“Insofar as intelligence is the chief cause of social inequality between groups, one should expect them to attain roughly equal outcomes.”
No, actually iq, which you have shown some data for, not intelligence, is just a correlation. I realize that for people without much intelligence the distinctions can be difficult to grasp. But do try to figure it out. Causation is much more difficult to determine and way more complex than your statement implies, and iq scores don't capture the whole of intelligence.
Due to the general increase of unadjusted iq scores over time (now often referred to as the “Flynn effect”) even people today who score relatively low on iq tests are still scoring higher than the average person 100 years ago, but we have no compelling reason to think that people 100 years ago were dramatically more inclined to commit crimes -- that is, the people with an average iq 100 years ago did not on average commit the same amount of crime on average as people with relatively lower IQs today. The same applies for other “social inequality” that correlates with iq scores. If low IQs were causing many of the things correlated with them, we would at minimum expect those correlations to hold strongly for their raw iqs into the past, but they do not.
Palestinians today are scoring higher than the average European or American 100 years ago. Yet, in Denmark, at least, they are on average much more violent and indolent. Iq is thus a very poor candidate for causal explanation. I would be curious to see though if you can demonstrate the average Dane 100 years ago had a similar social profile as the average Palestinian today. Or perhaps instead of the average Dane, show the average Jew had the same profile. Maybe that could explain why some Jews decided to colonize Palestine and violently expel so much of its inhabitants almost 100 years ago because they believed in a superstitious right to the land? They had low iqs. I don’t suspect that is true though. Stupidity, barbarity, and iq are only loosely correlated.
If you do not understand my argument, perhaps in a century or two, after average unadjusted iq scores have dragged your iq sufficiently forward, or you simply overcome your bigotry, you will. I suspect bigotry has a substantial damaging causal effect on intelligence.
He discusses what I referred to as "general increase of unadjusted iq scores over time " and the "flynn effect". He explains it well; after all he discovered it.
We need to come up with a word for the writing style of someone like Jeff. It’s such a distinctive style that I see so many American or western liberals write in. It’s patronizing and sarcastic undertones with a smidge of superiority and good intentions.
I can give you some inside information pertaining to the time when I posted in that way, when I was a fully partisan anti-Brexit, anti-Trump, anti-conservative Twitterer. This, of course, is only my personal experience.
When I wanted to quell the frustration that someone believed something that I didn't I would talk down to them, in a parental way. It was a coping strategy, to reassure myself that the only problem was that the other person hadn't attained my own level of intellectual maturity.
There was also a bonus which was earned in the form of applause from my political tribe, because it reassured everyone else that their beliefs were founded on higher intelligence than that of the other side.
It was also a way to avoid expending energy on good faith engagement, because it almost guaranteed that no meaningful exchange of viewpoints, resulting in a potentially useful synthesis, was likely to result.
I can't, of course, speak for Jeffrey. This was just my personal motivation for patronising people on the Internet when I didn't like what they were saying. It was quite liberating to realise why I personally patronised people in that way, because it enabled me to up my game considerably when snarking members of my old team, who never seemed to progress past performative weariness. Which, of course, I'm doing right now because I find comments like his kind of quaint these days.
There's a right-wing approach too, recently practiced on me by someone calling themselves 'Billionaire Psycho'. In this version the sarcasm is based around pretending to agree with you, but playing your own view back in a ludicrously distorted or essentialised way. I've noticed for years that political types on both sides have these particular trolling styles and wonder if it's a traditional cultural or cognitive thing (or a weave of both).
Don’t flatter yourself Mike; you have never posted anything like I have written.
Unfortunately, I do not have a political tribe--or at least my political tribe is thinly dispersed among the diaspora of independent souls.
As for “good faith energy”, I gave the energy that the original article deserved. And it included a very succinct and nuanced destruction of one of its central pillars. No response I have thus received has even attempted to actually respond to my argument directly. Everything has been just worthless insults, mood policing, and poor speculation about my political tribe.
The words people are using aren’t even accurate. It’s like you all don’t know the definitions of the words you use. “Patronizing” for example. I have expressed nothing to suggest kindness or helpfulness. I have been quite consistently contemptuous. And simply that. I am not being snarky. I am simply being transparent. There is no indirection or sarcasm in what I have written. I think the original article was foolish and those who have responded to me without any attempt to actually wrestle with what I wrote pathetic.
It seems like you are still engaging in your old coping mechanism. The stupidity of what you wrote bewilders me so much that I actually think there is like a small chance that you are actually just being extremely sarcastic and support my view. What you wrote is just so stupid that the hopeful side of me doesn’t want to believe you are as lost as what you wrote seems to imply. And I’m saying this sincerely.
How about we have a Rumble conversation Mike? A good faith Rumble conversation. You can argue why you think the IQ of Palestinians are the primary causal factor for increased average crime among Palestinian immigrants in Denmark and I’ll argue that such a thesis is wrong and most likely a reflection of bigotry.
One of the reasons I'd guess that no one is engaging seriously with you is this tone. Honestly, it made it harder to focus on the points you were making, even though they seemed reasonable to me as a contribution to a potential discussion.
Thanks for the invitation to talk. I'm nowhere near qualified to defend or promote the arguments made in this article. They are just data points and interpretations that I thought were interesting. I haven't adopted them as personal canon, so I've no skin in the game.
My conclusion, anyway, is that you could have made your points without insulting the author and his readers. I, on the other hand, shaded you - so fair play. It's the Internet, after all.
If you found my tone toward the author who wrote vapid, cruelly-coolly-callous pseudo intellectual tripe like “Insofar as intelligence is the chief cause of social inequality between groups, one should expect them to attain roughly equal outcomes”
so awful it inspired you to assume I was a tribal enemy and attribute to me various political attitudes I dont have, yet don’t find the author’s tone worthy of any shade, then the reason you were having a hard time focusing on my argument had less to do with my tone per se and more to do with your prejudices.
I never insulted simply his readers -- albeit no doubt his *admirers* or his “allies” may have felt insulted. If you didn’t have “skin in the game”, my disparagement of him would not have inspired the shade you threw.
I could have made some of my points without disparaging the author, but that was one of my points. He deserved it.
And yes, tis the internet, but alas, if things keep going the way they are we will no longer be free to throw shade on the internet. And the people wanting to make “the internet safe for everyone” are not low iq immigrants, they are relatively high iq landed gentry. And they will do so in the tone of ChatGPT.
Western liberal? Well, before you can successfully come up with a term that captures my distinctive style that reflects my political alignment you will need to upgrade your political consciousness beyond binaries. You are going to need to hone your ability to discern nuance much better than “western liberal.” Until then, just work on understanding my argument.
Yes, exactly. Dick might be the best word here. I’m not sure. But Jeff, at least be original when you write. I feel like you’re just trying to do your best impression of what you think a NYT editorial would say. Not even really a diss but just very small dick energy. I come in peace fwiw.
I see this with progs a lot. We are writing shorthand on the internet. They will answer back with a mishmash of ideas that would take a series of essays to unpack. So....Yes Jeff.....I have three sons. One has an IQ of 176. He is nowhere near as successful as one of my other sons, also smart. Not as smart. However when you are talking about an overall culture that for various reasons produces people with IQs that would make them unfunctional in a modern society THEY AREN’T GOING TO DO WELL. And yes, being way too smart makes one tend to not do well also. It has a hundred different aspects. All of us here understand all this without having to delve into every detail. Comparing the IQs of people 100 years ago to today is nearly meaningless. We are talking about comparative groups with differing capacities.
No it isn’t meaningless. Because whether these are dynamic abstract groups with people who can change if their culture and the environment changes or if these are static groups with people who will be stuck being the way they are should dramatically affect how we politically respond to group disparities. Likewise, whether the behavior is caused by low iq or whether it is caused by other cultural factors that are not directly related to iq will also affect how we politically respond to them. It is particularly relevant in the US because there are people like Charles Murray who want people to *give up* on trying to improve the disparities between racial groups because he assumes they are due to “intractable” genetic factors.
