New Liberal Race Realist Blog


I know who this guy is, but I won’t name any names. I have not read much of what he’s written here other than the opening statement, but I’m in agreement with this project. He also has some liberal race realists in the comments section. I had no idea that there were so many of us. Rather than pushing some sort of “liberal racism” – the typical PC rejoinder to liberal race realism – he is simply trying to find a way to fashion a liberal or progressive project out of the rather discouraging (to us) facts about race, as they come to light.

Clearly, the whole race realist/human biodiversity (HBD) project is now in the hands of the Right, and it does have some major ideological challenges to the Left and liberalism. Nevertheless, I think we are up to the task. There’s no reason to give this whole issue to the Right while continuing to protest with arguments that increasingly seem like disgusting but well-meaning lies.

Furthermore, there are a lot of Whites and males, and especially White males, who are sick and tired of the whole “White People/Men are Evil” line pushed by the PC crowd.

If you go to a California university now, you have to take a Diversity Curriculum that consists of classes that might as well be called White People and Men are Evil. I’ve talked to some White guys who just came out of that program, and they are hopping mad. The general tendency is for folks like that to move to the Right politically, since the Left and the Democratic Party is seen as hostile to Whites and men.

Well, the Left is hostile to Whites and men!

But I’m all about economics, so I’m not about to support rightwing economics (the enemy) just because the Left is bonkers on race, gender, sexual orientation and other crap.

Liberal Race Realism, along with a Liberal analogue to Masculinist Movement, now completely in the hands of the Right, stands a chance of rescuing some of these White and male souls before they take off into rightwing populist la-la land.

It’s time for some real navel-gazing on the Left. It should be clear by now that 40 years of Identity Politics on the Left, now embodied as Queer Theory, Gender Feminism, Critical Race Theory and other forms of jazzed up bullshit soft science, hasn’t done the slightest damn thing for poor people, and especially for poor minorities, in particular for poor Blacks.

Worse, it empowered a horrible rightwing backlash and siphoned a lot of Whites and males off to the neverworlds of rightwing populism. And if we on the Left are working for anyone, it’s for the working classes, the poor, the lower income people, and in particular the minorities among them, who are hurting most of all.

Liberal Biorealism site goes beyond this one by accepting many race realist presuppositions as facts on the ground. It’s notable that they assume that genetics explains most of the B-W IQ difference.

I’m not willing to do that here, at least not yet. As long as that line can still be credibly disputed, and there is no hard consensus on it, I will hold to this optimistic position. My point instead is to say that the tests are valid, and there are intelligence differences among races and ethnic groups, whatever the Hell is causing them. At this sad point, even that is pouring gasoline on the fire of public discourse.

I realize that there is not much in race realism for Blacks, but Blacks should maybe come up with a pro-Black project that takes race realism into account, since this view is only going to grow in the future. For Blacks to throw the whole thing over to hard racists in the Libertarian and Conservative movements, who have nothing but ill will for Blacks, is a mistake.

For instance, it’s typical for rightwing race realists to argue that HBD means that we need to cut off all or most social spending to minorities, since they are genetically inferior, and you’re just throwing good money after bad. Almost all conservative race realists also want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. There’s nothing in that but harm for Blacks period, and not just poor Blacks. By not formulating some sort of a pro-Black response to race realism, Blacks risk throwing the ball over to their worst enemies.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

57 thoughts on “New Liberal Race Realist Blog”

  1. For many Black people, race realism is indistinguishable from racism. I wish I felt differently, but I don’t see this changing any time soon.

    Do you think more analysis of race will get us anywhere? It’s been pondered, studied, and analyzed for centuries.

    Maybe in the future the dividing line will be between those who can find common ground across racial lines and those who can’t.

    Let the ones who can find common ground prevail.

    1. It doesn’t matter whether more analysis of race will get us anywhere.

      Thing is that more and more people are signing on to race realism, and the whole thing is just a Trojan Horse for the Right. Blacks can keep screaming all the crazy denials that they want, but that’s only going to work for so long. I do think that pro-Black Blacks ought to come up with some sort of a coherent response to HBD, a response that is pro-Black.

      Otherwise all this energy just goes into people who are hostile to Blacks and do not have their best interests at heart.

      Why give an issue to the Right? Why give an issue to your enemies? It’s always nice to have a contingency plan.

      There are other reasons to support this, such as the things that I talk about on the site. Black IQ’s are going up, for many decades now. What’s causing this and what are the implications? Why do Blacks get a 15 pt IQ rise just from moving from the 3rd World to the West? What’s going on here? I’ve already noted that given the IQ gap, Blacks should be focusing on other things.

      One of those things is extra-IQ factors. Cultivation of extra-IQ factors should be promoted by Blacks to help mask the IQ differential. Blacks have certain strengths intelligence and personality wise and certain weaknesses. How can Blacks be encouraged to play up their strengths and play down their weaknesses to succeed better in modern society.

      You see, these would all be positive subjects for discourse, but all we get is yelling and screaming, nonsense about White racism, how tests don’t matter, how we can’t measure intelligence, on and on.

