Welcome to Gaia! ::

Mensa Testing I.Q. by Race, The problem with the Bell Curve

How I.Q. works in general, or comparing norms. Real world data

To understand the fundamental reasons on why race realism is bullshit, one must first understand I.Q. and what race realism is. Race realism is essentially being the idea that different races have different I.Q.'s and genetically designed behaviors and thus it more or less explains the disparity in wealth gaps and crime levels, among other issues, in the minds of race realist. The reason why race realism is so viral is in part for three key reasons, the first being confirmation bias that is people essentially wanting it to be true (and therefore being racist and simply filling in the gaps with information they want to believe is true), scientific illiteracy when tends to lead to people not understand how I.Q. works in the first place, and generally speaking a desire to possess a unique or different idea, known colloquially on the internet as being "edgy". Race realist are about as edgy as a razor blade, and they only abstain from cutting themselves and slitting their own wrists by their belief in their own superiority to others, especially for the secret knowledge they pretend to possess. It is their own ignorance which allows them to perpetuate these myths, an ignorance they deliberately cultivate to keep themselves from realizing they are wrong, and thus facing the guilt they feel from being racist. It's a way to excuse shitty and disgusting behavior, rather than to face what they are and improve as a person. This cognitive dissonance is not unique to race realists, and many others lie to themselves on purpose to pretend reality is different than how they want.

I.Q. is more complicated than many people believe, which is why it's important initially to dispel certain myths about it. First, I.Q. changes radically as you age, and can change from environmental factors, meaning it's not set in stone, let alone by genetics. The initial flaw race realists must face is that I.Q. is not permanent, and can change from a myriad of different reasons, including from diet, age, education, environment, injury, and psychological factors. Neonatal care along with genetics determines I.Q. at birth, that is how well you were taken care of in the womb, as genetics alone do not determine I.Q. Alchol fetal syndrome, children born to parents addicted to crack and so on can all effect I.Q. on top of the mother's diet and health, which means I.Q. at birth is not determined entirely by genetics but also by care of the mother while in the womb. Correlation arguments, such as by twins having similiar I.Q.'s at birth, is ignore neonatal care and the fact twins tend to have lower I.Q.'s than the rest of the population, which shows that while care in the womb produces similar effects, has yet to actually prove that it's from genetic factors. In fact, I.Q. is not the same for all children, with some children inheriting different genes from their parents, meaning that even the most perfect genetic specimens breeding can result in offspring, or children, without the desired traits of the parents, due to the nature of recessive genes. Despite both parents having black hair the child can end up with blond hair or red hair, or even end up completely white and black depending on how the genes are passed on. Genes are not transferred linearly, and children can end up with almost completely different genes than the parent, or genes all from one side. Most I.Q. tests show a 50% deviation of I.Q. from birth as children, from 50-150 I.Q.





Offending Rates
In the United States, black people and white people have roughly the same rates of violence in the same environments. According to BJS (or Bureau of Justice) statistics, poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000). However, less white people are poor and urban, and thus black people statistically on average tend to have higher levels of crimes. Approximately 9-10% of white below are below the poverty line, compared to 24-26% of black people (roughly 2.6 times higher) [1][2], while Asians have the lowest murder and violence rate, and also have the most amount of money on average and are the least urbanized. Asians commit 1.2% of the crimes despite making up 5.6% of the population, or are 4.6 times less than the average to commit crimes, which is less than either white or black people.

According to FBI statistics, roughly 6,502,919 / 9,390,473 = .692 or, white people commit 69.2% of all crimes, while black people commit 2,640,067 / 9,390,473 = 28.1% of crimes. Proportionately, black people make up 12.6% of the population while white people makes up 72.4%, or black people are 2.23 times more likely to commit crimes than the average. However this is predominately due to poverty and urbanization, as black people are more likely to be poor and urban than white people. Approximately 24-26% of black people were below the poverty line, compared to 9% of white people, and 40% of black people lived in urban environments, vs. about 20% for white people. This means black people are more likely to be poor and urban, and thus commit more crimes. Despite black people and white people committing the same amount of crimes in the same environments, particularly violent crimes, black people are more likely to be in these environments, and thus commit more crime as a whole on the statistical average. Apart from no genes being found that directly link I.Q. or criminality to genetics, as in no biological data finding the exact amino acid chains supposedly responsible, there are alternative explanations that correlate almost exactly with the offending rates, among all of the races.