We don’t need to solve the problems by following progressives, but we should encourage attempts that can possibly improve the culture and environment that leads to social dysfunction. If we accept the premise that genetics underlies our social ills, then eugenics is the only solution. And we also leave it to progressives to implement the solution -- which in my opinion is awfully bad. They are making it *worse*.
And it also matters comparing people 100 years ago to today simply in relationship to the argument the author made regarding causal connection between iq and the social problems of Palestinians in Denmark.
The stats from 100 years ago in different cultures can’t meaningfully be compared. Other than to possibly theorize. But I wouldn’t make decisions on that.
You must not read NYT editorials. They are self identified liberals. I find the terms liberal and conservative simplistic and worthless when describing myself. I view Biden worse than Trump. That would be blasphemy to the New York Times. I expressed contempt for one idea here and a pack of idiots assumed I belonged to the tribe of their sworn enemies. And you, an anonymous internet denizen, are resorting to genital jousting. Small brain energy.
No, but its certainly an example of a theory that "mitwits" cannot comprehend and have no desire to comprehend. And its clear from the abundant hollow butthurt responses in particular to my comment that mitwits are your primary target audience.
So many words, forget about IQ let's talk about culture and more importantly values. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the effects of having a terrorist organization like Hamas raise your children.
You don't appear to understand the difference between unadjusted test scores (which change over time) and iq, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
It is a reasonable measure of a person's ability to process information, recognize patterns, express and understand complex and subtle ideas, learn and follow instructions, etc.
Not by any means a perfect measure.
However, groups that perform lower on measures of general intelligence generally perform worse as groups in measures of academic achievement and vocational success.
For example, the US army accepts recruits with iqs of 85 and higher. A few years back, they for a period of time accepted applicants with iqs of 80 or higher. However, the cohort with iqs between 80 and 85 were more likely to fail to meet training goals, to such an extent that the investment in recruits with iqs between 80 and 85 didn't pay.
That said, measuring iq for individuals who are from dramatically different cultural backgrounds can be a bit difficult. Even so, the measurement is likely a good indicator of the ability of the tested individual to prosper in the cultural context which the test reflects.
I know a woman from Niger. Raised in a tiny village in the Sahara. She escaped her village as she is a Christian and 2/3 of her family were Muslims. They were about to marry her off to an elderly Muslim as his third wife. She ran off to Ghana. She has one year of formal education, and that was in a village school. However after moving to Ghana she interacted with many people and a French woman took her under her care. She now speaks French, English, can get by in a few other Euro languages. And she speaks three different African languages. All self taught, French more formally taught. She is very bright. What is her IQ? I doubt it would score above 80 as she is ignorant of everything. Yet she is very bright. She is also nearly not functional in Canada. She has no math skills beyond very simple ones. Her kids are half Canadian. The eldest at 2 and a half might be one of the smartest kids I have met. She will do fine. But would she if she weren’t exceptional? I doubt it.
True. Life is hard for a lot of people in ways that Americans have no insight into. For reasons I won't elaborate on, I suspect Palestinians would score slightly above average on a true test of innate intelligence. However, life experience and ideology make them unprofitable immigrants.
Their low IQ and high crime rate make them undesirable immigrants. Fanatical religiosity and terrorism don't help either. I don't know why you think they would do better on another test, which doesn't even exist, because the IQ test already does the job well, but it's not like they've been making smart decisions in Palestine.
"You don't appear to understand the difference between unadjusted test scores (which change over time) and iq, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15."
No, I think you do not understand the "flynn effect".
Here is the guy the term was coined after talking about it in a ted talk.
IQ is always comparative, it assesses an individual's abilities compared to the group average.
Thus it provides information about the ability of an individual (or by extension a cohort) to compete with other individuals or groups. This is why no one cares about the Flynn effect. They don't even care enough to debunk it. It simply doesn't matter.
That said, it seems unlikely that the data presented in the article is accurate. You might find that avenue of argumentation more profitable.
I highly doubt that a cohort of middle eastern people have an average iq in the 80's. Other than severe malnutrition during childhood, it seems unlikely.
That said, people with iq's in the 70's, who are adults (just not very smart) who are disciplined and have good habits can lead productive lives. This is particularly true for women, since a person with an iq of 70 can cook, clean, raise children, drive a car, and basically do everything a trad wife does. Since women in traditional society are valued for appearance and utility as servants, they often are successful and fulfilled in these roles.
I would further state that the difficulty in making Palestinian Muslim immigrants into productive citizens is not primarily due to intelligence, but due to ideology.
IQ is always comparative, it assesses an individual's abilities compared to the group average.
Thus it provides information about the ability of an individual (or by extension a cohort) to compete with other individuals or groups. This is why no one cares about the Flynn effect. They don't even care enough to debunk it. It simply doesn't matter. “
It’s relevant to my argument. I don’t in fact think you are “well aware of the Flynn effect”. What you have said doesn’t address my argument.
And the notion that no one cares about the flynn effect is erroneous. Thomas Sowell has written about it quite a bit, including in his latest book Social Justice Fallacies. Thomas Sowell is certainly someone. The reason it hasn’t been “debunked” isn’t because people don’t care about it, but that it’s well established by research. And one of the reasons it’s well established by research is because people care about it. The fact that *you* don’t care about it doesn’t say much, other than you haven’t grasped its implications.
“I highly doubt that a cohort of middle eastern people have an average iq in the 80's. Other than severe malnutrition during childhood, it seems unlikely.”
Shrug. It’s irrelevant to my argument.
“That said, it seems unlikely that the data presented in the article is accurate. You might find that avenue of argumentation more profitable.”
No. My argument is valid regardless of whether the data is accurate.
“I would further state that the difficulty in making Palestinian Muslim immigrants into productive citizens is not primarily due to intelligence, but due to ideology.”
Yah I agree with you. That is, I’d wager it is due to culture.
I think you raise a good point - if low IQ = crime, then crime rate should reduce over time. That being said, it seems crime rate IS reducing over time. But then again this is multi-causal and to attribute it to rising IQ would be overly simplistic.
To answer your charge though - let me try to give two quick potential responses.
1. Maybe it's not absolute IQ, but relative IQ that impacts crime - I can envision a scenario where - If the best opportunities in a society accrue to the smartest people in a society, perhaps those with lower IQs will naturally be pushed to the extremities of society. I haven't thought about this extensively, but here is one paper that addresses this.
2. Perhaps crime and crime monitoring are both a function of IQ. So an older society with lower average IQ did not seem to have "higher" crime rates than a current society because the people catching the criminals were also subject to the low average IQ. So the rate of catching criminals is constant across time, but in every society, past and present, criminals typically have lower IQs
That being said, I think Emil's claims are not necessarily accurate
I can think of a reason why the asylum seekers would have more criminal in a way that doesn't rely on their IQ e.g., socio-economic factors: "lack of social support (321 might not be sufficient to build a robust community in a foreign space)", "unfamiliarity with local laws", "stressors from being a refugee/asylum seeker", "difference in customs", "increased policing", "racism" etc.
Palestinians are more criminals because they are low IQ savages, and that's it. Unfamiliarity with local laws, lack of social support, stress and racism, all of these do not exist. How do I know this? Because we know that certain immigrant groups did great, even if they were fleeing war, migrated without social support, or concentrated in the same neighborhoods. Han people, Vietnamese, Jews and several other groups have migrated, and have not caused the types of problems that Palestinians did.
I'll be wary of that simplistic statement "low IQ savages, and that's it". Sure, absolute IQ links to crime, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient as an explainer.
Here are some things to muddle things:
1. In Japan, despite accounting for only 0.34% of the population, the Vietnamese commit 3.4% of all murders in the country. And the Vietnamese have a high IQ.
3. Qatari have the lowest crime per capita, and Lynn and Vanhanen estimated the IQ in Qatar to be around 78 while they estimate Palestinian IQ to be 84.8. So what's the truth?
I think you have to look into more sociological reasons, I think.