      When trying to deal with problems, you have to define them first. All this obstructionism and idiotic finger-pointing at non-factors doesn’t do anyone any good, because it does not deal with the problems at hand. It’s just diversionary.

      Blacks are correct to be suspicious of race realism, as 99% of such folks at least have animus towards Blacks and at worst are racists.

      Let’s look at some issues. Black violence and crime. No one is hit harder by this crap than Blacks themselves. Standard line is it’s all caused by racism. That’s a crock of shit. Shouldn’t the victims of this crime know what the reasons are that they got victimized. Why should they be told likes that White racists made the Black criminals victimize them. That serves no one well.

      Supposing that Black violence and crime (which is around 8-9X higher than the White rate) DOES have a biological component. Not necessarily one that we can’t do anything about, but maybe one that we can do something about.

      Looking at Black crime and violence and pointing the finger at White racism doesn’t even begin to tackle the problem. When you have a problem, you need to figure out the cause. That fails right there – they’ve got a false cause for the problem. No problems ever get dealt with if you can’t even figure out what’s causing it.

  2. I agree with Alpha, it’ll be a cold day in hell before blacks or any other minorities see any difference between racism and race-realism, especially when race-realists and racists have a lot of ideological overlap. Since I study a lot of this stuff and find it interesting, I see the intricacies of these positions and can see how there is racist race-realism and non-racist race-racism, but I’m admittedly a bit of an oddball in being able to do that. I at least don’t think the non-racist race realist are TRYING to be racist, in the hateful sense. But as I’ve said before, I think most whites are racist on the gut level, or at least biased against blacks in holding them to lower expectations.

    One of my reasons for looking into this stuff is specifically for the purpose of formulating a black response to HBD. You have to read the arguments with an open mind and understand them before you can figure out what to do with them.

    I do think this movement is growing primarily due to the internet and ability to disseminate information freely and instantaneously. However, I don’t think the average person, white or black is intellectual enough to delve into psychometrics, evolution and haplo-groups with any depth. I mean we’re talking about a population of people who care more about who won on American idol and 4 years after the war in Iraq still thought Saddam was behind 9/11.

    So keep in mind this is still a debate between intellectual elites and most Americans don’t have the patience or really even the time to get much into this stuff. Ask 20 random whites in the street who Phillip Rushton or Jared Taylor is and you’ll get blank stares. David Duke is probably the only one of that bunch the average person would recognize and he’s known mostly as being grand wizard of the KKK. Pat Buchanon is probably the most mainstream of the white nationalists and even his appeal is pretty damn narrow.

  3. Dear Robert
    Let’s get away from race for a moment and look at class. Does anybody in the US seriously believe that the average IQ of garbage collectors is as high as that of doctors? Of course, even here there should be overlap. I’m sure that the smartest garbage collector is smarter than the dumbest doctor.
    Does anybody seriously believe that the children of garbage collectors have the same probability of going to university as the children of doctors? Why then shouldn’t there be affirmative action for the children of garbage collectors? Why is there affirmative action for race and not for class? Why does Harvard keep track of the number of non-whites among its students but not of the number of students whose parents don’t have a university degree?
    Affirmative action is discriminatory in that it is a departure from meritocracy but only for non-whites. Affirmative action means that the son of a black professional has a better chance of getting into a certain university than the son of a white taxi driver with equal IQ. It isn’t fair.
    The best social arrangement is a combination of meritocratic allocation of jobs with a social safety net financed by progressive taxation. The majority of blacks in the US don’t benefit from affirmative action at all but they would benefit from socialized health care insurance.
    Leftists like you, who combine racial realism with advocacy of downward redistribution of income, should be aware that affirmative action does not further your goals and only creates more animosity between races. Affirmative could well have been thought up by a clever economic conservative in order to lead people astray by making them focus on race instead of class.
    Regards. James

  4. I’m a bit hazy on the details, but I seem to recall that the government of Singapore had or has a program that subsidized people with high IQs to have children.

    Maybe something similar needs to happen wrt blacks. What if, for example, Oprah endowed a foundation that gave money and scholarships to black people/families in which individuals tested at, say 120 or above on an IQ test? What if this foundation gave such families cash for every child they had? It couldn’t be just Oprah, of course, but I’m sure many people would sign on for this. People who complain about blacks should be the first to contribute.

  5. I’m aware of drawbacks to the plan. It smacks of eugenics. One of the tenets of PC idiocy is that IQ doesn’t matter, but I’m convinced most people whose opinions matter know better. It would really be best, or maybe even necessary, to have a government or governments behind this as in Singapore, but in this crazy country everything has to be private sector, esp. if it’s going to benefit people of the “wrong color.” Just look at health reform, if you need evidence of that. The average white, working class American would rather die painfully in the street of bleeding, cancerous stomach abscess if being treated meant that an “undeserving” person of a different race might also benefit. The only chance it would have is to get someone like Bill Gates behind it. The very idea brings up the notion of race differences and even inferiority, but it doesn’t need to be framed that way.

