retiring there, nationalist).
Interesting. If I read the graph correctly the Danish tend to overstate the contribution (and presumably the intelligence) of other Nordics. Americans seem to have also a pro-Nordic / Anglo bias.
You seem to share Lynn’s anti-Irish prejudice: being a ‘tax haven’ can’t be compared to being a petro-state. Switzerland snd the Netherlands should be probably classified as ‘tax havens’, too. Ireland is quite rich even if you use GNP instead of GDP per capita: so, as per Lynn’s hypothesis, they must have become smarter (and the English somewhat dumber).
Norway has a reputation of being filthy rich (petro state), and I think Danes are ignoring that their Norwegian immigrants are less positively selected than their American immigrants.
Given that Africans give wildly off IQ estimates, probably plot of estimates (African - other) by country isn't useful, more interesting would be how estimate vs actual plot would look like if Africans and non-Africans plotted differently.
I like to think of stereotype as "a SENSE of the world and how it works". And my key takeaway from this paper is that the accuracy of this sense is not necessarily protected by intelligence and can easily be scrambled by being feminine in psychology or being too progressive in ideology.
One other potential problem with those personality instruments is that they probably atleast in part work relatively, so relative to people you know, ie people in your country.
Maybe having immigrants in say, the US rate themselves, but they are probably non representative, so also have them rate a few countries, including their own, but try to control for their ethnocentrism, with some sort of enthrocentrism instrument. Or maybe that is too convoluted.
Interested to discover that Rebecca Sear has failed to update her own webpage to include her trendy blueski ID to go with her Xitter one (or maybe to replace it? she hasn't Xeeted for a couple of months)
Looking at her blueski blatherings she seems to personify the "AWFUL" (affluent, white, female, urban, liberal) stereotype. Censorship is of course a requirement for such people
What was I surprised by when I started reading Lynn and Vanhanen's National IQ work in 2002?
I was surprised Israel is mediocre. I expected France to score a little above the European average. The big gap between India and China was not unanticipated but still strikingly large. Maybe I expected Switzerland to be above average.
Cremieux estimated Israel at 97-98 after correcting for psychometric bias, with Israeli Jews 102-103 (Ashkenazim 110, non-Ashkenazim a bit below 100):
https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/updated-estimates-of-iqs-within-israel
It's paywalled, but you probably pay for Crem. Israel does worse on PISA mostly because of low effort (bad K-12 education doesn't help either probably) and do much better on high-stakes tests than low-stakes test like the PISA see https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoedu/v98y2024ics0272775723001371.html for instance. You know, they're national culture. These are non-g effects. Adjust for g and their scores go way up. They do comparatively better on g-loaded questions.
Yes, they lose. Thank you for sharing such rich material and keep going.
They may lose in the free speech online arena but in the real world they are winning ie the eradication of whiteness.
Personally neither interested in that sports game nor in the colour scheme. Free speech is an expression of ranking intelligence and pursuit of truth higher than both group synchrony feelings and the non-truth-pursuing advantages that arise for mediocre people from cutting intelligence peaks. Intelligence is the thing that should not be eradicated, and that would be better for all, even for those who are not equipped to understand that. Complicated additionally, because assimiliation might be a strong survival strategy... Simplification down to "eradication of whiteness" is not an interesting way to look at it.
The reason why people want this survey and others like it to be suppressed is to deny proof of there being any evidence of people of European descent being inherently more intelligent than "people of colour "as the language of the civil rights legislation dictated US zeitgeists would describe it. W
Whiteness is the polar opposite of poc so less of the former and more of the latter is what the US and the UN desire in western countries.Much less to do with" looking at it in an uninteresting way "than just acknowledging the global reality
If you’re so goddamn smart why are you “losing”
The reason why people, especially in the plural, would want this survey to be surpressed is for sure not monocausal. There are layers and dimensions involved. I also think that using such incorrect models as "colour is the opposite of white" for human skin is nonproductive. That is just words doing no work. If we want to talk about colours, we first need to get back to what the words mean, agreement on what colours there are and what colours we see. Otherwise it's mainly language games.
With the US, EU and the UK all viewing their societies through a racial lens and deeming that "only whites can be racist" the western world is under the hegemony of the white/poc binary so there's going to be a lot of people who will toe the line for self preservation.
Online debate is simply that.
As long as people can build their careers on it, it will not stop. It is not only self preservation, it is the whole range of opportunism plus interest groups and a few true believers probably. Some sort of mixed situation.
While intelligence is not the sole measure of value, as you say, "Intelligence is the thing that should not be eradicated," and individuals do not exist in nature. Anywhere. Individuals, such as they are, come from groups. Northwestern European Whites in particular have a decent average intelligence and, according to some, quite higher than nearly everyone else on Earth - as groups.
But there's more. I don't know the genes, and I suspect you do not either, but it is clear to me such may be present in particular European groups presenting as people who have more markedly balanced individual/collectivist mentalities, creativity of certain types, and leadership/managerial traits. Why are China, Korea, Japan so collectivist? Nature/Nurture - sure - but which comes first, the chicken or the egg? After working with so many people in Asia from all over Taiwan to Mongolia, it is clear to me we are different. This is a lovely thing. It makes the world beautiful. Opposing eradication of the Japanese, or the Sioux, or all the various and diverse populations we know as White - is a good thing. Naming a thing is good. Eradication of Whiteness is real. Just as eradication of Tibetans, and Amazonians, and others - and our genes such as they are - is real. It is not interesting to you to preserve anything but the intelligence. You're not interested in preservation of the ability to oxygenate blood at high altitude Tibetans pass on to their own? Really? You're not interested in preservation of European coloring? Really?