If you're looking at relative homicide rates, sure. However, we can't say from that whether Vietnamese in Japan have high homicide rates or Japanese people just have really low ones.
Interesting data: 1. Japan is very ethnocentric. Vietnamese MIGHT be kept out of 'polite' society. And, maybe not. 2. Culture then for that group. Perhaps not for all groups of low IQ people. I would suppose it depends on how and why they have low IQs. In-bred? Usually that carries a lot of problems, IQ/cognitive abilities being one. 3. I got nothing....
Provide me with specific examples and data to dispute specific things I wrote. And don’t just link random external resources without explaining how they precisely relate to what I am talking about specifically. For example, the iapsyche article you linked to just now, from briefly looking at it, has no clear connection to what ive argued and I don’t have time to read every article some random guy points to without any semblance of an argument and find its relevance *for them*. If you think there is, lay it out for everyone, *yourself*. You don’t even understand the stuff you are linking to, you are just linking to it because you think it supports your belief but you don’t even have the ability to assess the validity of it. It’s like people who believe in apocalyptic climate change simply “trusting the science”; they just see a bunch of graphs and people with credentials are telling them stuff and they are like “yah I believe”.
You have not demonstrated you even understand my argument sufficiently to dispute it. The “Flynn effect” is applicable to groups insofar as we see the iqs of groups changing over time. The instability of iqs over time is observed for group scores(which oddly that paper you linked to acknowledges). Albeit, individuals also have shown some instability of iq over time. Not relevant to what I specifically wrote though. And what does it matter that the tests are “measurement invariant” across time when those test takers who set the new average take older tests and they score above the old average? That is taken into consideration by Flynn.
The average iq of “white” Americans(the group) 100 years ago would be around 70 if we scored them on modern standards. That is borderline “retarded” according to modern standards. If the average iq of white Americans today were adjusted for the standards of 100 years ago, they would be at around 130. That is borderline “gifted”. If the average retarded white ancestor 100 years ago wasn’t demonstrating the same chance of social dysfunction as the average 85 iq Palestinian, then we should deeply doubt that the average iqs of Palestinians is responsible for the social dysfunction. We have clear historical examples of people with the average IQs of modern Palestinians not behaving on average the way those Palestinians in Denmark are on average. 60% of white Americans had not been convicted of the sorts of crimes those Palestinians have. The work ethics of the average white American 100 years ago doesn’t match the work ethic of the average Palestinian refugee in Denmark. *Yet the “raw” iq of the average white Americans was lower.* Take a moment to contemplate that. What I just wrote was complex.
Furthermore iq doesnt measure some kind of “genetic intelligence”; it measures the ability an individual has, at the time of the test, to perform in an expected way on narrowly tailored and controlled cognitive tasks. And the instability of iqs over time of *groups* since the tests have been administrated is good evidence that environment has an enormous impact on performance on cognitive tests -- the difference being between being “retarded” and “gifted.” Albeit it doesn’t show exactly that, because only a fool would contend that the average white American 100 years ago was borderline “retarded.” Iq tests don’t comprehensively measure intelligence.
Yet some clowns are still confidently preaching that the average relatively low iq of some groups today are the “primary cause” of various social ills.
Frankly, I suspect more damage to the world in the last decade was probably caused by people with relatively high iqs -- covid, both the plausible creation of it, and the lockdowns that followed, were probably both orchestrated and supported by people on average with relatively higher iqs, but utterly stupid nonetheless.
I’m actually laughing out loud at his complex comment. Jeff is clearly a smart dude but unfortunately like so many, he is intellectually crippled by his belief system. It’s palpable just from his writing structure just how victimized he is of his own confirmation biases. He can’t see things from different vantage points which becomes his moral failure.
“ I provide a link to a post covering a massive amount of evidence suggesting that cognitive ability, as measured by IQ tests, causes social outcomes and explains a large share of the inequalities between groups. And I’m not sure what your response to this evidence is. Please explain what part of the conversation I am misunderstanding. “
The part of the conversation you are missing is the part where I said I don’t have time to read random links to long ass tombs on the internet with no clear direct connection to what I’ve said. I’m not about to dispute every blogger on the internet who has an idea that I disagree with.
“A fair amount of evidence suggests that iq scores are not measurement invariant across cohorts. So comparing iq scores of groups today to groups in the past is not meaningful in most respects - the tests aren't always functioning the same across cohorts, for whatever reason.”
“So, if Palestinian immigrants are doing worse than native citizens of a country on tests of cognitive ability, then this is telling us something important about the relative cognitive abilities of these groups and we can expect this disparity to translate into group inequality in other ways (income, employment, crime, etc). But the same isn't true for differences in iq scores across cohorts. What part of that are you disagreeing with? “
I wouldn’t disagree that there is some statistical correlations between iq and various social disparities but what we can *scientifically* infer from those correlations based on the available data is very limited, and attributing iq as the “primary cause” of the disparities is erroneous. Eg, if we could magically increase a person’s iq but their personality and culture remains the same, we shouldn’t have much confidence they would be less likely to commit a crime; they may in fact rather than just commit murder, orchestrate a terrorist attack, or rather than getting a job as a programmer they might pursue a life as hacker who targets the wallets of seniors. Just as we shouldn’t indiscriminately let people into our country, if we had the magic, we shouldn’t indiscriminately bestow people with more intelligence. For example, if I could magically change how a random Palestinian refugee was raised (their family and peers) or I could magically add 20 iq to their brains, in order to alter those social markers, I’d select the former. What about you?
No real evidence getting bombed lowers IQ. Think about it for a few seconds. Germans, Brits, Dutch, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc. all got bombed during childhood and no obvious big decline in those cohorts.
And your point is? The study shows some facts. The question is what to do with these facts. Also, people throughout the Middle East - Israel excluded - all come in about 80-85 IQ. War torn or not. The his has been generally attributed to in breeding. Marrying your cousin, etc.
Yes, I find it odd there is virtually no mention of the generational in breeding that has taken place among this group. It is well known the mental and physical defects this causes. I would wager that is the main contributor for their low IQ.
IQ is a function of reading too. The more one reads the higher the IQs tend to be. Having no books allowed except the Koran likely isn’t helping either.
Israel is not an apartheid state though. Quite the contrary. Over 20% of Israel’s population is Arab. How many Israeli’s or Jewish people live in Gaza?
Aren’t middle eastern people or some populations of them extremely inbred. They seem to go for the many children route due to natural selection and high mortality. However the gibs mentality prevents any acceleration of cognitive development unlike the thriftiness of German work ethic or other groups. I still don’t understand why food arrives in these places besides the exchange of resources like oil and cheap labour that no one wants to do.
The UK has some stat’s on Middle Eastern 1st cousin marriages. Not good. The inbreeding results in the highest number of birth defects (proportional) of any sub-population.
I don’t deny some relation of IQ deficient due to poor environment. Heck, if you locked Einstein in a closet for his first 18 years, I’m sure he’d be an “imbecile” when you let him out. But to blame all of the Palestinian troubles/deficiencies on Israeli persecution is simply a “cope”. We have two different populations with varying potential living side by side. One will necessarily out perform the other.
And your point? The description is wrt UK, I freely admit and of course mainly Pakistani residents. However, any society where such 1st cousin marriages are common will have the same problem with genetic inbreeding. So are you saying ME societies are immune, or simply don’t practice such marriage arrangements.
The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The bombs killed a lot of people but didn't lower their IQ and they managed to rebuild their country.
On the other hand, people born and grew up with the US with plenty of affirmative action programs and very high welfare payments will complain that they can't get ahead because of "legacy of slavery" (whatever that means).
The main point of my argument was that these people don't have an independent sovereign state of their own hence constantly relocated, and are completely dependent on the occupying Israeli state to even live for almost a century, whereas in Japan modern education had already been a thing since the 19th century and the occupying allies had left by 1952. I'm not saying if Palestine gains an independent state they will all become Nobel Prize winners, but they would certainly become more civilized and law-abiding therefore smarter.