  6. I am new on this blog and I find it interesting. I must admit that have never heard of anyone like you. You describe yourself both as liberal race realist and leftist. You admit that there are race differences, so that is a very strange combination. Maybe you are a product of multicultural american society (luckily, i am not American). Nevertheless, I dont understand one thing. The goal of the Left is to reach absolute equality of all people, equality of minorities etc. But racialism and this foolish effort are mutually exclusive, because when you accept race differences in IQ (no matter by what they are caused), you also accept impossibility or at least extreme difficulty of this.
    I have always thought that admitting of race differences goes hand in hand with leaning to right.
    I see that I was wrong.

    1. There are more and more of us around. I don’t propose total equality for everyone, but there are some who do.

      I was on a Maoist site the other day and they said just because some people are born with a higher IQ than other people, why should they make a tremendous amount more money just because they lucked out genetically. I guess that would be my position too. I don’t see why we should punish people with poverty and misery because of the way they were born, something that they can’t even help.

      I agree it will be a challenge for liberalism to deal with race realism, but I think we can do it. I mean, we can handle anything. What possible world could there be where liberalism would not be able to operate.

    2. Keep in mind that I don’t believe this stuff because I want to. That’s the problem with this race realism stuff, most people who believe in it are ecstatic about these facts. To me, they are profoundly depressing, and I believed the nonsense that it’s not true for a long time.

      But after studying the matter for 15 years, I finally came to the conclusion that there was something to it. I had all these liberal theories about why race realism was not so, and I would test every single one of them. This went on for years. I watched every single one of those theories bite the dust in my tests to the point where I was reluctantly forced to agree that there was something to race realism.

      But really, if we admit to these realities, maybe we can actually start to do something about it. For one thing, we could maybe try to figure out the causes. For so long, we have been misdiagnosing the problem. The problem is all due to White people, or lousy tests, or racism, or this or that. All of those causes are wrong. In order to tackle a problem, you need to understand it first. If you don’t even understand what is causing a problem, you will never begin to solve it.

    3. I dont know what do you mean by liberalism.
      I perceive liberalism as rather centrist, but you show affection here for Maoism and socialism. Liberalism believes in equal rights, not in equal opportunities. You get what you deserve. When you are intelligent enough, why SHOULDN’T you make a tremendous amounts of money? When you are stupid and lazy, you cant make any money and therefore you deserve to be poor. The worst thing to do in this situation is to act like Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor.

  7. There seem to be 2 components to race realism:

    1) Believe in inherent differences in intelligence, or at least certain types of intelligences.

    2) Believes in inherent differences in temperament. You have to believe that these differences are due to DNA and not cultural differences.

    If someone believes that there are differences in intelligence and temperament but that they are caused by environment, are they still a race realist? Or do they become a “culture realist?”

  8. I wonder why liberals think it is acceptable to make fun of Sarah Palin’s kid for her Down Syndrome, yet condemn me for making fun of blacks for their low IQs? After all, both are due to bad rolls of the genetic dice.

    The average black IQ is 85, and I have noticed that that liberals really do not like this fact when I point this out to them.

    And you know what the best part is about all of this? There’s nothing they can do about it!

  9. I don’t think Jewamongyou understands regression to the mean. Either that, or he’s full of shit. If you have, for example, a black guy w/ an IQ of 120 who marries a white woman w/ and IQ of 125, the resulting child will probably be less intelligent than the mother and more intelligent than the father. Or he may surprise everyone and be a lot more or less intelligent than either of them. But regression to the mean is irrelevant. The parents can only pass on *their* genes, in this case genes for a high-normal IQ, assuming IQ is in fact largely genetic (I have no problem with this assumption, btw). The fact that other members of their race or ethnicity may differ markedly means nothing, because their individual sets of genes are not in play, yet. They might be when the child grows up and selects a mate himself, but that’s another matter entirely.

    Other things he writes seem flawed also, but I don’t have time to deal with it all at this moment.

    1. Yeah, everyone talks about regression to the mean. But my father had an IQ of 129 and my Mom had an IQ of 150 and all of us kids are supposedly over 140. I thought it’s supposed to come crashing back down?

      Also, as I have noted earlier, if IQ just continuously crashed back to the mean of the group, no group would ever experience a rising or falling IQ. No high IQ groups would have ever emerged through selective breeding since the group would have kept crashing back down towards the mean.

    2. I’ve never tested my parents IQs but I’ve tested mine and my sister’s. Mine I’m sure is well above both my parents. I’m sure my sister’s is higher too, though my sister’s is lower than mine.

    3. Both yours and your sister’s IQ’s are higher than your parents. That’s good and it shows that regression to the mean doesn’t always work. This indicates the main reason for regression to the mean though – otherwise, say, succeeding generations in your family line could have IQ’s that just keep going up and up forever. They can’t keep going up forever. That’s the principle behind regression to the mean.

    4. “That’s good and it shows that regression to the mean doesn’t always work.”