The only exception to this data seems to be for Hispanics, of whom the poor people tend to largely be immigrants, and immigrants coming from poor countries tend to commit less crime due to the immigrants seeing a bad city in the U.S. as an improvement over their previous lifestyles and cities, and thus being less likely to commitcrimes; 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants have dramatically higher offending rates than their parents, suggesting it is indeed being acclimatized to a certain environment that causes the crime. What this means is that there is a direct link and easy explanation linking crime rates to environment, rather than genetics. Countries such as X, are predominately black, and yet have very low crime rates, even compared to many western countries. In some countries, such as in South Africa and Angola white people commit more violent crimes, largely due to poverty, as explained before. With white genocides going on in some of these countries, particularly South Africa, it makes sense crime is even higher, with whites being more likely to commit crime due to legitimate oppression and the poverty stemming from it. While more common to black people in many countries, it does not hold true for the world, and for different environments.


The problem with the bell curve
Most of the information used by race realists comes from two primary sources, a book called "The Bell Curve" by Charles Murray, and the data by Richard Lynn of which most of the data in the Bell Curve is based on. This is widely used by many key figures in the race realism movement, utilizing the data compiled by them to determine the I.Q. of the world. Individuals involved include Tara McCarthy, Rage After storm, A chart, detailing this The problem with this information, is in effect, that it is completely wrong, and at times outright fabrications; in essence, it is complete bullshit.

There are a few key things to bear in mind. First, the study covered 81 out of 185 of the world's countries, and so a map with all of the world's I.Q.'s listed is inherently wrong, given that data was only gathered on approximately 40% of the countries, and not all of them. The I.Q.'s of these were estimated by the supposed I.Q.'s of their neighbors, which instead of leaving them blank disingenuously posited an "estimate", basically a guess, of their I.Q.'s, despite lacking any concrete evidence on this issue. This is a problem for a number of reasons which, on top of simply being based on literally nothing, and pulled out of nowhere, also simply doesn't make a lot of sense from a standpoint of logic. Comparing the technological development of Mexico and the U.S., or Turkey and Greece, we can see that neighbors often have very different developments from each other and thus, resultingly different education levels. Making assumptions about one country based solely on their neighbors is not only scientifically invalid, but from an intuitive standpoint obviously wrong, and nothing more than baseless assertions masqueraded in a thin veel of mystical psuedoscience designed to trick less scrupulous audience members.

Secondly, it doesn't make sense to compare I.Q. done by different I.Q. tests to each other. Not all I.Q. tests are the same, with for example Raven Matrice I.Q. tests only covering spatial and mathematical reasoning skills, and x only covering verbal skills. A full I.Q. tests, such as the x, covering a wider variety of different forms of intelligence, is more accurate than a single test type, and so certain tests are inaccurately used to gauge total I.Q. levels. Furthermore, different I.Q. tests have different norms, based on what the members taking the test are. Mensa for example defines genius as being 134, and normal intelligence as being 94, while other tests define normal I.Q. at being 100, and some still at 105 or higher. Different I.Q. test results, from different I.Q. tests, are not comparable to each other, as many I.Q. tests are different, as are the people who take them; scoring 105 is different from scoring a 94 on another I.Q. test, and thus direct comparisons between test scores are not accurate, which is something anyone who knows even a little bit about I.Q. testing is aware of. I.Q. test result scores are all relative, so for instance if 1000 people took an I.Q. test, and you were in the top 10%, your I.Q. may come off as extremely high, such as between 130-150. However, if you took the same test with 1000 geniuses, your I.Q. may seem really low, as your I.Q. score is determined relative to the other peopel who took the test, not some intrinsic value. I.Q. is not determined by how many questions you got right, such as on a normal test (like in school, where getting a 95 means you got 19/20 questions right), but how many questions you got right, in regards to other people. Because every I.Q. test has a different I.Q. grading scale and has different norms, they cannot be compared directly to each other. An I.Q. test in china won't be the same as one in America, and even multiple types exist in the same country. Without everyone taking the same I.Q. test all over the world without any doctoring of results (which many countries are liable to do, such as North Korea or China), there is no clear way to know the world's, let alone independent country's within them, I.Q. On top of this, Lynn uses measures for I.Q.'s that do not directly correlate to I.Q., such as the ACT and ASVAB scores, which are measures of education and not processing scores, and once again only "guesses" on what the I.Q. scores should be. In effect, he did not even use actual I.Q. tests for every country, despite the rather intellectually dishonest nature of comparing results from different I.Q. tests in the first place.

