JayMan is an HBd blogger obsessed with IQ, heredity and achievement, and probably Richard Lynn's #1 fan. He claims to be Jamaican, which makes him either the most insanely self-hating black person on earth, or a white Nordicist pretending to be black so he can get away with insulting blacks and everyone else who isn't Northwestern European. Either way, he's an idiot.
Recently he "called me out" on his blog re: my stance on environmental factors in global IQ disparities. I had debated him there about a year and a half ago and easily won, and I guess he's been traumatized by it ever since. He links to that post in his new one, and I wondered why he would want to remind people of his defeat, but when I checked it again I noticed that he'd deleted my final reply to try and make himself look like the winner (you can read the unedited discussion here; the deleted comment is "Mar 27 2012 9:57 AM"). Then when I attempted to reply to his latest "challenge" the other day, he refused to approve that comment too. Just thought you'd want to know what a pathetic, dishonest, chickenshit loser he is...if you couldn't already tell.
Anyway, my response to his nonsense was this study showing that poverty leads to a significant drop in IQ points, and this new one which concludes similarly that the wealth of nations determines "national IQs" (not the other way around).
19 comments
Yeah, you demolished him.
What amazes me about lots of these HBD/racialist bloggers is how frightfully little they know about history, philosophy, religion, or any of the other numerous ingredients that shape a culture. They're one-trick ponies, reducing everything to race/IQ. Complexity and nuance are lost on them. They give amateurs a bad name.
Someone once remarked that Marxism was more popular among literary critics and other dilettantes with little grasp of economics than among professional economists because it gave them a relatively simple explanatory tool to unravel an arcane and challenging subject. HBD/IQ seems to serve a similar function.
By the way, it's funny that people cite Richard Lynn as some sort of objective researcher who is only going where the data take him. The man was out and proud as a right-wing ideologue as early as the 1970s:
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/cattell/lynn.htm
"If the evolutionary process is to bring its benefits, it has to be allowed to operate effectively. This means that incompetent societies have to be allowed to go to the wall. This is something we in advanced societies do not at present face up to and the reason for this, according to Cattell, is that we have become too soft-hearted. For instance, the foreign aid which we give to the under-developed world is a mistake, akin to keeping going incompetent species like the dinosaurs which are not fit for the competitive struggle for existence. What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them otherwise we shall all be overcrowded. After all, ninety-eight per cent of the of the species known to zoologists are extinct. Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."
"As a general rule it would be best for national cultures to keep themselves to themselves and not to admit immigrants. There are several reasons for this. Isolation would give rise to societies with greater diversity and individuality, both culturally and genetically. Indeed, it would be desirable if the human race could evolve several different non-interbreeding species, since this would increase the options for evolution to work on. Another reason for discouraging migration is that migrants are often people of low genetic quality who reduce the efficiency of the population they join."
"People are poor largely because they are incompetent and unintelligent. Such people should not be encouraged to breed. Conversely, we are too harsh to the rich. Progressive taxation, for example, is hard to justify. Why should the rich have to contribute more than anyone else through taxation to the maintenance of state services, since they do not benefit more from them? Morally, this cannot be justified. Eugenically, it is equally undesirable. For the rich are rich, broadly speaking, because they are intelligent and competent and we should encourage them to have more children. Let them keep their money and they may be persuaded to do so. We should allow the effects of competition full reign within societies as well as between societies. For it is through competition that evolutionary progress will take place."
"Over the last forty years Cattell has evidently travelled (sic!) the long road from radical Socialist to high Tory. He is not the first to have done so. Those who share this latter viewpoint will welcome a recruit of such undoubted brilliance as Raymond Cattell."
Lynn , his research and his doctrine, have been proven erroneous and fraudulent time and time again.
The case against Lynn's doctrine that population IQ determines levels of socio-economic development and public health status
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1953863&show=abstract
JayMan seems not to understand the intricacies, while you seem not to understand parsimony. Both of you are ultimately idiots. You ignored the resistance of IQ in groups, especially such as East Asian and the PISA scores as a reliable approximation of IQ while JayMan totally ignored the flexibility of IQ on caucasoid/hispanic groups.
This clearly needs a better explanation and both your attempts at chicken/egg arguments will never end.
A second problem after reviewing the whole mess was what I will now call the Mongoloid assumption that is obviously derived from outdated Meiners' classification. Looking at the patrilineal line(the migration pattern), we can see the expansion of the east asian "race" does not share the same north-south gradient, west-east gradient of most of Eurasia but a central expansion with assimilation of northern populations and southern populations at the extremes. Failing to even address this even if it may be wrong in non-HBD anthropology astounds me. The classic "pure mongoloid" look may not be east asian at all. The whole "adapted" to the cold basically falls apart.