      You are forgetting the Flynn effect. The iq tests that your parents took were easier than they are now.There will not be a regression to the mean.

      In fact, I think the Flynn effect “may” be bunk entirely. Why?

      Because, if more blacks and mexicans are taking the test each year, the test is becoming more normed each year to the black and mexican IQ, to have the same score of 100. Necessarily so, both blacks and whites will start having higher test scores, just because of a flaw with the reforming process. I don’t have the data, but as blacks and mexicans are having more access to white institutions each year, this may be happening.

    5. Not really, Flynn Effect is not going to distort any scores because it just pushes up the whole scale across the board.

      Now, US IQ tests, I think, are normed to the US population = 100. That was a few years back when they made that change. Before US White IQ = 100. So now US White IQ = 103, and everything else bumps up 3 pts too – US Black IQ = 89.3, US Hispanic IQ = 93, US Asian IQ = 108, etc.

      There’s no distortion, just new scale.

    6. It’s not true that the Flynn Effect is bunk. Everyone believes in it, it’s just that the naysayers like Jensen and Rushton say it is not measuring real g intelligence, whatever that is. What’s it measuring? Something else I guess. I think that’s preposterous, but that is their argument.

      Everyone agrees that the scores are going up. Actually, the test has to be renormed at 100 every decade because the old 100 becomes the new 103 or so. That’s why there’s a new version every ten years or so that’s harder than the older ones.

      And there’s no distortion. Whites nowadays would get 115 on the 1957 test. Blacks nowadays would get a 100 on the 1957 test. But if we look back in time, 2007 Blacks and 1957 Whites have the same score, because an 85 on the 2007 test equals a 100 on the 1957 test.

      Kind of complicated. I hope I made it clear enough.

    7. I’m acquainted with Jim Flynn and I’ve discussed the Flynn Effect with him. The FE is a real thing all right. I’ve already discussed the rejoinders that I was questioning with him and he destroyed them instantly. The guy is smart as fucking Hell man. And I think he’s in his 70’s too.

    8. WAIT WAIT.. I actually discovered a flynn effect reversal, that will happen with changing population groups. This is more of a mathematical certainty.

      It may explain the slowing of the Flynn effect in European countries and America. The Flynn effect may still be happening in Japan. I need more data.

      Ive never actually studied the Flynn effect in detail, I should probably actually read a book on it.

    9. Hi RN. I think you should study the FE more. It’s extremely confusing and most folks do not seem to understand it well, if at all. I’m a smart guy and I spent months thinking this FE thing a good part of the time until I finally started to get a handle on the whole mess.

      If you ever get a handle on the FE, try to get your mind around the counterargument that the FE is “not on real g intelligence, it’s on something else.” I’ve been going round and round about that one for a long time now, and I still keep hitting speed bumps over it.

    10. That “not on real intelligence” i might have some data that kinda supports it.

      Adult taxi drivers. There is some evidence that the hippocampus region increases in size due to the memorization of the city, while the regions right around it lessen in size, or are maybe converted to the hippocampus, lessening their effects in their original area.

      Perhaps this flynn effect is just increasing certain types of intelligence, while perhaps reducing others. Maybe this explains the “lack of common sense” some older folks notice today. Being at the computer all day makes a person smarter in some area, yet worse at social interaction. Perhaps that is happening to society as a whole.

      I wish I could be attached to a computer, so I could just download all these books and sort through everything.

    11. Maybe people are just getting better at test taking, while getting worse at interacting. This may explain the growing amount of nerdism today, that would not have existed 200 years ago. They are not getting “smarter”

      They are just changing the relative components of intelligence from social, to intellectual.

    12. Yeah, reading the works of genius literary authors and seducers, vs mathematicians, they appear to be equally intelligent as a whole, with their components spread across different areas.

      This might partially explain the growing depression in society today. People are getting worse at interacting, yet better at tests. That leads to better iq scores, but more depression.

      Maybe. I really need more data. Im dealing with too many “maybes”

    13. Yeah…hmmm. I have an idea to test this.

      Are there any populations on earth, that are well fed, yet do not appreciate schooling much? Those populations would gradually increase in G, because of the food, while not increasing in IQ as much as a similar country, yet perhaps have more social abilities.

      Yeah, i think this just might settle the g question.

    14. Another way to test this.

      Have two different populations, separated by the past 6000 years in environment, and government system, yet still having a *very* close brain to mass ratio, and overall brain weight.

      They might have the same g, yet because of evolving in different regions, that intelligence will be distributed in different areas.

      Know of anything like this?

    15. It’s kind of hard to explain. If you click the IQ category on the left, there are some articles about the FE, g and all of that. First of all, g is not “real intelligence.” Not if you ask me. All it is is a correlational factor among subtests. IOW, a smarter person who scores better on some subtests will also tend to score better on other subtests. Why? Because he just all around has a more efficient brain.

      It measures the tendency of a bright person who does well on one subtest to also do well on others.

