Quote# 134900

I've been red-pilled about IQ since I was 14 and I just turned 30. So I've been following this particular topic for about 16 years now. I've also been an IQ evangelist for about 9 years now. I was the anonymous asshole in the comment section talking about racial differences in IQ scores.
I've been banned from hundreds of websites, forums, and subreddits for writing about this ugly aspect of science. I felt like a crazy person that was shouting complete nonsense into the wind because almost everyone would automatically dismiss my views. I also felt like I was getting absolutely nowhere and was completely wasting my time and energy on trying to normalize a scientific finding that the masses would never accept.
I was also keenly aware of the tiny number of brave scientists and academics from previous generations who had spent their entire lives trying to normalize the idea that some races were inherently more intelligent than others and had paid the price for committing that heresy by being socially ostracized. It was even more discouraging when you realized that these men were giants in their fields (Eysenck is the most cited psychologist in history), and yet almost nobody would listen to them. They had essentially wasted and ruined their lives because they dared to acknowledge what the data was telling us about racial differences in intelligence. So, if they couldn't get anywhere, then what chance do I have?
Yet, like a true religious zealot, I kept spreading the race realism Gospel wherever I could. That's the power of knowing that you're right and knowing that you've uncovered the key to understanding human inequality. You just can't help trying to spread ideas that you know in your bones are correct and extremely important.
After years of depressing online activism, I finally started to notice an uptick in people talking about this issue over the last fews years. I started to see a very small but growing number of people acknowledging racial IQ differences in the comment sections of right-wing blogs. And, like you said, in the last couple of years I've noticed a huge increase in people talking about this issue. It's rare now to read a news article or social media post about race where someone doesn't bring up racial IQ differences in the comment section.
After we red-pilled Sam Harris on this issue, I knew that we were on the verge of entering the mainstream and that our eventual victory was inevitable. After all, he's a modern liberal icon and a Jew. If anyone should be biased on this issue, then it should be him. That we won him over is proof that the data really is on our side and that the common argument that racial IQ differences is "thoroughly debunked pseudoscience" was a dishonest talking point that was concocted in order to combat the reemergence of scientific racism.
We IQ evangelists are on the ascendance, and our momentum is on the verge of receiving a massive boost now that the cost of human genome sequencing has plummeted. We've already discovered some of the genes and alleles that are linked to intelligence. And we've already discovered that these genes and alleles aren't evenly distributed across racial groups and largely mirror the racial IQ differences that we've known for decades.
The case for racial differences in intelligence being quite real and largely genetically caused is only going to get stronger and stronger as we discover more and more of these genes and alleles. 10 years from now, anyone that denies racial differences in intelligence will be viewed in much the same way that young Earth creationists are viewed now: willfully ignorant and delusional ideologues that are rejecting science because it debunks their mostly deeply held beliefs.
Who knows how the left and the world in general will react to this paradigm shift. Will the masses become race realists and more open to the rest of our ideas? Will the ranks of the pro-White movement increase dramatically now that they know that science is on their side? Or will the scientific and academic community and the media continue to ruthlessly crack down on race realists and continue to pump out egalitarian propaganda to a receptive public? Or will the left evolve by arguing that precision gene editing and embryo selection has made these racial IQ differences irrelevant? Only time will tell.
I'm not as optimistic as you are, but that's probably because I'm pessimistic by nature.

CertifiedRabbi, Reddit 10 Comments [12/6/2017 12:21:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Malingspann

CertifiedRabbi


Sounds like you can lose the Rabbi.

12/6/2017 12:57:33 PM

Anon-e-moose

the idea that some races were inherently more intelligent than others


Neil deGrasse Tyson. Donald Fart. Question: Who is it who said 'Covfefe'?

One of these things is not like the other. Which is it?

12/6/2017 2:59:13 PM

Hu’s On First

IQ scores themselves are of questionable utility. People with very high IQs are more likely to have LOTS of mental health issues. For instance there are some questions on a standard IQ test where if you can answer them correctly, you’re far more likely to be a schizophrenic.

Meanwhile there are many very successful people who don’t have high IQs.

12/6/2017 5:06:55 PM

Kanna

Dear Certifiable Rabbit

What if you could prove a difference in average IQ? What then? Would that tell you anything about the IQ of any particular individual? No, it wouldn't. It might even mean the the IQ test are biased toward people of your culture, so have you plans to check the IQ of people with the same genetic background but a different culture? What do you find with people with mixed parentage? Do you find a difference between people with good educational resources and people without? Y'see, it's not that simple, and once you've figured all that out, you're still nowhere in terms of finding anything useful.

Of course if you were blessed with a high IQ, it's possible that you would have figured that out for yourself.

12/6/2017 7:28:49 PM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

To anyone who gets to know me, it is very evident that I am highly intelligent. However, when I took an IQ test as part of my diagnosis of Aspergers, i only got 114 (IIRC) - and the report explicitly says that this is way lower than my actual intelligence due to pronounced deficits in specific areas.
As always, biologistic pseudoscience may look sciency on a superficial level, but in reality, it is so ignorant of the science invoked that its falsehood should be self-evident to anyone with a basic grasp on science. Unfortunately, far too many people lack this basic grasp on science.

Yet, like a true religious zealot, I kept spreading the race realism Gospel wherever I could. That's the power of knowing that you're right and knowing that you've uncovered the key to understanding human inequality. You just can't help trying to spread ideas that you know in your bones are correct and extremely important.