You're not tribalistic. You find this uninteresting. I find attempting to transcend such, which is actually an attempt to transcend nature, self-defeating and, over the long-haul, grossly counter productive toward achieving preservation of valued traits like intelligence. Eradication of Whiteness is happening because so many Whites allow it to happen, assuming other groups are valuing the "intelligence" as something separate from differing groups just as they are. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. Individuals do not exist in nature.
Yes, really. I also don't care for Panda bears to survive. And of course individuals do exist in nature. Selection happens upon genes and genes are inseparably bundled in individuals. Differences between single human entities constitute individuals. That does even count for chicken. And don't mix up Asian collectivism with basic tribal behaviour. It is not the same. The one is high level control the other low level control, to put it simple for the moment. "Eradication" can happen on the level of the colour scheme, but very improbable that it will happen on the level of the whole genpool that is carried along with it. Intelligence is sexy, so it will anyway bew carried on by assimilation, independent from the extinction of "whiteness".
Yeah, I'm not sure how I "mixed up" Asian collectivism with tribalism (?) If I did, it was unintentional. What I'd meant was that there seems to be some kind of genetic disposition at play there - in that all Asian societies seem to be a lot more collectivist than White societies are.
Exceptions exist within groups, yes. Genetic battles happen within ethnic and racial groups as well as outside of them, yes. But take the exceptional exceptions in Eritrea, the Congo, or Papa New Guinea out of Eritrea, Congo, and Papa New Guinea - and put these, who require the infrastructure, classification and systems of learning, the buildings, the high-trust society of another racial group in order to demonstrate their own exceptionalism (what is measured as exceptional for their own group anyway), simply demonstrates these "individuals" are not really capable of particular exceptionalism outside of their own groups without subsidization and intervention by willing others.
Whether one is Korean or Kenyan or Swiss or Sudanese, if you cannot recognize you come from a people, you belong to this people, then you are as Ed Dutton puts it, a walking example of maladaptive traits for that particular group. Spiteful mutants, as he puts it. Ideologies are often masks for genetic markers. If who you are and what you are doesn't foster your species as a carrot or an orca or a virus, you're destined to die out. As you say, you don't care.
Intelligence is sexy to some. If it comes with preference for foreign out-groups over one's own, and as a result your group dies out, who cares?
You would need to define "your group". Is that meant to be kinship? Or does that beat kinship? If I have a grandfather with brown skin, is he not of my group? For what reason? For colour scheme reasons?
If Sear truly believes your work is bad, I think she should welcome its publication.
That way, she can write a response and demolish your ideas in the public square, decisively demonstrating how weak they are.
https://qr.ae/pYCVXO
Some people are incapable of accepting reality; they stick with the narrative they are comfortable with.
Thanks for continuing to search for reality.
Spoken like a realist!
The success of Indians is probably not enough to explain why they are viewed positively by Americans.
Iranians have a similar success in the US, yet Americans rate them similarly to African countries.
In this case, Americans give a high score to a US ally (India) but a low score to another country whose government is very hostile to the US.
Americans are much more likely to have encountered an Indian-American than an Iranian-American. There are many more Indian-Americans, and they are spread more evenly across the country.
To me it seems more obvious that my Iranian friends are outliers vs Iran (atheist, feminist, drinking, not a hijab in sight, many cannot go back or even had family killed by the regime) than my Indian friends (Hindu, go back for a month every year, considering retiring there, nationalist).
Viewed positively? I wouldn’t say that.
Indians are seen as intelligent, sure, winning all the spelling bees and such… but also as clannish, exclusionary, dishonest, and parasitic.
Interesting. If I read the graph correctly the Danish tend to overstate the contribution (and presumably the intelligence) of other Nordics. Americans seem to have also a pro-Nordic / Anglo bias.
You seem to share Lynn’s anti-Irish prejudice: being a ‘tax haven’ can’t be compared to being a petro-state. Switzerland snd the Netherlands should be probably classified as ‘tax havens’, too. Ireland is quite rich even if you use GNP instead of GDP per capita: so, as per Lynn’s hypothesis, they must have become smarter (and the English somewhat dumber).
Norway has a reputation of being filthy rich (petro state), and I think Danes are ignoring that their Norwegian immigrants are less positively selected than their American immigrants.
Finally, support for drawing broad and sweeping conclusions based on vibes. This will save me years of research time.
(jk; very interesting topic though)
Given that Africans give wildly off IQ estimates, probably plot of estimates (African - other) by country isn't useful, more interesting would be how estimate vs actual plot would look like if Africans and non-Africans plotted differently.
I like to think of stereotype as "a SENSE of the world and how it works". And my key takeaway from this paper is that the accuracy of this sense is not necessarily protected by intelligence and can easily be scrambled by being feminine in psychology or being too progressive in ideology.
But you repeat yourself…
One other potential problem with those personality instruments is that they probably atleast in part work relatively, so relative to people you know, ie people in your country.
Maybe having immigrants in say, the US rate themselves, but they are probably non representative, so also have them rate a few countries, including their own, but try to control for their ethnocentrism, with some sort of enthrocentrism instrument. Or maybe that is too convoluted.