      If your scores are going up, but they are only going up in some areas but not in others, then there’s no g gain. G is an across the board rise. Nevertheless, the tests that are going up like verbal analytical reasoning, visual analytical reasoning and visual intelligence, are things that have important real world consequences.

      Furthermore, Raven’s is said to measure “pure g” and according to Jensen, the only environmental effects on Raven’s would have to occur in the first 6 months of life. Yet Raven’s has shown higher increasing Flynn scores than any other test!

      Further, Jim Flynn has shown a .5 correlation on the FE for fluid intelligence, but not for crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is how fast your brain works. Crystallized intelligence is what you know. So our brains do work better, but we really don’t know any more than our grandparents did.

      There’s good evidence for a nutritional effect on the FE. Head size has been growing dramatically along with the FE, which suggests it is a real effect.

      The bit about the FE being a practice or test-taking effect is a common rejoinder and I think Jim Flynn has demolished it pretty well.

      There are no decreasing abilities occurring alongside the FE increasing subtests. But some tests are just flat. That is, people are scoring the same now as they did in 1930 on reading, vocabulary, arithmetic, mathematical reasoning and general knowledge.

      The best way to explain the FE is like a runner. Now there are 2 folks with a good running ability, inborn. One sits on his ass his whole life and the other runs his whole life. Which one is going to be in better shape and be a better runner. The guy who actually exercises. Flynn actually discusses this analogy because he is a runner himself.

      Your brain is a part of your body like any other. It gets stronger if you use it more, just like your arms and legs if you lift weights or work out. Flynn uses that analogy too.

    16. “Not really, Flynn Effect is not going to distort any scores because it just pushes up the whole scale across the board.”

      Well, in a way it might. Rich people have always been well fed and educated since childhood, so aristocracy kids may have gained in IQ scores less compared to poor kids, who only recently have been well fed and well educated.

    17. Yes the FE effects are supposedly just raising the bottom end of the scale I think, but I’m not sure about that. But fewer idiots is a good idea in any society.

    18. Well Amerindian IQ is around the same as for US Blacks – Indians = 87, US Blacks = 87. But Indians are stronger in visual and weaker on verbal and I think with Blacks it might be the opposite.

      Head size is a great big can of worms. I have a post in the archives where you can read about it. It’s called “Head Size = Brains = Bullshit.”

      Kenyans have heads as large as Italians, yet Italian IQ = 103 and Kenyan IQ = 68. Vietnamese have some of the smallest heads on Earth and their IQ = 99. Eskimos have the biggest heads of all, but their IQ is only 91.

      This IQ, head size, FE, g intelligence stuff just makes your head swim. The more you study it, it seems like the less sense it all makes.

    19. “There are no decreasing abilities occurring alongside the FE increasing subtests. But some tests are just flat. ”

      Yeah, but thats just because the test dosen’t measure social interaction abilities. I have read a few accounts of people who scored higher on IQ tests after studying all the time(like the sat), then being less able to interact well with girls.

      “Fluid intelligence is how fast your brain works, point 5 correlation between fluid intelligence.”

      See, I think that schools have gradually been training FOR IQ tests over the past 70 years.

      I think your forgetting something. Its not just fluid intelligence, or crystallized intelligence, there is also a heuristic intelligence, which is not often talked about. It is like a subconscious crystallized intelligence, that guides the fluid intelligence. The ability to not make the same mistake again.

      Its like a chess player. Throughout 50 years of playing, he will get better and better, even though he cant figure out the rules better. However, if he took the same “chess iq” ability test he did as a kid, he would do much better. Not because he is truly smarter, but because he has a better heuristic method in his mind that avoids the incorrect answers.

      Because schools have been training for iq tests somewhat, students have been getting better heuristics for IQ test problem solving. I think a large part of what is thought to be “fluid intelligence” is just heuristic intelligence.

    20. “Head size is a great big can of worms. I have a post in the archives where you can read about it. It’s called “Head Size = Brains = Bullshit.””

      thats because your forgetting that as a body gets bigger, a larger percentage of the brain needs to work on controlling the body parts. You also need to account for the specific ratio between brain and body mass.

      With the same ratio, there is a greater chance that there is the same amount of brain controlling vision, or arm movement. So its not just head mass,its body ratio.

      This is most evident in the case of blue whales, vs cats.

    21. “Yes the FE effects are supposedly just raising the bottom end of the scale I think, but I’m not sure about that. But fewer idiots is a good idea in any society.”

      See, here is the bad thing. This may actually be a DETRIMENT for the idiot. If he gets better at test taking, but worse at social interaction, he might not be able to deal with social life, and get violent.

      wait…does this explain the growing crime rate among black youth in america? At least just partially.

    22. Its like a chess player. Throughout 50 years of playing, he will get better and better, even though he cant figure out the rules better. However, if he took the same “chess iq” ability test he did as a kid, he would do much better. Not because he is truly smarter, but because he has a better heuristic method in his mind that avoids the incorrect answers.

