A Debate on the Indian IQ

Nice little debate here between Tamberlane and me about the Indian IQ. Enjoy. Tamberlane is in blockquotes, and my responses follow.

Wouldn’t the Indian IQ have gone up after the end of famines and diseases?

You claim it is low because the lower classes have been having more kids surviving due to lack of famines and cures for diseases? Follow?

Anyways, there were plenty of diseases in India, but there were no mass culling events like there were in Europe, where 1/4 to 1/3 of the population was slaughtered. These mass extermination events culled the European populations and made their entire groups more genetically robust, of a superior stock.

I’ll go along with that. Are we sure that the smartest people survived, though?

Besides, using common sense, there is no way Indians are dumber that American Blacks or even Hispanics.

But they are. The studies are quite clear about that.

IQ

Hispanic 90
Black    87?
Indian   81

Adjusted for all third world detriments and low-IQ Indians breeding like rabbits, Indians have average IQ’s somewhere between 94-97.

But you can’t adjust for low IQ Indians breeding like crazy. The IQ of the population is the IQ of the population. It’s the sum total of the IQ’s divided by the population. Are you trying to say that the average Indian who comes here is 94-97? You may have a point. Over here, Indians have IQ’s of 94-96. I believe even Pakistanis have IQ’s of 92, which would be a Flynn gain over the 83 IQ in Pakistan. So just moving to the UK raises the Pakistani IQ by nine points! And the Pakistanis who came to the UK were the lowest class of them all.

If you are trying to arrive at a pure genetic Indian IQ, I’m with you. What would their IQ be if they had a Western diet and upbringing?

The rest of the 95% of non-Brahmin Indians are not all low-IQ.

Yes, but their average IQ is 81, no?

Plenty of Kshatriyas and Vaishyas perform well in all fields.

Ok, but we have to look at the population as a whole. The country is a shithole in part due to an average IQ of 81, correct?

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

3 thoughts on “A Debate on the Indian IQ”

  1. “I’ll go along with that. Are we sure that the smartest people survived, though?”

    We can’t be sure that only the dumbest people survived either. Plagues and diseases don’t test for IQ before they infect you. The safest assumption is all people, regardless of their IQ, died proportionately.

    My point with the mass culling events in Europe was that survivors tend to have fewer genetic mutations and sturdier immune systems, which are signs of superior genetics (robust physique and facial symmetry i.e. beauty/handsomeness), which leads to a stronger, more robust stock. Plagues may not select for IQ, but they do select for other desirable superior traits.

    It doesn’t matter anyway, point being there were no mass culling events in India.

    “But they are. The studies are quite clear about that.”

    Yeah, only if you assume the average height of Indians (we’ll go with the male average for simplicity) is 5’7” or 5’7.5” or whatever the official number is for 2021.

    “A secular trend in increase in height has been observed in developed countries since the late 19th century, mainly due to improvement in nutritional status as a result of socioeconomic development [1–4]. According to Tanner, growth of a population is a mirror that reflects conditions in society [5].

    There has been intense research interest in the area of linear growth in developing countries, including India, because shorter height is associated with a number of consequences, such as poor cognitive development [6], obstetric emergencies [7], and low birthweight in the offspring of short women [8].

    In addition, low birth-weight babies are more likely to suffer from growth faltering and become stunted adults, and thus the cycle of growth retardation is repeated [9].”

    Secular trends in height in different states of India in relation to socioeconomic characteristics and dietary intakes:

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/156482651103200103

    Height is singularly a good indicator of malnourishment or lack thereof. Average height of 5’.7.5” for Indians seems to be incorrect. They are simply not living up to their potential.

    https://scroll.in/pulse/827484/its-not-just-the-genes-ethnic-indians-grow-taller-in-the-uk

    So ultimately you are comparing fully nourished Whites (5’10″) and Blacks (5’9″) to malnourished Indians (5’7”). And then claiming an average IQ of 81 is genetic. That’s like breaking Pajeet’s leg, having him recover for three months, and then having him race a White man and a Black man that have been practicing the 100 meter dash for the past three months.

    It is unreasonable and dishonest to expect Pajeet to comparatively perform even remotely well. The official “studies” do not account for the aforementioned topic. They display these numbers without any disclaimers and mislead the reader to form a false conclusion. That was the entire point of my comment.

    “But you can’t adjust for low IQ Indians breeding like crazy. The IQ of the population is the IQ of the population. It’s the sum total of the IQ’s divided by the population…”

    I was just giving a guesstimate.

    “Yes, but their average IQ is 81, no?”

    Yes, but not the genetic average. When we look at Norwegians, Spaniards, Italians, American Whites, American Blacks, and Australians we are looking at the genetic average. When we are looking at Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, or even Africans we are not looking at the genetic average. Once again the studies lead us to form a false and dishonest conclusion.

    “Ok, but we have to look at the population as a whole. The country is a shithole in part due to an average IQ of 81, correct?”

    Yes, that is correct.

    1. Multicultural event today. Checked out a Black Philly cheesesteak food truck, but they weren’t accepting tickets for food typical at fairs. Not sure if they wanted to pocket the money or couldn’t figure the ticket system out. A bunch of hungry Blacks were peeking their heads out and calling for customers, looking like prisoners’ cats calling fish in a prison.

      So I went to the Indian food stand next door that seemed grateful for tickets. Very humble dish like chickpeas with a million spices. The cultures couldn’t be more different.

      Whites and Blacks have deeper ties. Both are more American in many ways. Our first President had an excellent Black slave chef as did Thomas Jefferson,. likely the best chefs in America at the time. I consider Malcolm X White. He had glowing light skin, big ears, and other White features. I respect his breakaway from NOI, and it would’ve been interesting to see him on the humanistic path longer. In his day, Blacks had more of a legit gripe and seemed to act better.

  2. Blacks and Whites seem more physically imposing.

    I should point out “fish” is slang for new inmate and they are often seen as prey by seasoned prisoners. Not sure how Indians are in prison, I hear many are gay for Whites. We seem to import mostly model minority Indians in the US. In Italy and New Zealand Sikhs are used for dairy farming. The cow is sacred to them.

    The West loves meat. For many European immigrants like Italians, food was more abundant in Argentina and the US. So meats, cream sauces, shrimp, etc. were thrown into the simple authentic dishes of the former homelands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.