Ah, the moment when the mask slips and they make the suspected underlying fallacies and depravities explicit without realising it.

We IQ evangelists are on the ascendance, and our momentum is on the verge of receiving a massive boost now that the cost of human genome sequencing has plummeted. We've already discovered some of the genes and alleles that are linked to intelligence. And we've already discovered that these genes and alleles aren't evenly distributed across racial groups and largely mirror the racial IQ differences that we've known for decades.
The case for racial differences in intelligence being quite real and largely genetically caused is only going to get stronger and stronger as we discover more and more of these genes and alleles.

If you believe that genetic determinism is still going strong, you have obviously not been paying attention to the relevant fields for quite a while (not that you ever did, since it is obvious your education on evolution comes entirely from popular misconceptions, sensationalistic science "journalism" and pseudojournals of the reactionary milieu).

PS:
After all, [Sam Harris is] a Jew.

Wrong. He is an atheist who has criticised Judaism.

12/6/2017 11:38:02 PM

Glandu

I agree with you all other commenters, but I'd like to play a game. Let's assume he's right, and some ethnicities are smarter than others(which seems false to me, but for the sake of the game, let's imagine).

That's just an average. That's just a f$$$ing average with very heavy variance. Which means that's it's still useless. When I'll meet the next member of the less-smart group, it can still be a very smart person. Or I can meet a member of the very-smart group, who can be completely dumb either.

Said otherwise : even if it was true(seems not), it would be heavily misleading. Because in this case, averages are insignificant. Variance is far more significant. The fact that the OP does not get that makes me doubt of his intelligence.

12/7/2017 3:34:57 AM

The Angry Dybbuk

I don't understand what would motivate anyone to proclaim himself an "IQ evangelist," and nor do I understand why he'd be banned from "hundreds" of discussion sites merely for posting data readily available online. My suspicion is that the OP is, indeed, an asshole just as he claims. (And the fact he keeps using the term "redpill" just strengthens my belief this guy is a time-sucking fuckwit.)

I think, first, that a strong argument can be made for how environmental and economic pressure could have an adverse effect on how people-groups would score on 'IQ by country / region' lists. (Some of the damage may even have a physical origin apart from 'core' genetics, such as how starvation or/and exposure to toxins in the mother could impact a developing fetus. The existence of FAS already demonstrates that environment can have a profound effect...and so does the emerging understanding of epigenetics.)

There’s a fairly common argument that economic disparities among nations are related to the average intelligence of their citizens – an appeal to nature that attempts to excuse economic and social disparities without any pesky discussion about how to narrow the gaps.

I initially wanted create a quick and dirty cross-section of data such as GDP and average wage per capita across several countries against average IQ. I picked a few nations and regions – e.g., India, China, Japan, a North American cluster (Canada, the United States, and Mexico), the UK, the EAU, Chad, Rwanda; basically a buffet from around the world – in an effort to determine how strong the link is between IQ and (for lack of a better term) national prosperity. My hope was to collate the data for just a few countries and overlay that with information about what natural resources and other assets are available versus liabilities such as ongoing or recent war, ecological issues with a negative impact on crop growth and the survival of livestock, the impact of pollution…import/export data, literacy and numeracy levels and so on. That wouldn't be deep enough to satisfy me if I were collecting the data for real-world use, but it would have sufficed as a response to the “IQ evangelist” (Jesus Fucking Christ, what a weird hobby, OP!)

After a cursory look, I realised these efforts would take a dozen hours or more to develop something basic enough even for an online argument of this sort - a fact that provides for an argument in itself: There are so many factors all working together in complex relationships that go into explaining why some peoples fare worse in the global marketplace than others. (This thread would be dead by the time I put together even a small snapshot.)

Plainly it's not so simple as ‘intelligence equals economic well-being.'

A second point that always nags at me concerns how any reliable information about IQ could be gathered in countries where significant portions of the population are functionally illiterate. A sizable sample of literate test-takers would be necessary to collect anything like accurate data.

Third, people in or from Asian countries seem to do best; to rank highest on these IQ lists. By that measure, Caucasians are at a collective disadvantage. How would knowing this, as a Caucasian, have any real impact on my life or on that of any other individual?

It's a legitimate question: If one major reason for being an "IQ evangelist" – in addition to using an appeal to nature as an excuse to limit foreign aid - is to attack affirmative action in the workplace or alleged selection quotas in post-secondary institutions, then white candidates would be at a disadvantage when compared to Asian candidates. I somehow doubt the OP's most pressing concern is how whites in North America are artificially privileged over Asians by employers or by college admissions boards.

The OP isn't any kind of realist if he honestly believes people will be more open to his grossly simplistic arguments in ten years than they are now. He's the modern-day equivalent of a phrenologist.

12/7/2017 4:23:38 AM

KingOfRhye

I've been red-pilled


.....and that's where I basically shut off. I just can't take anything anyone says seriously after they start talking about red and blue pills and all that crap.

12/7/2017 7:44:57 AM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

I've never seen The Matrix, nor do I intend to do so, but isn't the character offering the red and blue pills black?

12/7/2017 8:06:13 AM

Gabriel LaVedier

This dolt sounds like a real life Frau Engel. I hope a giant deathbot squishes his head like a grape in a camp and does a better job than the one done on Engel.

12/7/2017 8:51:52 AM

1 | top: comments page