Skip to content
December 26, 2013 / JayMan

“Racial Reality” Provides My 150th Post

“Racial Reality” (RR), also known as “Italianthro,” has apparently responded to my challenge. He claims to have left a comment to my post, but I didn’t see one. I haven’t looked in my spam box in a while, so if it ended up there, it may have gotten deleted (spam comments are automatically deleted after 30 days). In that case, my apologies.

In any case, RR wrote a post with objections to my claims, and for that matter, HBD in general:

JayMan is an HBd blogger obsessed with IQ, heredity and achievement, and probably Richard Lynn’s #1 fan. He claims to be Jamaican, which makes him either the most insanely self-hating black person on earth, or a white Nordicist pretending to be black so he can get away with insulting blacks and everyone else who isn’t Northwestern European. Either way, he’s an idiot.

Recently he “called me out” on his blog re: my stance on environmental factors in global IQ disparities. I had debated him there about a year and a half ago and easily won, and I guess he’s been traumatized by it ever since.

Well, as my (blond, Nordic-Baltic Yankee) wife assures me, I am quite Black. When I get back home, I’ll leave a treat for everyone.

Of course, had RR been following along here, he would have noticed that I have discussed more than a few unflattering characteristics about “Northern Europeans” (specifically Northwest Europeans and their descendants). See An HBD Summary of the Foundations of Modern Civilization, How Inbred are Europeans, and Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political Divide.

RR must have a thing with Richard Lynn, since regular readers might note that I don’t really discuss racial differences in IQ or cite Lynn much. Lynn has made very important contributions to our understanding of IQ and human differences, but he only one of very many researchers to do so. As is true with HBD Chick and Peter Frost, my interests don’t lie primarily with IQ – especially racial differences in such – but with other topics (see my previous milestone post, 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead and my American nations series). In any case, I discuss the facts as they are.

Let me start by making it clear that RR is a bullshit artist par excellence. He engages in some serious motivated obfuscation when it comes to race, heredity, and IQ (as do many others on these topics). In this post, I will show how and where he has done so.

RR’s first bit of evidence against the mountains of data for heritable human differences as presented in my post calling him out (which included a link to my HBD Fundamentals page, among other things) was the study by Anandi Mani et al “Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function.” Yes, that one.

Seriously RR?

To that, there’s only one appropriate response:


Of all things to use to support your case against HBD, you use this obviously bullshitological study, one that was criticized on numerous grounds (and was criticized by me)? I guess that gives us an idea of what RR’s argument has got.

This is all there is Racial Reality's arguments, best case scenario

This is all there is to Racial Reality’s arguments, at best

Mani et al have responded to defend their study, but it doesn’t matter. I will quote myself on this topic:

These guys are trying to pull a fast one and overturn all the evidence linking IQ and wealth, both on an individual and group level.

Researchers publishing some groundbreaking findings today in the journal Science have concluded that poverty imposes such a massive cognitive load on the poor that they have little bandwidth left over to do many of the things that might lift them out of poverty – like go to night school, or search for a new job, or even remember to pay bills on time

Right. So why then is IQ predictive of earnings within families? Why of IQ and childhood SES, IQ is by far the stronger predictor of future earnings?

The finding further undercuts the theory that poor people, through inherent weakness, are responsible for their own poverty – or that they ought to be able to lift themselves out of it with enough effort. This research suggests that the reality of poverty actually makes it harder to execute fundamental life skills. Being poor means, as the authors write, “coping with not just a shortfall of money, but also with a concurrent shortfall of cognitive resources.”This explains, for example, why poor people who aren’t good with money might also struggle to be good parents. The two problems aren’t unconnected.

They certainly are connected. That “shortfall of cognitive resources” causes both.

Before responding, the subjects were given a series of common tests (identifying sequences of shapes and numbers, for example) measuring cognitive function and fluid intelligence. In the easier scenario, where the hypothetical repair cost only $150, subjects classified as “poor” and “rich” performed equally well on these tests. But the “poor” subjects performed noticeably worse in the $1,500 scenario. Simply asking these people to think about financial problems taxed their mental bandwidth.

That “shortfall of cognitive resources” again. The differences between higher IQ and lower IQ people become more evident on harder tasks, because there’s only so good one can be on easy tasks.