However, in addition, many of your arguments seem to be qualitative invoking immeasurable traits such as "culture of learning" that basically tosses you back down on the chicken/egg argument. Both of you have severe hemianopsia.
I stumbled onto here and I see I'm glad that I stayed in the department of physics instead of wading into this stinking cesspool. I'll never visit here again, so you don't even have to bother to moderating it. This is just a rant to get off my chest. Both of you seem to have yours on your blogs, and I'll have my minute of rant here too.
^ PISA scores are not a reliable approximation of IQ. You're the idiot.
I have responded here:
“Racial Reality” Provides My 150th Post | JayMan's Blog
For the record, I didn't see a comment from you. However, I haven't been paying attention to my spam filter. If it was caught there, I wouldn't have seen it, and it might have gotten deleted.
I'm going to discuss this here. If you would like to discuss, please come over to my blog or write a response blog post, and I will write a response to it. :)
I meant I am not^ going to discuss this here...
I've noticed that simple-minded bigots like Steve Sailer who tout PISA as proxies for IQ have to ignore or feebly explain away the poor performance of countries with White-majority populations like Argentina and Uruguay, coming significantly behind "brown" countries like Mexico. Likewise, Thailand registers a high IQ (98) but performs poorly on PISA.
In addition, there was the abysmal performance of India a few years ago -- even at the upper tiers and in the more developed provinces -- which clashes mightily with high performance of Indian American immigrants. Once again, people like Sailer (who have little interest in objectivity and primarily want to justify their prejudices) don't know what to make of such data and so they just wave them away.
@JayMan
Wicherts might not be convinced by Mani's study (though that has in no way been settled yet), but he agrees that IQ differences are mostly environmental.
As for the Daniele study, I'll wait for any peer-reviewed criticism of it to come out. Your obviously biased opinion is irrelevant.
Thanks for all the free advertising though, but I still want to know what happened to my final reply in the "Those Italians..." thread.
Awesome, after reading the post, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to engage HBD fundamentalists in conversation that incorporates the painstaking scientific work that refutes the more radical abuses of the construct of IQ. In other words: you destroyed jayman completely and I got a real rush reading it.
Sorry.They all are Turks with turkic haplogroups.
Lynn , Rushton and Arthur Jensen - the hereditarian camp do NOT claim that its only heredity / genetics that determines IQ . They maintain that observed racial IQ gaps are partially environmental and partially hereditary . So research reports finding adverse influence of poor environment/hygiene/nutrition etc are very much consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis that observed racial gaps in IQ are partially environmental in origin .
Moreover , the argument that observed racial gaps in IQ are ENTIRELY environmental in origin puts the cart before the horse when it claims that low IQ scores observed among Africans as compared to Europeans are SOLELY due to poverty , poor nutrition and sanitation etc among Africans since it fails to explain what or whom provided Europeans with good nutrition / healthcare / sanitation to begin with . Everyone was poor and miserable to begin with , yet some races have advanced substantially while others lag behind .
PS - I am not European . I am Indian . I fully acknowledge the reality of hereditary gaps in genetic potential for intelligence .
Infact , claiming that Africans , Indians and other poor peoples are poor despite having the same genetic potential for IQ as Europeans or East Asians , is an utter insult to these races . If Africans have done so horribly poor in comparison despite being endowed with the same genetic potential for IQ , it would imply that Africans are so lazy or otherwise useless that they produced such dismal results compared to Europeans despite being equipped with the same resources
Manu, your argument is flawed in multiple ways but the most glaring problem with it is that ignores *how* Europeans were able to make advancements in nutrition, healthcare, and (debatably) sanitation - through empire, conquest, colonization, exploitation... the development of medicine is linked very directly to imperialism (see: https://he.palgrave.com/page/detail/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230276352), and the development and production of "knowledge" is linked very directly to exploitation. (do some reading about influential European scientists - what they all have in common is they came from wealthy, privileged families where they had the copious free time required to dick around doing "experiments" while everybody else living in reality is trying to work just to make an OK living. Newton is a good example of this. This is directly related to class structure in Europe.) I have heard it said before that Europe "colonized itself" with its numerous iterations of social hierarchy first, and then went for the world. (Even the regions of Europe that didn't participate in this process in the same way had the added benefits of white supremacist ideology - they weren't colonized and completely screwed over for the sole purpose of profit, they were allowed to develop on their own terms in a way that most of the rest of the world couldn't have due to racialism.)