This the typical fatally flawed leftist "nurture" position. Jews in Europe and in the US did very well even before Israel was created in 1948. Why? The lack of a Jewish homeland didn't stop them from making crucial contributions to the development for much of the modern world.
High IQ people do high IQ things regardless of where they are. It's the very definition of high IQ: more capable of adapting to complex life situations. Survive and thrive even in hostile countries. You can see this with Chinese in Southeast Asia as well.
I only talk about what matters in a pragmatical point of view and what can be done, nature is given and hardly changeable but nurture isn’t, that’s why I emphasise it. Of course there’s also the option of genocide which ironically the jews would love to do to their fellow semites.
Hmmmm....are there any Arab Muslim nations that are doing well? Saudi Arabia sits on a sea of oil. Take that out of the equation and imagine how well they would do. Yet individual Arabs Muslims outside of that milieu can do well. It is largely culture.
Iq matters but you even admitted in the initial study the serious crime rate fell from 64% from the parents to about half the rate of incidence in their children. Thus, it appears that some sort of environmental factor was essential in the decrease rather than iq. These are also refugees we are talking about, it takes time to assimilate. Either way I just don’t get the point or the timing: it’s like you are trying to say Palestinians are dumb so let’s not help them. It’s about empathy to many people, and as a principle I find that to be more overwhelming of a case than a marginal increase in crime. The net good likely outweighs the bad. There are also other solutions other than taking in refugees.
I assure you Ben that I have no interest nor desire in receiving any sort of points from you. You may act oblivious if you want but yes empathy is of large importance in this conversation. Because based on the content of the post the conclusion is what do we know about Palestinians: they have a lower iq and commit more crimes on average. Hmm yes surely this has no suggestive perspectives on what should be done in terms of policy... no of course it’s quite evident that this is relevant on the discussion of whether or not these applications should be accepted! My point is simply that despite the drawbacks, empathy must still be considered
He didn’t remotely imply they are dumb so don’t help them. He pointed out facts. It is from facts we should begin to determine a course of action. Not ‘feelz’.
The point of the article was what do we know about the Palestinians: yet what he brings up is crime stats and iq. So yes, I would say the general implication is that those with lower intelligence quotient scores commit more crime. The implications of this (especially within the context of Kierkegaard’s past post or statements on immigration) are quite clear: dysgenic/ uptick in crime. In some regards he is correct, my point is merely to suggest that empathy is important despite these drawbacks.
I would be surprised if people say 15-20 points IQ below the average don’t commit more crime. Someone said Qataris have very low IQs and very low crime. But they also cut your hands off for stealing. And if everyone is in the same boat maybe IQ becomes less of a factor.
You don't appear to understand the difference between unadjusted test scores (which change over time) and iq, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
It is a reasonable measure of a person's ability to process information, recognize patterns, express and understand complex and subtle ideas, learn and follow instructions, etc.
Not by any means a perfect measure.
However, groups that perform lower on measures of general intelligence generally perform worse as groups in measures of academic achievement and vocational success.
For example, the US army accepts recruits with iqs of 85 and higher. A few years back, they for a period of time accepted applicants with iqs of 80 or higher. However, the cohort with iqs between 80 and 85 were more likely to fail to meet training goals, to such an extent that the investment in recruits with iqs between 80 and 85 didn't pay.
That said, measuring iq for individuals who are from dramatically different cultural backgrounds can be a bit difficult. Even so, the measurement is likely a good indicator of the ability of the tested individual to prosper in the cultural context which the test reflects
That sounds bleak. Is this a brain-drain problem? Like, every Palestinian with the resources (intelligence among them) and foresight to do so, left a long time ago, and the remaining population is... about what you'd expect in that case?
IIRC 85 is the minimum IQ to join the *army* in the US. Anything lower than that, and *even the army* finds that you're too much of a liability to be any use to them. I can't even imagine the dysfunction if that's the high-end population average.
I lived in Denmark for ten years, during the 1990s, four of which were spent attending Danish classes. So, I met a lot of Muslims, mainly men, of varying qualifications and temperaments. Some were kind-hearted, others not so much. They were a diverse bunch. But, there is one thing I can say about all of them: they felt unwelcome. The only reason they were living in Denmark was for financial security. It is so cruel, because it's like becoming dependent on a soul destroying drug. They would be so much happier in their home countries. But, like a drug addict, they struggle to do what is in their own best interest. Of course, they also want their children to enjoy the benefits of a wealthy society. So, the government would have to pay them an insane amount to leave. I gather that the payment to leave Denmark is about the equivalent of a year's welfare, which is more than enough to start afresh in a poor country. But, there are very few takers. So, it needs to be increased a lot. Most of them are on benefits anyway, so it'd be worth it in the long-run.
No need to be this openly Islamophobic. And it's actually Europeans that are the scourge of the world. They are one's who colonized and looted so much of the world.
Unlike the Ottomans, Arab Muslims, Aztecs, Inca, various African empires, the Indians, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Japanese, Chinese, etc......aside from THOSE imperial colonialists, all the evil in the world was created by the European imperialists. Grow a brain and learn some history, why don’t you?
If you click the Danish parliament source, and Google Translate you get:
"Persons who have received two or more decisions during the period are included in the statistics only once according to the following prioritization: unconditional prison sentence, then conditional prison sentence and finally fine and other. Fines of less than DKK 1,500 for violating the traffic law are not included in the statistics."
“Insofar as intelligence is the chief cause of social inequality between groups, one should expect them to attain roughly equal outcomes.”
No, actually iq, which you have shown some data for, not intelligence, is just a correlation. I realize that for people without much intelligence the distinctions can be difficult to grasp. But do try to figure it out. Causation is much more difficult to determine and way more complex than your statement implies, and iq scores don't capture the whole of intelligence.
Due to the general increase of unadjusted iq scores over time (now often referred to as the “Flynn effect”) even people today who score relatively low on iq tests are still scoring higher than the average person 100 years ago, but we have no compelling reason to think that people 100 years ago were dramatically more inclined to commit crimes -- that is, the people with an average iq 100 years ago did not on average commit the same amount of crime on average as people with relatively lower IQs today. The same applies for other “social inequality” that correlates with iq scores. If low IQs were causing many of the things correlated with them, we would at minimum expect those correlations to hold strongly for their raw iqs into the past, but they do not.
Palestinians today are scoring higher than the average European or American 100 years ago. Yet, in Denmark, at least, they are on average much more violent and indolent. Iq is thus a very poor candidate for causal explanation. I would be curious to see though if you can demonstrate the average Dane 100 years ago had a similar social profile as the average Palestinian today. Or perhaps instead of the average Dane, show the average Jew had the same profile. Maybe that could explain why some Jews decided to colonize Palestine and violently expel so much of its inhabitants almost 100 years ago because they believed in a superstitious right to the land? They had low iqs. I don’t suspect that is true though. Stupidity, barbarity, and iq are only loosely correlated.
If you do not understand my argument, perhaps in a century or two, after average unadjusted iq scores have dragged your iq sufficiently forward, or you simply overcome your bigotry, you will. I suspect bigotry has a substantial damaging causal effect on intelligence.
EDIT: If you want to watch a ted talk with the guy whose research the "flynn effect" was named after, you can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI
He discusses what I referred to as "general increase of unadjusted iq scores over time " and the "flynn effect". He explains it well; after all he discovered it.
We need to come up with a word for the writing style of someone like Jeff. It’s such a distinctive style that I see so many American or western liberals write in. It’s patronizing and sarcastic undertones with a smidge of superiority and good intentions.
What’s a good word?
I can give you some inside information pertaining to the time when I posted in that way, when I was a fully partisan anti-Brexit, anti-Trump, anti-conservative Twitterer. This, of course, is only my personal experience.
When I wanted to quell the frustration that someone believed something that I didn't I would talk down to them, in a parental way. It was a coping strategy, to reassure myself that the only problem was that the other person hadn't attained my own level of intellectual maturity.
There was also a bonus which was earned in the form of applause from my political tribe, because it reassured everyone else that their beliefs were founded on higher intelligence than that of the other side.