Now that all of these perspectives have come together, the implications for how we think about poverty – and design programs for people impacted by it – are enormous. Solutions that make financial life easier for poor people don’t simply change their financial prospects.

I’m a big proponent of making the lives of the poor easier; even a poor citizen of should have a place in society. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that that’s going to perform miracles and boost their brainpower. Mountains of evidence simply say otherwise.


It is well known a variety of factors can affect IQ test performance at a given instance (say self confidence). That’s a why repeated testing (with different tests) is often necessary to remove test bias in scores. It’s one heck of a stretch to claim that a temporarily lowered IQ score from one setting translates to permanently lowered IQ. Never mind that g wouldn’t be affected.


Look, I will grant that intelligent people likely operate less efficiently when they are short on resources. That is a far cry from the nonsense they are trying to pull here.

In short, even if their data is valid, of which Wicherts et al wasn’t convinced, it wouldn’t address all the other evidence we have demonstrating the causal relationship between IQ and wealth/poverty.

RR’s other piece of evidence was a paper that claimed that “the differences in the timing of agriculture transition and the histories of States, not population IQ differences, predict international development differences before the colonial era.”

The paper makes the claim based on some rather tenuous evidence that modern levels of average IQ around the world don’t predict level of civilizational development in the year 1500.

One problem becomes immediately obvious. We don’t know what average IQs of historic peoples were. 500 years ago was enough time that there could have been, and likely were, significant differences between the average IQ of people of the time and their current values.

Indeed, current thinking in the line of the work of Gregory Clark and Ron Unz (supplemented by Peter Frost, Greg Cochran, and Henry Harpending) posits that average IQs were rising in the northern civilized societies at this time. See HBD Fundamentals: On the evolution of modern advanced civilized peoples. Differential evolutionary trajectories not just for IQ but also behavioral traits would have affected the level of economic and technological development of people at the time. In addition, particular technological innovations and geographic factors likely were stronger determinants of economic and technological prosperity then.

But how off is the level of development in the year 1500 from what average IQs roughly similar to modern levels would lead us to expect?

East-Hem in 1500 AD

This is a map of the Eastern Hemisphere in AD 1500. As we see, aside from Europe, the principle states at the time were the East Asian nations (China, Korea, Japan), the collapsing former Mongol Empire, the various states in India, and some up and coming Middle Eastern empires, particularly the Ottoman Empire. As well, there were some West African and Southeast Asian states. Also, of course, there were the soon to be conquered Meso-American empires not shown here.

In short, the main powers were the East Asian nations, the Middle East, India, and Europe.

Of course, 1500 was the dawn of the European age, as the Enlightenment and the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions were soon to follow. Indeed, the state of affairs doesn’t appear as incongruent as Daniele’s paper is making out.

Indeed, that very paper does show that the trajectory that is to follow from this year to the present correlates well with present-day average IQs:GDP IQ correlations plot GDP IQ correlations table

The correlation between present-day average IQs and growth, as measured in these datasets, is strong. Of course, Daniele is trying claim that the causation runs from growth -> average IQ, rather than the reverse. In the paper, he invokes the Flynn Effect to make the case that the average IQs of the current impoverished nations will catch up as they develop.

Here is where I will invoke a new verb I’m coining in honor of man who noted it. I am going to “Staffan” this study. The man behind Staffan’s Personality Blog noted that modern commenters try to explain away the problems of modern peoples or the incongruities between these peoples and whatever pet theory commenter is trying to advance by claiming that we need to adjust for some feature of these peoples’ present or recent history. An example would be trying to explain the reduced development and low average IQ of sub-Saharan Africa by their poverty; another would be trying to explain away the lower trust and reduced development of Eastern Europe vis-a-vis Northwestern Europe by the former’s history of communism. But, as Staffan put it (emphasis mine):

It’s clear that Whites and East Asians are doing better than the rest. In Latin America we find that the most European countries, Uruguay and Chile are doing best. But at the same time we see countries like Russia struggling. Some would say this needs to be adjusted for communism, but I say they created communism and weren’t doing well before that either. We can’t adjust for their entire history. So just being White is clearly not enough, or even necessary for that matter.