      You’re not making any sense. Sure, anyone playing chess for 50 years is bound to improve, that just learned behavior. However, that doesn’t mean your kid is going to be naturally better on it. Why would each successive generation be a bit smarter than the previous?

      In my opinion, I just think it’s that society is becoming more intellectually rigorous as we evolve socially and technologically and the neurons in our brains from a young age are wiring to adapt to it. I think if you took a 100 newborns from 100 years and raised them in 2010, their IQs would match today’s norm.

    23. tulio is right with his analogy about 100 babies 100 years ago and bringing them into today’s world. We really are getting smarter in some ways, and it’s not just getting smarter at taking tests.

      The increase in head size would seem to argue that we are actually getting smarter (we simply have more brain cells).

      For instance, one of the things that has been rising is something “the ability to solve a brand new problem, previously unseen, for which no previous method is known.” It’s called “on the spot problem solving.” And that’s gone up like 20 points, even in Blacks, over 80 years. Now that is going to have some very important real world consequences, especially on the job.

      A lot of the rises in visual intelligence seems to have to do with all these gadgets were are using. Also at least some of the rise seems to have to do with education, especially math education.

      Keep in mind that when you figure out those little analogical puzzles, you’re not just learning some bullshit puzzle making skill. That test shows your ability to think abstractly, to recognize patterns, to align them and put them together, to see which ones go together and which are extraneous. IMO, that test should also increase your ability to make verbal analogies too.

      Verbal abstract intelligence is also rising. You’re kidding me if you think that is a skill only useful on a test. You are going to use verbal abstract intelligence every day of your life. It’s very important.

      Some of the rise is due to “scientific thinking.” We are just more scientific minded than we used to be. An example: “What do a dog and a rabbit have in common?” Well, if you asked someone 100 years ago, they might say something “retarded” like, “You use a dog to hunt a rabbit.”! But that stupid answer made perfect sense in his world. Nowadays, the smart answer is like, “They are both mammals.”

      So our brains aren’t necessarily better, but we are just using them better due to our scientific thinking. But back in the old days, scientific thinking was pretty useless. People just lived on farms and needed to know common sense stuff.

      Blacks have excellent social skills, now and before. Black crime is a notorious Black hole of theory. I’ve dealt with it a lot on the site and it still doesn’t make much sense.

      The increased intelligence you see in the chess player that you call heuristic intelligence is really just crystallized intelligence, or “wisdom.” It increases with age and sometimes remains very high into even the 70’s and 80’s. High crystallized intelligence is why we put wise old men in charge of human societies and not young men with much faster brains and way less common sense.

      Crystallized intelligence is the intelligence learned over a lifetime. Such as, as you say, not making the same mistake twice (or 20 times in my case). LOL.

      For instance, a young man’s brain is faster, sure, than mine. Brain cell count peaks at age 23. But look. I have fewer brain cells, but I know *so* much more stuff. So when I am reading or discussing something, what am I doing? I am constantly making connections to other things that I already know and putting it all together in patterns.

      In this way my crystallized intelligence can beat a young man even though he has a faster brain. He doesn’t know enough stuff yet to put things together properly and arrive at the right conclusions. His speedy brain will be hampered by his relative ignorance.

  10. Another thing about AJewamongyou’s arguments against interracial marriage/dating: Most of them are statistical, like the data regarding black susceptibility to various diseases. Say that statistically blacks are more susceptible to heart disease and type II diabetes. This isn’t meaningless, but the statistics are no guide at all if the individual black person is a vegan aerobics instructor, and the white person is a 360 lb. couch potato. His argument is equivalent to saying that because 10% of people are gay, any random group of ten people must contain one gay person.

    1. He does want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws too, but all the commenters on American Renaissance are like that. And it’s disturbing to me that so many race realists are on board for that too. Anyway Mort, what’s your opinion of Jews who want to get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws? Isn’t that dangerous for the Jews? I mean, who says that’s not going to turn around and bite the Jews on the ass at some point.

      Jews have been victimized pretty badly in the past by lack of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, have they not? I wonder if these Jews know what they are doing. I think they are playing with fire.

    2. Robert its I find it hilarious that you almost seem as if your watching over the jews with what your saying sort of like a protective father.

    3. Yeah, well, I want the Jews to feel at home and safe here, as much as possible. Mort was threatening to leave at one point. I told him to come back, and I encourage the Jews to take on the anti-Semites on the site instead of running away from them. It seems to work out pretty well. I’m glad I have Jews on the site. Now whenever I write about Jews, I put Mort metaphorically over my shoulder to make sure I don’t get carried away with anti-Semitism.

      Anti-Semitism is a tendency in many Gentiles. It’s not something one either is or is not, but something a lot of us have to guard against. I’ve already been down the anti-Semitic road before, and it was unproductive and ultimately silly place for me to be. I almost feel like I was mentally ill during that phase. I’m not interested in getting back into that.

      BTW, I am also protective of the Blacks on here, and I have encouraged them to fight back against the anti-Black racists instead of just running away. Same thing, when I write about Blacks, I often pretend that tulio is over my shoulder. That way I can be fair and hopefully I remove most of the racism and animus from my posts when I write about them.