It was also a way to avoid expending energy on good faith engagement, because it almost guaranteed that no meaningful exchange of viewpoints, resulting in a potentially useful synthesis, was likely to result.
I can't, of course, speak for Jeffrey. This was just my personal motivation for patronising people on the Internet when I didn't like what they were saying. It was quite liberating to realise why I personally patronised people in that way, because it enabled me to up my game considerably when snarking members of my old team, who never seemed to progress past performative weariness. Which, of course, I'm doing right now because I find comments like his kind of quaint these days.
That was beautiful and articulate! The description fits exactly what I think so many of us feel reading replies, articles, tweets, ect by Jeff and Co.
There's a right-wing approach too, recently practiced on me by someone calling themselves 'Billionaire Psycho'. In this version the sarcasm is based around pretending to agree with you, but playing your own view back in a ludicrously distorted or essentialised way. I've noticed for years that political types on both sides have these particular trolling styles and wonder if it's a traditional cultural or cognitive thing (or a weave of both).
Don’t flatter yourself Mike; you have never posted anything like I have written.
Unfortunately, I do not have a political tribe--or at least my political tribe is thinly dispersed among the diaspora of independent souls.
As for “good faith energy”, I gave the energy that the original article deserved. And it included a very succinct and nuanced destruction of one of its central pillars. No response I have thus received has even attempted to actually respond to my argument directly. Everything has been just worthless insults, mood policing, and poor speculation about my political tribe.
The words people are using aren’t even accurate. It’s like you all don’t know the definitions of the words you use. “Patronizing” for example. I have expressed nothing to suggest kindness or helpfulness. I have been quite consistently contemptuous. And simply that. I am not being snarky. I am simply being transparent. There is no indirection or sarcasm in what I have written. I think the original article was foolish and those who have responded to me without any attempt to actually wrestle with what I wrote pathetic.
It seems like you are still engaging in your old coping mechanism. The stupidity of what you wrote bewilders me so much that I actually think there is like a small chance that you are actually just being extremely sarcastic and support my view. What you wrote is just so stupid that the hopeful side of me doesn’t want to believe you are as lost as what you wrote seems to imply. And I’m saying this sincerely.
How about we have a Rumble conversation Mike? A good faith Rumble conversation. You can argue why you think the IQ of Palestinians are the primary causal factor for increased average crime among Palestinian immigrants in Denmark and I’ll argue that such a thesis is wrong and most likely a reflection of bigotry.
'Don't flatter yourself' is your opener? Seriously, Jeff?
(I didn't read beyond that).
Go well and enjoy your juvenile trolling, if you must.
One of the reasons I'd guess that no one is engaging seriously with you is this tone. Honestly, it made it harder to focus on the points you were making, even though they seemed reasonable to me as a contribution to a potential discussion.
Thanks for the invitation to talk. I'm nowhere near qualified to defend or promote the arguments made in this article. They are just data points and interpretations that I thought were interesting. I haven't adopted them as personal canon, so I've no skin in the game.
My conclusion, anyway, is that you could have made your points without insulting the author and his readers. I, on the other hand, shaded you - so fair play. It's the Internet, after all.
If you found my tone toward the author who wrote vapid, cruelly-coolly-callous pseudo intellectual tripe like “Insofar as intelligence is the chief cause of social inequality between groups, one should expect them to attain roughly equal outcomes”
so awful it inspired you to assume I was a tribal enemy and attribute to me various political attitudes I dont have, yet don’t find the author’s tone worthy of any shade, then the reason you were having a hard time focusing on my argument had less to do with my tone per se and more to do with your prejudices.
I never insulted simply his readers -- albeit no doubt his *admirers* or his “allies” may have felt insulted. If you didn’t have “skin in the game”, my disparagement of him would not have inspired the shade you threw.
I could have made some of my points without disparaging the author, but that was one of my points. He deserved it.
And yes, tis the internet, but alas, if things keep going the way they are we will no longer be free to throw shade on the internet. And the people wanting to make “the internet safe for everyone” are not low iq immigrants, they are relatively high iq landed gentry. And they will do so in the tone of ChatGPT.
0 likes Jeff.
In this moment are you euphoric, not because of a phony god's blessing, but because you are enlightened by your own intelligence?
Disregard Smarmy. I will stand with long-winded and dull.
Condescending pseudointellectual twat. I can pick them out like chili flakes in fucking jello, and jeffy here is one spicy little flake.
Western liberal? Well, before you can successfully come up with a term that captures my distinctive style that reflects my political alignment you will need to upgrade your political consciousness beyond binaries. You are going to need to hone your ability to discern nuance much better than “western liberal.” Until then, just work on understanding my argument.
Yes, exactly. Dick might be the best word here. I’m not sure. But Jeff, at least be original when you write. I feel like you’re just trying to do your best impression of what you think a NYT editorial would say. Not even really a diss but just very small dick energy. I come in peace fwiw.
Lol this is funny. He answered in exactly the same style that you described. It's his defense strategy, he has nothing else
I see this with progs a lot. We are writing shorthand on the internet. They will answer back with a mishmash of ideas that would take a series of essays to unpack. So....Yes Jeff.....I have three sons. One has an IQ of 176. He is nowhere near as successful as one of my other sons, also smart. Not as smart. However when you are talking about an overall culture that for various reasons produces people with IQs that would make them unfunctional in a modern society THEY AREN’T GOING TO DO WELL. And yes, being way too smart makes one tend to not do well also. It has a hundred different aspects. All of us here understand all this without having to delve into every detail. Comparing the IQs of people 100 years ago to today is nearly meaningless. We are talking about comparative groups with differing capacities.
No it isn’t meaningless. Because whether these are dynamic abstract groups with people who can change if their culture and the environment changes or if these are static groups with people who will be stuck being the way they are should dramatically affect how we politically respond to group disparities. Likewise, whether the behavior is caused by low iq or whether it is caused by other cultural factors that are not directly related to iq will also affect how we politically respond to them. It is particularly relevant in the US because there are people like Charles Murray who want people to *give up* on trying to improve the disparities between racial groups because he assumes they are due to “intractable” genetic factors.
We don’t need to solve the problems by following progressives, but we should encourage attempts that can possibly improve the culture and environment that leads to social dysfunction. If we accept the premise that genetics underlies our social ills, then eugenics is the only solution. And we also leave it to progressives to implement the solution -- which in my opinion is awfully bad. They are making it *worse*.
And it also matters comparing people 100 years ago to today simply in relationship to the argument the author made regarding causal connection between iq and the social problems of Palestinians in Denmark.
The stats from 100 years ago in different cultures can’t meaningfully be compared. Other than to possibly theorize. But I wouldn’t make decisions on that.
You must not read NYT editorials. They are self identified liberals. I find the terms liberal and conservative simplistic and worthless when describing myself. I view Biden worse than Trump. That would be blasphemy to the New York Times. I expressed contempt for one idea here and a pack of idiots assumed I belonged to the tribe of their sworn enemies. And you, an anonymous internet denizen, are resorting to genital jousting. Small brain energy.
Excellent confirmation of the pseudointellectual component of my formula, thank you, Jeffy.
You'd be much better off feeling like you're at the top of your class in a place like Reddit or 4chan, but it doesn't translate here.
Dude, you sound like a raging dick.
He is one of those clever, mildly well read, but stupid people that are found amongst the chatterati.
You sound like an idiot who doesn’t even understand what he believes.
Textual Lisp.
Smarmy
Best example of mitwit theory in a while. If you keep commenting, we can maybe train an LLM on this.
No, but its certainly an example of a theory that "mitwits" cannot comprehend and have no desire to comprehend. And its clear from the abundant hollow butthurt responses in particular to my comment that mitwits are your primary target audience.
So many words, forget about IQ let's talk about culture and more importantly values. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the effects of having a terrorist organization like Hamas raise your children.
“Rocket scientist” - as in, those who manufacture such with the aid of UNWRA funding and Iranian know-how?