And some "countries" have a harder task when it comes to development right now than others - South Korea, for example, used to have a lower GDP per capita than the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but it's rapid development was a lot easier for them when Korea is a mono-lingual, mono-ethnic, mono-cultural region of the world occupying a smallish land area. The DRC, in comparison, has literally hundreds of ethnic groups, linguistic groups, and cultures in an enormous land area prone to numerous diseases. The country was literally lumped together as a personal project of one rich Belgian dude who wanted to make a fortune of off rubber, and the population is still being exploited to the extent that conflicts can be directly traced to the mining for the raw mineral resources that the Congo is rich in and the West has appropriated for use in commercial technology. Similar story for India - it's a heck of a lot harder uplifting nations like this out of poverty. "Genetic potential for IQ" is a total non-explanation regardless of whether it exists or not (really we can only speculate and argue about what that means or what its consequences are). Even if it did exist, it wouldn't be an explanation.
Your argument was excellent OP, you blew JayMan out of the water. JayMan's waffling on about IQ is a total non-explanation, he seems to have trouble comprehending the fact that people and their environments can't be explained by a single ranking.
Race reality I read a post from you stating that the first Negroid skull was only 12000 years old. You are a liar I have a book by a well known British Anthropologist Dr Alice Robert's that has a reconstructed face of the oldest modern human remains in Africa. They are all negroid with the typical snub nose and date to 100,000 BC. One is of a man found in Morrocco and these remains have been discovered and are well known since the 1960s. You are a liar, modern humans appeared 100,000 years plus ago. None of these remains are Caucasoid so I don't know where you racists are getting this information. It's lies it's not true. This idea that the Caucasian was the first man its nonsense as proven by real anthropologists who have studied the remains of the most ancient Homosapien remains in East Africa.
Buy the book if you don't believe this:
https://g.co/kgs/bVKjm6
So this idea that the Negro phenotype appeared 6000 years ago is a lie. The Andamanese do not have Caucasoid features either I have seen images of the Andamanese my self they are phenotypically Negroid. What a lot of rubbish you write.
The oldest human remains I mention are 100,000 years old. If the rubbish you write was true what did people look like?
And this rubbish about skin colour is also false. Black skin evolved in Africa over millions of years from the pre-human hominid ancestors.
It's the reason that all "Black" populations across the world have the same alleles for black skin.
You can see the contents of this book here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XGFpC2von_cC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=dr+alice+roberts+modern+humans+Morocco&source=bl&ots=nHHfDWwYlI&sig=LU1ZZHQQfSAE2ZN1ZKnmx5IYYmI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk_7rErPPNAhUBiiwKHQHrB0cQ6AEIJDAD#v=onepage&q=dr%20alice%20roberts%20modern%20humans%20Morocco&f=false
You bloggers are proper ammatures. These remains are 100,000 years old the fact that you would lie in this
way is astonishing. These reconstructions were done by some of the the best forensic scientists in the world. The professor that did this study is well known, she is famous and well respected. She is not just an anthropologist she has multiple degrees, she is a polymath.
12000 BC you people are so deceitful. Deceitful liars and con artists.
Duge... Are you retarded? First off, your post is completely off-topic and second off... You realize RR is defending "Blacks" here, right? I know you yourself are a "Black man" so when you call him deceitful I must ask if you're saying he's lying about IQ (he isn't, just for the record)? This rant of yours here seems very neurotic. You couldn't comment this under the thread where he spoke about the "Negroid skull-type" being young? Damn, negro...
Evolution exists, yet specific organs are independent of it the theory. http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/
Hey man,
I just found your blog and it seems extremely interesting. However, I think you should update the intelligence or IQ section a bit, as new findings have been published.
Genetic markers for intelligence have been found, with the "aggression" or MAOA gene as well. It would be interesting to see your stance on those and the projected change they have on an individual.
While I do not agree with the 20-30 IQ gap between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, certain populations (Ashkenazim and Sub-Saharan A.) have that kind of a gap, which seems to be staying, regardless of socioeconomic change.
Furthermore there is the question of African-Americans, the IQ gap between African-Americans and European (or Asian for that matter)- Americans keeps persistent.
The problem regarding intelligence is not the Flynn effect, which have been proven, but the comparison between separate kinds of people in a similar or the same environment. It is consistent.
Ah yeah I see Negroid posted the information, already there. Thanks for that. It would be quite ludicrous to state that specific organs do not change due to external factors, even though all the body does.
Nice information, you write very nice articles, I visit your website for regular updates.
릴게임
Post a Comment
Be civil. Write clearly. Proofread and preview. Don't troll or spam. Stay on topic.