      Anti-Black racism among Whites is similar to anti-Semitism among Jews. A *lot* of us Whites are susceptible to it. I mean, we were raised on nigger jokes in the schoolyard, and that’s still a part of us. So it’s not like there’s anti-Black racist Whites and pro-Black anti-racist Whites. It’s more like a general tendency that a lot of us have to guard against. I got into anti-Black racism for a while too (when I was teaching at Black schools LOL) and it was not a pleasant place to be either.

      I find anti-Black racism and anti-Semitism to be corrosive of my soul. And when you have those mentalities, I found there was a sort of general meanness that came about me and was infecting my whole world, and other people just didn’t dig it. I’m not sure if you can be racist and still be a nice person. I sort of doubt it…

    4. Hitler was not just about eugenics. The guy was into mass murder too, and before that, into some real cruelty and harassment along with some minor murder. So you see that on his face too. He’s a mass murderer and his face looks cold, hard and mean, like you would expect a killer’s face to look like. Comrade Stalin didn’t have a very nice looking face either. His eyes look cold and icy.

      Mao had a similar countenance. I saw a video of General Giap of North Vietnam and he also looked cold, with icy eyes. You simply can’t preside over mass killings of others and look like a nice person. Ain’t gonna happen. Though supposedly Eichmann just looked like some corporate executive type. But I’d like to look at photos of his face close-up.

  11. “I’m not sure if you can be racist and still be a nice person. I sort of doubt it”

    Hitler cared about the suffering of animals, and before he was nearly captured by the soviets, he killed himself, his wife, and his dog. He knew that each would possibly be tortured. Is that an act of meanness, or supreme empathy?

    There is significant propaganda about the man, on both sides. Im going to read Mein Kampf, and “The passing of the great race”, Hitlers bible. I believe it is necessary to attempt to comprehend the mindset of the most influential individual of the last century.

    Also, is being a “nice person” necessarily the best path? That is assuming that nice is the optimal way to achieve a goal. What is your goal?

    1. I don’t think Hitler was a very nice person. I’ve seen many videos and photos of him. He looks *mean*. Look at him, man. He’s mean looking. Most of those top Nazis are. Look at their faces. Their faces look mean.

      As far as being a nice person being the best path, it is for me, and I have some issues in that regard. I have to work on being nice all the time because I have some arrogant and egotistical tendencies. Being nice works a lot better for me because I can get along with others better.

      Also, sometimes when I’m on my horse, it seems like I make others feel small or humiliated, and I don’t like to make others feel that way. I don’t see how arrogant assholes make it in the world. I’m certainly not able to be that way and have a nice, smooth-going life.

      I want to get along with people. If you’re being a dick, you don’t really get along. You generate varying degrees of hostility most places you go, and a lot of people fire it back at you. I don’t like my world to be colored like that.

      I admit that there is a problem with being too nice, but I’m not into that, and that’s not really an issue here.

    2. See, in Nazi Germany, they would be just as likely to think that he looked like a stern wise leader, instead of mean.

      The ideological system of eugenics probably encourages a “meanness” towards someone you view as lesser, as having compassion is just too heartbreaking for the psych to handle. It justs freaks out. Maybe that explains the meanness.

    3. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that some racists(of the ideological variety) may be nice people outside of their racist beliefs, but I don’t think choosing Hitler for f*ck’s sake, as an example is going to be an effective example, lol.

      Even very mean people are nice to *some* people. Just like all nice people have been nasty to someone. But if Hitler were a regular guy rather than leader of the 3rd Reich, he probably wouldn’t be a guy you want to have a beer with.

  12. Unrelated, but I think I discovered one of the reasons why liberal arts and business majors don’t study much, biology majors and related study somewhat, and math and engineering majors study all the time.

    Part of it is “maleness” and males are competative. The other part is funnier, and more interesting.

    Its all about getting laid. Liberal arts guys understand women a lot, and can get into their heads, so they dont have to be extremely rich to get laid.

    Biology majors kinda understand chicks, but are not great, so they want more money, but can still afford some social life as they can get chicks sometimes.

    Engineering majors don’t understand girls at all, so they have to be extremely competative and make lots of money in order to get laid.

    And in fact, Engineers make the most money on average, followed by softer sciences like bio, followed by stuff like psychology, and than at last, english majors who get no money at all.

    Its all the chicks, man.

    Im not sure just how much of the culture of the fields this explains…but its undoubtedly part of it.

    1. I loved my liberal arts classes, especially the Lit classes. All chicks! And almost no guys. And the few guys in there were often these kind of wimpy, lame-ish dudes. If you were a slick cat, you could do all right in those classes. Basically paradise.