That I will not dispute.
There is in fact more than an IQ question and it is the DNA component. These desert camel rapists are undomesticated savages just like the somalis.
Hmmm.
You don't appear to understand the difference between unadjusted test scores (which change over time) and iq, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
It is a reasonable measure of a person's ability to process information, recognize patterns, express and understand complex and subtle ideas, learn and follow instructions, etc.
Not by any means a perfect measure.
However, groups that perform lower on measures of general intelligence generally perform worse as groups in measures of academic achievement and vocational success.
For example, the US army accepts recruits with iqs of 85 and higher. A few years back, they for a period of time accepted applicants with iqs of 80 or higher. However, the cohort with iqs between 80 and 85 were more likely to fail to meet training goals, to such an extent that the investment in recruits with iqs between 80 and 85 didn't pay.
That said, measuring iq for individuals who are from dramatically different cultural backgrounds can be a bit difficult. Even so, the measurement is likely a good indicator of the ability of the tested individual to prosper in the cultural context which the test reflects.
I know a woman from Niger. Raised in a tiny village in the Sahara. She escaped her village as she is a Christian and 2/3 of her family were Muslims. They were about to marry her off to an elderly Muslim as his third wife. She ran off to Ghana. She has one year of formal education, and that was in a village school. However after moving to Ghana she interacted with many people and a French woman took her under her care. She now speaks French, English, can get by in a few other Euro languages. And she speaks three different African languages. All self taught, French more formally taught. She is very bright. What is her IQ? I doubt it would score above 80 as she is ignorant of everything. Yet she is very bright. She is also nearly not functional in Canada. She has no math skills beyond very simple ones. Her kids are half Canadian. The eldest at 2 and a half might be one of the smartest kids I have met. She will do fine. But would she if she weren’t exceptional? I doubt it.
True. Life is hard for a lot of people in ways that Americans have no insight into. For reasons I won't elaborate on, I suspect Palestinians would score slightly above average on a true test of innate intelligence. However, life experience and ideology make them unprofitable immigrants.
Their low IQ and high crime rate make them undesirable immigrants. Fanatical religiosity and terrorism don't help either. I don't know why you think they would do better on another test, which doesn't even exist, because the IQ test already does the job well, but it's not like they've been making smart decisions in Palestine.
They don’t let their kids transition. So they have that over most Hollywood movie stars.
"You don't appear to understand the difference between unadjusted test scores (which change over time) and iq, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15."
No, I think you do not understand the "flynn effect".
Here is the guy the term was coined after talking about it in a ted talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpqilhW9uI
I am well aware of the Flynn effect.
However, it is irrelevant.
IQ is always comparative, it assesses an individual's abilities compared to the group average.
Thus it provides information about the ability of an individual (or by extension a cohort) to compete with other individuals or groups. This is why no one cares about the Flynn effect. They don't even care enough to debunk it. It simply doesn't matter.
That said, it seems unlikely that the data presented in the article is accurate. You might find that avenue of argumentation more profitable.
I highly doubt that a cohort of middle eastern people have an average iq in the 80's. Other than severe malnutrition during childhood, it seems unlikely.
That said, people with iq's in the 70's, who are adults (just not very smart) who are disciplined and have good habits can lead productive lives. This is particularly true for women, since a person with an iq of 70 can cook, clean, raise children, drive a car, and basically do everything a trad wife does. Since women in traditional society are valued for appearance and utility as servants, they often are successful and fulfilled in these roles.
I would further state that the difficulty in making Palestinian Muslim immigrants into productive citizens is not primarily due to intelligence, but due to ideology.
Middle Eastern people do have IQs in the low 80s. The exception is Christian minorities.
“However, it is irrelevant.
IQ is always comparative, it assesses an individual's abilities compared to the group average.
Thus it provides information about the ability of an individual (or by extension a cohort) to compete with other individuals or groups. This is why no one cares about the Flynn effect. They don't even care enough to debunk it. It simply doesn't matter. “
It’s relevant to my argument. I don’t in fact think you are “well aware of the Flynn effect”. What you have said doesn’t address my argument.
And the notion that no one cares about the flynn effect is erroneous. Thomas Sowell has written about it quite a bit, including in his latest book Social Justice Fallacies. Thomas Sowell is certainly someone. The reason it hasn’t been “debunked” isn’t because people don’t care about it, but that it’s well established by research. And one of the reasons it’s well established by research is because people care about it. The fact that *you* don’t care about it doesn’t say much, other than you haven’t grasped its implications.
“I highly doubt that a cohort of middle eastern people have an average iq in the 80's. Other than severe malnutrition during childhood, it seems unlikely.”
Shrug. It’s irrelevant to my argument.
“That said, it seems unlikely that the data presented in the article is accurate. You might find that avenue of argumentation more profitable.”
No. My argument is valid regardless of whether the data is accurate.
“I would further state that the difficulty in making Palestinian Muslim immigrants into productive citizens is not primarily due to intelligence, but due to ideology.”
Yah I agree with you. That is, I’d wager it is due to culture.
Perhaps.
I have a high regard for Thomas Sowell, and would be interested in his perspective.
However, any group that scores in the low 80's on an IQ test is unlikely to to be successful in society by conventional measures of success.
I would say this is more the case if the underlying issue is not cognative competency, but some underlying cultural or social pathology.
Well since you have high regard for Sowell I’ll just let him speak. Here is an interview on his latest book. In it he discusses the Flynn effect.
https://www.hoover.org/research/consequences-matter-thomas-sowell-social-justice-fallacies
Your long winded and very dull comment offered nothing more than pure opinion as you are guessing your way up to the moral high ground.
I think you raise a good point - if low IQ = crime, then crime rate should reduce over time. That being said, it seems crime rate IS reducing over time. But then again this is multi-causal and to attribute it to rising IQ would be overly simplistic.
To answer your charge though - let me try to give two quick potential responses.
1. Maybe it's not absolute IQ, but relative IQ that impacts crime - I can envision a scenario where - If the best opportunities in a society accrue to the smartest people in a society, perhaps those with lower IQs will naturally be pushed to the extremities of society. I haven't thought about this extensively, but here is one paper that addresses this.
"A person's relative IQ, with respect to one's neighborhood peers, determines gang participation." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053535712001151 [I haven't analyzed this]
2. Perhaps crime and crime monitoring are both a function of IQ. So an older society with lower average IQ did not seem to have "higher" crime rates than a current society because the people catching the criminals were also subject to the low average IQ. So the rate of catching criminals is constant across time, but in every society, past and present, criminals typically have lower IQs
That being said, I think Emil's claims are not necessarily accurate
I can think of a reason why the asylum seekers would have more criminal in a way that doesn't rely on their IQ e.g., socio-economic factors: "lack of social support (321 might not be sufficient to build a robust community in a foreign space)", "unfamiliarity with local laws", "stressors from being a refugee/asylum seeker", "difference in customs", "increased policing", "racism" etc.
Palestinians are more criminals because they are low IQ savages, and that's it. Unfamiliarity with local laws, lack of social support, stress and racism, all of these do not exist. How do I know this? Because we know that certain immigrant groups did great, even if they were fleeing war, migrated without social support, or concentrated in the same neighborhoods. Han people, Vietnamese, Jews and several other groups have migrated, and have not caused the types of problems that Palestinians did.
I'll be wary of that simplistic statement "low IQ savages, and that's it". Sure, absolute IQ links to crime, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient as an explainer.
Here are some things to muddle things:
1. In Japan, despite accounting for only 0.34% of the population, the Vietnamese commit 3.4% of all murders in the country. And the Vietnamese have a high IQ.
2. Nepal is stated to be the country with the lowest IQ, but they have similar crime rate to the US. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Nepal/United-States/Crime There is also no report that they commit the most crimes in India (where they typically emigrate to).
3. Qatari have the lowest crime per capita, and Lynn and Vanhanen estimated the IQ in Qatar to be around 78 while they estimate Palestinian IQ to be 84.8. So what's the truth?
