More on the Indian IQ

The debate on the Indian IQ continues. Looks like what he was getting at is the question of what is the genetic Indian IQ if we get rid of all of the environmental impediments such as malnutrition that are no doubt driving down their IQ scores. In this sense, the argument adds up.

RL: I’ll go along with that. Are we sure that the smartest people survived (the mass culling events in Old Europe), though?”

Tamberlane: 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.

RL: But Indians are less intelligent than Blacks and Hispanics. The studies are quite clear about that.

Tamberlane: 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:

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.

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.

RL: 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…

Tamberlane: I was just giving a guesstimate.

RL: Yes, but their average IQ is 81, no?

Tamberlane: 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.

RL: 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?”

Tamberlane: Yes, that is correct.

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

2 thoughts on “More on the Indian IQ”

  1. Hello Robert, i see that you haven’t posted about geopolitics in a while! Like Afghanistan or Peru.

    I wanted to talk about other theme. About psychopaths.

    Putting aside their main characteristics, one of the main issues that I see with Psychopaths/sociopaths not so much that they tend to leave a lot of children around. One can see differences between a simple womanizer or machista and a sociopath/psychopath.

    Youngsters with women that are strong-willed and/or have a close family tend to have a few relations, have a child with them, then leave. Youngsters or old men that catch a succulent prey (women that are weaker-willed and are the “people pleaser” personality type, in addition to being quite isolated family wise.) will proceed to destroy her self-esteem, make her emotionally dependent to him, and in general reconfigure her brain so her only required duties are to satisfy his needs while he hangs around with other lovers.

    The interesting things I observed about the “old type”, is that he lives off the woman. Be it taking her wage, or making her work as a slave if he is a merchant or small-business owner. The man takes control of all the money accounts while nobody in the family knows how he spends it and spends most of his time outside the house, again, without the family knowing what he does.

    Of the previously mentioned, other “subaltern” family members will put this into critical thought, but the wife will self-delusionally automatically say and think that his decisions are for a nice and beneficial reason and scold or gaslight whoever disagrees and brings it up. Another element that separates young psychopaths is that the old type doesn’t “pump and dump” like young psychopaths but actually spends money to maintain the families of his various lovers (this is dependent on the earning potential he can steal from surplus value of his wife and family).

    I think this occurs for various reasons. The main one is that old men are seen as ugly, especially by younger women, so they have to run the “resource game” male mating strategy with women who are a bit older than very young. As you have mentioned in your own anecdotes, old men are not as physically attractive as their younger selves and getting young girls with a silver tongue alone is not an option anymore.

    This is the thing that ticks me off about women, the fact that what they find very attractive is the physical and personality traits which characterize men who are more antisocial, abusive, and disagreeable trait I get that there are several reasons about this.

    In prehistoric times, genes for good health and strength in men were extremely important. Men also needed “manlier” personality traits in order to fight off and hunt and kill dangerous animals and to fight men from other tribes. Because of the way our brains process emotions, we are easily misled by personality traits that we think signal one thing while in fact signaling another. The irresponsible behavior of psychopaths might instead be perceived as high confidence or some other positive thing.

    “Female Game” is reduced to two points alone:

    1. Marry or get into a relationship with someone who is not a loser, one whose positive traits match the environmental needs where the woman lives.

    2. Try to get a partner who is not abusive.

    Sadly, while the first point makes sense biologically and is socially emphasized, the second point is never brought up, despite all the issues women are facing today. Neither society nor mothers teach girls the traits they should look out for in order to avoid abusive and even potentially life-threatening partners. I think that even given girls’ immaturity, this would be hugely useful. Older women via life experience learned that bad boys are not good for them, especially in the long run.

    Promiscuity is so common among psychopaths that it’s actually one of the diagnostic criteria. I’ve tried to give a few explanations even tough I’m not a psychopath myself and only a psychopath can truly under the thought processes of such a persons.

    Possible reasons for the promiscuity of psychopaths:

    1. It is an unintended effect of some features of the psychopaths such as low sensitivity to threats and the affective-interpersonal features that psychopaths have. Psychopaths might not take into account the the risks, consequences, and guilt syndromes of PIV sex such as pregnancies or how whether the woman will feel hurt or not. Instead they choose pleasure of risk and guilt.

    2. It an intended effect, either consciously or unconsciously. In recent years, we have seen a number of psychopaths openly declare that they intend to have a lot of children while not investing in or supporting them. There are also MANY historical accounts of powerful and murderous men, including kings, who sired a lot of children, Genghis Kan being the most famous.

    Since promiscuity is a trait and psychopaths have an easy ability to attract women thanks to their social skills, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the condition ends up causing them to try to breed as prolifically as possible.

    This makes sense when you think of how not only is psychopathy itself common in highly unfavorable conditions, but such environments cause even non-psychopathic men to higher rates of promiscuous than men raised on better environments. In this case, humans wouldn’t be too different from organisms who evolved in unfavorable environments via a strategy of high reproduction. This can be seen in plants that spread a lot of seeds, mushrooms that spread many spores, and prey species such as rabbits that suffer high mortality.

    Putting that aside, there is something else I wanted to talk about. Let’s talk about psychopathy from a leftist perspective! This is an angle that nobody seems to take.

    I realized that just like patriarchy and capitalism go together, so are psychopathy and capitalism almost bedfellows. The values that capitalism promotes feed into psychopathy allow encourage it to resonate through society almost as an unseen force like gravity. The end products of individualism socially rewarded in capitalism, even though they maximizing one’s material wealth either morally or not and using other people to get it. Capitalism defends its interests from perceived threats with violence, often extreme violence, via endlessly creative methods.

    One thing I always wondered about was how psychopathy might effect leftist and revolutionary processes. I thought of cases where a “dictator” type climbs up the social ladder and reaches the top. These people seem to be pretty brutal and in some cases, they have lived like kings via the labor of their countrymen. This same mechanism, these same types are easily able to infiltrate and advance in political parties to where they can climb the social hierarchy, often leading to these people becoming extremely corrupt.

    Whenever psychopathy is brought up, there is always someone who points out who psychopathy can be beneficial to society in the case of controlled psychopaths in the police and military. This led me to wonder whether controlled psychopaths may have a role to play in revolutionary processes.

    On the whole though, I think psychopaths, controlled and uncontrolled, do more harm than good.

    1. Sorry, in the first paragraph i wanted to say that the issue is not so much that they are promiscuous but that they breed alot, always irresponsibility ant letting others bear the burden.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.