  13. cRobert,
    ok, i’m a biracial black male, and here’s my admittedly speculative ‘black response’ to the possible future development of HBD gaining traction among mainstream academia and possibly even public policy:
    now, i’m steeped more in the humanities than I am biology or the sciences in general, but it seems to me that, if indeed it comes to be reasonably ‘proven’ that african-american score one standard deviation less on IQ tests and that this is due to ‘nature’ vs. ‘nurture’ reasons then, at least theoretically, I don’t see how that alone could impugn the traditional ‘nurture’ argument — that racism caused the gap. here goes: (mind you., this is speculation on a possible response; not necessarily my firm conviction. But, my basic understanding of genealogy is that a given population’s certain condition over a certain period of time eventually manifests itself in that group’s or population’s gene pool; so, if said group is subjected to racism — and indeed slavery and legal segregation is said to have been a form of ‘cultivated brutism,’ or intentional intellectual and cultural ‘underdevelopment,’ then how could those qualities not eventually manifest themselves in that group’s genes? For that, it would seem, are the environmental factors that african-americans were forced to ‘genetically select; hence, from there it seems —- again, at least in theory — that it could then be argued that generations of ‘cultured brutism’ corrupted the african-american gene pool, so any quantifiably observed differences in IQ only naturally would be apparent — still, the core cause of this genetic disparity was caused by generations of racism and underdevelopment.
    now, suffice to say, such a possible argument hardly is inspiring to me — but given the level of racial discourse and rancor already present in this country, I don’t clearly see how such an argument could be so easily impugned; and to extend my example to africans instead of african-americans, could it not be argued that years of european colonization similarly corrupted the african-gene pool, therefore accouting for the two standard deviation difference there, given that the ‘underdevelopment’ was arguably and perhaps quantifiably longer and more severe?
    This seems nearly sci-fi-like, i realize. but again: nothing in today’s socio-political culture leads me to doubt such arguments could be made.
    It seems to me the most prudent, cut-to-the-chase pro-HBD argument would be: how did africans ever come to be ‘subjugated’ to begin with?

    (Just loose thoughts and some food for debate, thanks in advance for any responses.)

    1. Obviously, as a liberal, I wish this were true. But there are African groups who were barely effected by colonialism, and they seem to score even worse…

      I understand your argument, but it doesn’t seem to make sense. Why do Af-Am’s score so much higher than Africans? They are almost a whole new race? And Jamaicans in the UK score 86, about the same as Af-Ams, and beating Jamaicans at home at 71. It looks like, leave an African in his African environment, and his IQ is around 67-72 or so. Put him in a Western environment, and it seems to jump up to 85 or so pretty quickly.

      It also seems that Blacks have been selecting for IQ for about 100 years now based on skulls. They have actually been breeding eugenically since about 1900 or so, selecting for higher intelligence in partners. Also, diet has dramatically improved their brains.

      Haiti has been free of racism and colonialism for 200 years, and the IQ is dismal.

      I’m afraid I don’t think much of this argument…but I would like to see the Black IQ rise if we can do so. It’s to no one’s benefit that it is relatively lower.

  14. robert,
    i wasn’t so much making an argument, but rather — inquiring from my humanities vs. natural-science perspective — venturing a possibility of how a genetic-sourced difference in IQ could’ve come about from environmental circumstances and hardship. I really don’t even ‘wish’ this to be true — or not true, for that matter; I just wonder how fluid is/are the differences between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture.’

    As for the differences amongst various black populations: isn’t the difference between africans and african-americans a result of white admixture in the states? Similarly, between UK jamaicans and island Jamaicans, the proximity to the majority culture that has ‘selected for intelligence,’ etc?

    1. The differences between US Blacks and Africans cannot be explained by White admixture. Based on White admixture, US Blacks should be African IQ = 67 + White admixture = 71.5. Yet the US Black IQ is 86.8. That leaves 15.3 pts unexplained.

      I doubt if selective immigration would have raised the UK Jamaican IQ more than a few points. Anyway, the first Jamaican immigrants were not skilled and mostly drove taxis. I think the IQ only went up in the second generation. To me, It’s striking that both US Black and UK Black IQ’s are at 86-87. That seems to be where based Black genetic IQ ends up after the tremendous boost due to being raised in a modern Western society.

      Sure, environmental pressures could have selected for stupid Blacks in the US and this could depress the genetic IQ in later generations. But that did not appear to occur in the US. If anything, possibly the opposite.

    2. “To me, It’s striking that both US Black and UK Black IQ’s are at 86-87. ”

      But should it be striking? It’s pretty similar dynamics. A population of black former-slaves living in a white majority nation with similar socio-economic factors. Actually, Jamaicans may be even more pure African than African-Americans, so if they are scoring the same, that’s interesting.

  15. I’ve recently become a believer in race realism. I found this site from J.A.Y. blog. My guess/worry is that evidence of these IQ and test score differences are going to become more and more murky. Two main reasons, the first always having been here, but becoming more eager due to the recent national political developments, which is the liberal scientific establishment limiting funding of studies, and reclassifying groups or just ending the practice of keeping track of student’s race. The second and more irreversible is the amazing amount of new black/white babies being born. These children will undoubtedly classify as black and bring up the averages significantly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)