In the case of Daniele’s paper, he is trying to claim that presently impoverished states, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, in fact do have average IQs comparable to those in Northern Europe or East Asia, we just need to take their poverty into account. But no, as his own paper makes clear, we can’t adjust for their entire history.

On that note, in fact, the innovation we have seen out of Northern Europe (seen in Charles Murray’s work, as referenced by HBD Chick), particularly Northwestern Europe…

…is a remarkable historical occurrence, and demands explanation.

This whole process is seen here (from The Economic History of the Last 2000 Years: Part II – Derek Thompson – The Atlantic):

Screen Shot 2012-06-20 at 9.37.55 AM

This is share of GDP of the various states for the past two millennia. While it may seem that Europe is meager on the world stage in 1500, this is mainly a product of population. European has a smaller GDP because it has a smaller population.

Now here is the trajectory in GDP per capita:

Screen Shot 2012-06-20 at 2.18.15 PM-thumb-615x385-90700 Screen Shot 2012-06-20 at 1.44.32 PM-thumb-615x228-90684Screen Shot 2012-06-20 at 2.12.41 PM-thumb-615x385-90697

Northwestern European standard of living was already ahead of much of the world by 1500 and eclipsed the rest of the world’s since.

Much of this, especially pre-Industrial Revolution, was the result of the permanent improvement in wages brought about by the labor shortages in the wake of the Black Death. But, Northwestern European development has since ran away – leading, eventually, to the modern world. Peter Frost discussed this (Evo and Proud: On global inequality).

The bottom line is that Europeans, particularly Northwestern Europeans, were already fairly well off by 1500, with the East Asians next behind. Other groups were left behind, many failing to advance even to this day. This demands explanation. Average IQ is very likely part of the puzzle. It’s not enough to note that today’s impoverished nations poverty holds them back. What of the past five centuries? The East Asian nations, and for that matter Eastern Europe, despite lagging behind their Northwestern European counterparts in terms of innovation, nonetheless have a history of technological ability the present impoverished world lacks, in accordance with their relative average IQs.

Regular readers here will note that other heritable psychological traits, and even cognitive abilities (such as creativity) are very important factors, and likely go a long way towards explaining the differences between Northwestern Europe and its counterparts with comparable average IQs in Northeastern Europe and East Asia.

For the record, I’m not vouching for the reliability of these analyses of historic national economic performance, but there we are.

As for the explanation for the path of national development up until year 1500, that remains an ongoing area of scientific exploration. Because of the inability to directly measure the traits and abilities of past people, we can only infer their cognitive and behavioral traits from our (imperfect) historical records and data. But on that front, Peter Turchin et al created a model that captures roughly 65% of the variance in the presence of states during the 3,000 from 1500 BC to AD 1500.

combined_fig1_smallTurchin also explains more here. Now, I’m not claiming that Turchin et al’s model is correct, but it is interesting, and perhaps part of the puzzle when it comes to understanding the course of human history.

However, fundamentally, a key problem with Daniele’s paper is this: claims about the causal relationship between IQ and national development don’t make any statement, either way, about conditions far in the past. That is, we claim that IQ plays a causal role in national development today. How it got that way is a separate proposition. Regardless of Daniele’s and RR’s claims, we have considerable evidence for the relationship between IQ and economic success, both for individuals and for nations (some of which is discussed in my post Welcome Readers from Portugal!). Even if Daniele were to discredit the association between IQ and economic vitality for past nations (assuming we even knew what the average IQ of past peoples were), it wouldn’t change the known strong relationship that exists in the present day. As we see here, it’s unclear that the situation for AD 1500 is that mysterious. Further research is needed.

Racial Reality, if you choose to respond, please do so here or please write a blog post. If your comment doesn’t appear, please let me know and I will check my spam box.


Thanks to all those who have donated, and I hope you all had a Merry Christmas!



Leave a Comment
  1. jason / Dec 26 2013 8:53 PM

    “motivated obfuscation”?

    Seriously? My blog post on the topic was anything but. My main point was that there is a tendency to overstate findings in an overconfident manner (i.e., a lot of hyperbole) when it comes to statements about the (lack of) impact of parenting on outcomes. That is hardly ‘motivated obfuscation.’ In fact, what I was asking for was for people to be more specific about exactly what the research shows and what the limitations are. I’d like for you to leave me out of any ad hominem. Thank you.