I think you have to look into more sociological reasons, I think.
"And the Vietnamese have a high IQ. "
Not compared to Japanese people.
Which goes to my point that it is not absolute IQ, but relative IQ that might be important
If you're looking at relative homicide rates, sure. However, we can't say from that whether Vietnamese in Japan have high homicide rates or Japanese people just have really low ones.
Interesting data: 1. Japan is very ethnocentric. Vietnamese MIGHT be kept out of 'polite' society. And, maybe not. 2. Culture then for that group. Perhaps not for all groups of low IQ people. I would suppose it depends on how and why they have low IQs. In-bred? Usually that carries a lot of problems, IQ/cognitive abilities being one. 3. I got nothing....
Read my argument and get back to me.
A
Provide me with specific examples and data to dispute specific things I wrote. And don’t just link random external resources without explaining how they precisely relate to what I am talking about specifically. For example, the iapsyche article you linked to just now, from briefly looking at it, has no clear connection to what ive argued and I don’t have time to read every article some random guy points to without any semblance of an argument and find its relevance *for them*. If you think there is, lay it out for everyone, *yourself*. You don’t even understand the stuff you are linking to, you are just linking to it because you think it supports your belief but you don’t even have the ability to assess the validity of it. It’s like people who believe in apocalyptic climate change simply “trusting the science”; they just see a bunch of graphs and people with credentials are telling them stuff and they are like “yah I believe”.
You have not demonstrated you even understand my argument sufficiently to dispute it. The “Flynn effect” is applicable to groups insofar as we see the iqs of groups changing over time. The instability of iqs over time is observed for group scores(which oddly that paper you linked to acknowledges). Albeit, individuals also have shown some instability of iq over time. Not relevant to what I specifically wrote though. And what does it matter that the tests are “measurement invariant” across time when those test takers who set the new average take older tests and they score above the old average? That is taken into consideration by Flynn.
The average iq of “white” Americans(the group) 100 years ago would be around 70 if we scored them on modern standards. That is borderline “retarded” according to modern standards. If the average iq of white Americans today were adjusted for the standards of 100 years ago, they would be at around 130. That is borderline “gifted”. If the average retarded white ancestor 100 years ago wasn’t demonstrating the same chance of social dysfunction as the average 85 iq Palestinian, then we should deeply doubt that the average iqs of Palestinians is responsible for the social dysfunction. We have clear historical examples of people with the average IQs of modern Palestinians not behaving on average the way those Palestinians in Denmark are on average. 60% of white Americans had not been convicted of the sorts of crimes those Palestinians have. The work ethics of the average white American 100 years ago doesn’t match the work ethic of the average Palestinian refugee in Denmark. *Yet the “raw” iq of the average white Americans was lower.* Take a moment to contemplate that. What I just wrote was complex.
Furthermore iq doesnt measure some kind of “genetic intelligence”; it measures the ability an individual has, at the time of the test, to perform in an expected way on narrowly tailored and controlled cognitive tasks. And the instability of iqs over time of *groups* since the tests have been administrated is good evidence that environment has an enormous impact on performance on cognitive tests -- the difference being between being “retarded” and “gifted.” Albeit it doesn’t show exactly that, because only a fool would contend that the average white American 100 years ago was borderline “retarded.” Iq tests don’t comprehensively measure intelligence.
Yet some clowns are still confidently preaching that the average relatively low iq of some groups today are the “primary cause” of various social ills.
Frankly, I suspect more damage to the world in the last decade was probably caused by people with relatively high iqs -- covid, both the plausible creation of it, and the lockdowns that followed, were probably both orchestrated and supported by people on average with relatively higher iqs, but utterly stupid nonetheless.
"Take a moment to contemplate that. What I just wrote was complex."
Fucking CLASSIC. You've truly outdone yourself, Mr. Peoples. An inspiration to us all.
I’m actually laughing out loud at his complex comment. Jeff is clearly a smart dude but unfortunately like so many, he is intellectually crippled by his belief system. It’s palpable just from his writing structure just how victimized he is of his own confirmation biases. He can’t see things from different vantage points which becomes his moral failure.
“ I provide a link to a post covering a massive amount of evidence suggesting that cognitive ability, as measured by IQ tests, causes social outcomes and explains a large share of the inequalities between groups. And I’m not sure what your response to this evidence is. Please explain what part of the conversation I am misunderstanding. “
The part of the conversation you are missing is the part where I said I don’t have time to read random links to long ass tombs on the internet with no clear direct connection to what I’ve said. I’m not about to dispute every blogger on the internet who has an idea that I disagree with.
“A fair amount of evidence suggests that iq scores are not measurement invariant across cohorts. So comparing iq scores of groups today to groups in the past is not meaningful in most respects - the tests aren't always functioning the same across cohorts, for whatever reason.”
And evidence suggests cognitive tests are invariant. For evidence on measurement invariance across race and time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763720/
“So, if Palestinian immigrants are doing worse than native citizens of a country on tests of cognitive ability, then this is telling us something important about the relative cognitive abilities of these groups and we can expect this disparity to translate into group inequality in other ways (income, employment, crime, etc). But the same isn't true for differences in iq scores across cohorts. What part of that are you disagreeing with? “
I wouldn’t disagree that there is some statistical correlations between iq and various social disparities but what we can *scientifically* infer from those correlations based on the available data is very limited, and attributing iq as the “primary cause” of the disparities is erroneous. Eg, if we could magically increase a person’s iq but their personality and culture remains the same, we shouldn’t have much confidence they would be less likely to commit a crime; they may in fact rather than just commit murder, orchestrate a terrorist attack, or rather than getting a job as a programmer they might pursue a life as hacker who targets the wallets of seniors. Just as we shouldn’t indiscriminately let people into our country, if we had the magic, we shouldn’t indiscriminately bestow people with more intelligence. For example, if I could magically change how a random Palestinian refugee was raised (their family and peers) or I could magically add 20 iq to their brains, in order to alter those social markers, I’d select the former. What about you?
Two small typos :)
'serious find'
'he Standard Progressive Matrices'
But the food......
Not even a mention of the selection issue here?
I added some more government statistics for a less select group, but it's just more of the same.
Damn, who would have thought the IQ of a people routinely relocated and bombed for 70 years would be so low…
No real evidence getting bombed lowers IQ. Think about it for a few seconds. Germans, Brits, Dutch, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc. all got bombed during childhood and no obvious big decline in those cohorts.
And your point is? The study shows some facts. The question is what to do with these facts. Also, people throughout the Middle East - Israel excluded - all come in about 80-85 IQ. War torn or not. The his has been generally attributed to in breeding. Marrying your cousin, etc.
Yes, I find it odd there is virtually no mention of the generational in breeding that has taken place among this group. It is well known the mental and physical defects this causes. I would wager that is the main contributor for their low IQ.
IQ is a function of reading too. The more one reads the higher the IQs tend to be. Having no books allowed except the Koran likely isn’t helping either.
The only legal difference between Jews and Arabs in Israel is that the latter don't have to serve in the military. If anything, Arabs are advantaged.
Israel is not an apartheid state though. Quite the contrary. Over 20% of Israel’s population is Arab. How many Israeli’s or Jewish people live in Gaza?
The word Apartheid comes from a country with a 10% minority ruling. Israels Basic Laws make it an ethnostate.
Also, Israel isn’t an apartheid state.
About 20% of the Knesset is Arab. How is it apartheid?
Amnesty International has been corrupted. Like all big NGOs it has been taken over by Globalist Progs.
You can be any religion or ethnicity in Israel. Try being Jewish in Iran. You need to read something other than propaganda.
There are around 8,000 Jews in Iran.
It truly must be terrible living under the yoke of Hamas, and I do feel for them.
Unfortunately, the children seem no better and they were born abroad. Genetics is a bitch as they say. But keep making excuses for them.
I don’t deny it, but this one in particular is such an extreme case of misery that outweighs every other factor by far.
