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 .
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 , obstetric emergencies , and low birthweight in the offspring of short women .
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 .
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.