Finally, the methodology of the data within the Bell Curve and Richard Lynn's data is highly questionable. For example, not only is it incorrect to compare different I.Q. tests to each other, and not only were I.Q. tests not taken from all the world's countries (let alone all or most of the citizens of he country), but some were outright fabrications. His basis for Equatorial Guinea for example was based not on an I.Q. test from Equatorial Guinea, but rather roughly 50 immigrants in a special needs class, that is developmentally disabled children, in Spain. By taking samples of special needs kids in spain to use as an I.Q. test for all of Equatorial Guinea is not only disgusting and downright disingenuous, but he further went on to describe the surrounding countries as also having low I.Q.'s, based solely on this single piece of information. On top of the dubious idea of comparing multiple I.Q. tests to each other, he used special needs kids to determine the I.Q.'s of certain countries, while using honor students in other countries, like China. Comparing developmentally disabled children from one country to the smartest kids of another is not a fair comparison, and kids are not a great foundation for determining the I.Q.'s of adults in a nation in any case. This is not only disgusting, but obviously completely wrong and was masked deliberately within the data. Other countries, such as for Surinamese, Ethiopian, and Mexican IQ scores were based on unrepresentative samples of children who had emigrated from their nation of birth to the Netherlands, Israel, and Argentina, respectively. This sort of deliberately manipualtive selection, or cherry-picking of evidence to serve as the foundation for his arguments fundamentally undermines every point he makes. By trying to say these countries have lower I.Q.'s, but deliberately choosing low I.Q. children to compare to high I.Q. adults, fundamentally demonstrates the primary problem with the evidence, which on top of being dubious to make such comparisons to begin with, is not even done correctly. The "studies" which are used to represent entire countries I.Q.'s are based on improper data sets, that is chiefly mentally disabled children vs. adults, are designed specifically to engineer results to his own choosing, quite obviously so. There is not a shred of intellectual honesty in any of the data sets, and that destroys the credibility of the results in and of itself, on top of the poor comparison measures.

It seems obvious that if one had actually done a quick fact check of the sources, this would become obvious, but most race realists and other racists tend to fail prey to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, where they effectively try and choose reality, which is obviously impossible to do and evidence of a sick or feeble mind. Furthermore these ideas don't support the ideas of a white ethnostate as in the poorly down study by Richard Lynn, he claims Jews and Asians tend to have some of the highest I.Q.'s, including the Chinese. For this reason, if one were to really make an ethnostate based on I.Q., then whites ought to be kicked out of the country and replaced by Jews and Asians, something white identitarians obviously would be against. Furthermore high I.Q. black people, such as Niel Degrass Tyson, would be allowed in, making it seem strange not shut out all of the Despite the evidence obviously being bullshit, it nonetheless does not even support the main argument by race realists, which is a white-only ethnostate. This helps give an idea of how poorly thought out the ideas of the race-realists, predominately in the alt-right, are, and how similar they think to SJW's, appealing to an authority that doesn't even support their views and completely ignoring the evidence at hand. At best they cherry pick the parts they like and ignore the parts they don't, which makes their ideas essentially pseudoscience believed in like a faith based on desires, and not facts.