Aren’t middle eastern people or some populations of them extremely inbred. They seem to go for the many children route due to natural selection and high mortality. However the gibs mentality prevents any acceleration of cognitive development unlike the thriftiness of German work ethic or other groups. I still don’t understand why food arrives in these places besides the exchange of resources like oil and cheap labour that no one wants to do.
The UK has some stat’s on Middle Eastern 1st cousin marriages. Not good. The inbreeding results in the highest number of birth defects (proportional) of any sub-population.
I don’t deny some relation of IQ deficient due to poor environment. Heck, if you locked Einstein in a closet for his first 18 years, I’m sure he’d be an “imbecile” when you let him out. But to blame all of the Palestinian troubles/deficiencies on Israeli persecution is simply a “cope”. We have two different populations with varying potential living side by side. One will necessarily out perform the other.
And your point? The description is wrt UK, I freely admit and of course mainly Pakistani residents. However, any society where such 1st cousin marriages are common will have the same problem with genetic inbreeding. So are you saying ME societies are immune, or simply don’t practice such marriage arrangements.
Extreme case of misery? The jews, germans, british and japanese would like to disagree
The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. The bombs killed a lot of people but didn't lower their IQ and they managed to rebuild their country.
On the other hand, people born and grew up with the US with plenty of affirmative action programs and very high welfare payments will complain that they can't get ahead because of "legacy of slavery" (whatever that means).
The main point of my argument was that these people don't have an independent sovereign state of their own hence constantly relocated, and are completely dependent on the occupying Israeli state to even live for almost a century, whereas in Japan modern education had already been a thing since the 19th century and the occupying allies had left by 1952. I'm not saying if Palestine gains an independent state they will all become Nobel Prize winners, but they would certainly become more civilized and law-abiding therefore smarter.
This the typical fatally flawed leftist "nurture" position. Jews in Europe and in the US did very well even before Israel was created in 1948. Why? The lack of a Jewish homeland didn't stop them from making crucial contributions to the development for much of the modern world.
High IQ people do high IQ things regardless of where they are. It's the very definition of high IQ: more capable of adapting to complex life situations. Survive and thrive even in hostile countries. You can see this with Chinese in Southeast Asia as well.
I only talk about what matters in a pragmatical point of view and what can be done, nature is given and hardly changeable but nurture isn’t, that’s why I emphasise it. Of course there’s also the option of genocide which ironically the jews would love to do to their fellow semites.
Hmmmm....are there any Arab Muslim nations that are doing well? Saudi Arabia sits on a sea of oil. Take that out of the equation and imagine how well they would do. Yet individual Arabs Muslims outside of that milieu can do well. It is largely culture.
Iq matters but you even admitted in the initial study the serious crime rate fell from 64% from the parents to about half the rate of incidence in their children. Thus, it appears that some sort of environmental factor was essential in the decrease rather than iq. These are also refugees we are talking about, it takes time to assimilate. Either way I just don’t get the point or the timing: it’s like you are trying to say Palestinians are dumb so let’s not help them. It’s about empathy to many people, and as a principle I find that to be more overwhelming of a case than a marginal increase in crime. The net good likely outweighs the bad. There are also other solutions other than taking in refugees.
“It’s about empathy to many people”
No that’s actually not what this article is evenly remotely about. Nor is anyone saying anything about empathy. I award you no points and may...
I assure you Ben that I have no interest nor desire in receiving any sort of points from you. You may act oblivious if you want but yes empathy is of large importance in this conversation. Because based on the content of the post the conclusion is what do we know about Palestinians: they have a lower iq and commit more crimes on average. Hmm yes surely this has no suggestive perspectives on what should be done in terms of policy... no of course it’s quite evident that this is relevant on the discussion of whether or not these applications should be accepted! My point is simply that despite the drawbacks, empathy must still be considered
Okay man, enjoy the kids table with your peace pipe Mr. “We just need more empathy man, that’ll solve it!”
Nice straw man. There are always trade offs. I’m not saying that that is even the solution
He didn’t remotely imply they are dumb so don’t help them. He pointed out facts. It is from facts we should begin to determine a course of action. Not ‘feelz’.
The point of the article was what do we know about the Palestinians: yet what he brings up is crime stats and iq. So yes, I would say the general implication is that those with lower intelligence quotient scores commit more crime. The implications of this (especially within the context of Kierkegaard’s past post or statements on immigration) are quite clear: dysgenic/ uptick in crime. In some regards he is correct, my point is merely to suggest that empathy is important despite these drawbacks.
I would be surprised if people say 15-20 points IQ below the average don’t commit more crime. Someone said Qataris have very low IQs and very low crime. But they also cut your hands off for stealing. And if everyone is in the same boat maybe IQ becomes less of a factor.
Good questions. However, given the country, Denmark, I'm suspecting a fairly serious crime.
Hmmm.
You don't appear to understand the difference between unadjusted test scores (which change over time) and iq, which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
It is a reasonable measure of a person's ability to process information, recognize patterns, express and understand complex and subtle ideas, learn and follow instructions, etc.
Not by any means a perfect measure.
However, groups that perform lower on measures of general intelligence generally perform worse as groups in measures of academic achievement and vocational success.
For example, the US army accepts recruits with iqs of 85 and higher. A few years back, they for a period of time accepted applicants with iqs of 80 or higher. However, the cohort with iqs between 80 and 85 were more likely to fail to meet training goals, to such an extent that the investment in recruits with iqs between 80 and 85 didn't pay.
That said, measuring iq for individuals who are from dramatically different cultural backgrounds can be a bit difficult. Even so, the measurement is likely a good indicator of the ability of the tested individual to prosper in the cultural context which the test reflects
And then there’s the issue of marriage between 2nd cousins or closer affiliation on IQ
allowing jews to take over all of the West is worse then any Pals. jews own this writer or maybe he is just another jew supremacyst
Trolling?
sucking jew ass?
That sounds bleak. Is this a brain-drain problem? Like, every Palestinian with the resources (intelligence among them) and foresight to do so, left a long time ago, and the remaining population is... about what you'd expect in that case?
IIRC 85 is the minimum IQ to join the *army* in the US. Anything lower than that, and *even the army* finds that you're too much of a liability to be any use to them. I can't even imagine the dysfunction if that's the high-end population average.
I lived in Denmark for ten years, during the 1990s, four of which were spent attending Danish classes. So, I met a lot of Muslims, mainly men, of varying qualifications and temperaments. Some were kind-hearted, others not so much. They were a diverse bunch. But, there is one thing I can say about all of them: they felt unwelcome. The only reason they were living in Denmark was for financial security. It is so cruel, because it's like becoming dependent on a soul destroying drug. They would be so much happier in their home countries. But, like a drug addict, they struggle to do what is in their own best interest. Of course, they also want their children to enjoy the benefits of a wealthy society. So, the government would have to pay them an insane amount to leave. I gather that the payment to leave Denmark is about the equivalent of a year's welfare, which is more than enough to start afresh in a poor country. But, there are very few takers. So, it needs to be increased a lot. Most of them are on benefits anyway, so it'd be worth it in the long-run.
"What can you expect of Palestinians in your country?"
"Rape, theft, murders, gang violence, rape..."
"You already said rape!"
"They like rape!"
Muslims are the scourge of the world.
No need to be this openly Islamophobic. And it's actually Europeans that are the scourge of the world. They are one's who colonized and looted so much of the world.
Unlike the Ottomans, Arab Muslims, Aztecs, Inca, various African empires, the Indians, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Japanese, Chinese, etc......aside from THOSE imperial colonialists, all the evil in the world was created by the European imperialists. Grow a brain and learn some history, why don’t you?
What is the source of the figures, and what exactly is "serious find or jail time"?
Source are the studies linked above.
If you click the Danish parliament source, and Google Translate you get:
"Persons who have received two or more decisions during the period are included in the statistics only once according to the following prioritization: unconditional prison sentence, then conditional prison sentence and finally fine and other. Fines of less than DKK 1,500 for violating the traffic law are not included in the statistics."
Low IQ shitskin parasites in your country: what to expect?