The problem with an Ethnostate in general
Other than the obvious, the concept of achieving "racial purity" is not only disgusting and stupid, being inherently immoral to kick out a group of people for being less intelligent, or to punish and judge a race as a collective whole, but also inherently against nature. While diversity is not always a strength, it is a primary strength in nature, where biomes show an incredible diversity of life and can be judged on health by their diversity in general. We don't see one super organism ruling the planet and eliminating all other life, but rather many different life forms living together, filling different niches in the world, for a number of different reasons. Furthermore genetic diversity is a strength for most creatures in general, for a number of different reasons. First, inbreeding is universally seen as disgusting, and is disruptive to a population's genes. Many genetic disorders come from inbreeding, and the closer a creature's relatives are the more likely this it to occur. Creature's in nature seek diversity to strengthen the species gene pool, as being too closely related to any one individual weakens their overall genetic strength. Even the amish, who started with 49 original families, are experiencing major genetic issues, as inbreeding can occur rapidly even with thousands of individuals involved. Many major royal families of the mideval era tried to breed racially pure individuals, only to end up with many children that were horribly disfigured or suffered particularly horrendous genetic defects (such as hemophilia, or a lack of an ability for blood to clot). The concept of reducing down a population's genes to a very specific and small subset is one aimed at disaster, and inevitably doomed to fail. With genes becoming more and more similar among a population, genetic defects are an inevitability.

Another common issue with a lack of genetic diversity is the spread of disease. Without a broad enough gene pool there is likely to be few individuals resistant to major diseases, which can result in widespread pandemics and disease outbreaks. For instance in many species of plants which have very similar genetic make-ups, such as those breed in a specific way for agricultural production, disease has spread through the species rapidly. Massive sudden crop failures, known as famines, have historically occurred with many over-breed species of plants, including with the Irish potato famine of the 1840's, crop deaths due to weevils and insects, and other famines, the genetic familiarly between the majority of the organisms lead to their downfall. When a species genetics become too similar to each other, it opens them up for attack by disease, which the species as a whole will lack resistances to. Modern Europeans are likely to carry resistances to the bubonic plague, despite it it wiping out nearly a third of the population, due to many surviving members possessing genetic resistances to the disease. Had the population not been diverse enough to have people with genetic resistances present, it likely would have spread uncontrollably and wiped out the majority of the population. Individuals that avoid being infected not only manage to survive from the disease itself, but also don't serve as vectors to spread the disease to people who aren't resistant, which slows down it's halt or spread. This has an exponential effect on protecting a society, and individuals with different genetics serve as a way to protecting the disease from spreading to vulnerable elements of the population, in a form of "herd immunity" where a large number of resistant individuals protect those who are not resistant. In general genetic diversity is a trait many creatures seek to achieve, as overly similar genetic structures of a population tend to weaken it to outside threats.

Finally, nature itself is about evolution and change. The reason for genetic experimentation is to find new means to strengthen the genetic pool, and to adapt to new and changing environments. The idea of artificial selection stands in direct opposition to the natural processes of the world, and is a way for humans to decide what they want, rather than what would be best. Rather than allowing the natural decisions to take place, like in a free market place or the free market place of ideas, for the most favorable genes to be determined by their own merits, humans will select which one's the prefer and force those on to the world, whether it would be better or worse. Rather than allowing for the natural creation of the gene pool, racial segregations would try and force their own desires, instead of allowing genes to develop naturally. It's not a coincidence that many of the worst eugenicists in history were communists and socialists, such as Hitler, a part of the National Socialist German worker's party, or the Nazi party, since these sorts of mentalities demand control. It is not only immoral, but stupid to try, and often does not produce the best results. An emphasis on solving malnutrition, better education and better noenatal and prenatal care (treatment of babies) is more likely to lead to higher IQ people. Further IQ is but one faucet of intelligence, and not how everyone should be judged.