    • JayMan / Dec 26 2013 9:45 PM


      Your discussion on the matter certainly was motivated obfuscation. While I’m not going to rehash that argument here, readers can follow the link to your blog and see why I described it as such, a description which is, as far as I’m concerned, perfectly accurate, especially given the discussion that ensued in the comments.

  2. Staffan / Dec 27 2013 7:22 AM

    Congrats on your 150th post!

    The within family difference in earnings you mention is a good example of how poverty can’t be a big causal factor. Another is that IQ correlates some 0.35 to brain volume. If the ultimate cause was poverty we would see a massive brain shrinkage during recessions and then rapid growth as the economy picks up and people worry less about money. And if a poor person wins the lottery his head will explode : )

    Then there is the simple fact that China for all its growth still has a lot of poverty, but nonetheless have higher intelligence than many richer countries. And small countries in the Arab world that have become rich through oil have not become intelligent because of it.

    And adoptive siblings who correlate close to zero in early adulthood.

    Like you say, a mountain of evidence…

    • Richard / Dec 27 2013 11:43 PM

      Ugh. Correlation does not imply causation.

      So your idiotic example of brains expanding just makes you sound like an idiot; it doesn’t make you seem cheeky or bright or anything you might think you are.

      [JayMan: Please respect other commenters. Thank you. Last warning]

  3. awatcher / Dec 27 2013 9:47 AM

    Not much followed this debate, but you really are wasting your time with “racial reality”. His forum “Anthroscape” is run by a creationist: “I believe in Evolution to a great extent, though not 100% completely. “I don’t believe in evolution entirely but the Bible”. – Crimson Guard Topic Started: Dec 10 2008, 06:52 AM (4,429 Views). Need I say more.

    • JayMan / Dec 27 2013 9:54 AM


      Oh I don’t intend to have much of a serious debate, despite my attempts to engage in one. My toying with Italianthro is mostly for my amusement. 😉

      But yeah, that they would be creationists seems quite fitting, and speaks volumes to those who attempt to engage in principled HBD denial. It just doesn’t work. That should be a clue.

  4. Richard / Dec 27 2013 11:46 PM

    OK, I agree, higher IQ leads to more wellness, achievement, wonderfulness, etc. than low IQ.

    However, I’m curious about how much of the IQ differential is due to malnutrition (of which there is still a ton in the world) and how much is due to genetics/race.

    • Avery / Dec 28 2013 4:15 AM

      See studies of identical twins adopted by different families.

    • JayMan / Dec 28 2013 6:51 AM


      See my About Me and my HBD Fundamentals pages.

      The short answer is that in the impoverished world, average IQ is a bit lower than its genetic potential due to severe malnutrition (5 or so points in Latin America/N. Africa/S. Asia and 10 points in sub-Saharan Africa), but that alone, as you will see, is not the sole factor behind the differences between these places and Europe/East Asia.

  5. Staffan / Dec 28 2013 6:28 AM

    “Ugh. Correlation does not imply causation.

    So your idiotic example of brains expanding just makes you sound like an idiot; it doesn’t make you seem cheeky or bright or anything you might think you are.”

    Wow, lots of anger. But sure, correlation is not causation. This post, however, is in response to the claim that low SES actually causes low IQ, which in turn correlates strongly to brain volume. This suggests that SES is a direct cause of brain volume as well since IQ has a heritability around 0.75, so there isn’t really any room for SES and some factor X influencing both IQ and brain volume to be significant and independent of SES.

  6. Bones and Behaviours / Dec 28 2013 7:18 AM

    RR does have a grudge against Lynn and nordicists, but he isn’t opposed to HBD Research itself. Nor is he a creationist.

  7. Garrett / Dec 28 2013 11:56 PM

    Chile is NOT the whitest country in Latin America after Uruguay. Argentina is much whiter:

    Chile’s genetic make-up:

    “The most recent study in candela project establishes a genetic map of 52% of Europeans, 44% Mestizo and 4% of Africans.[77] Also different genetic studies such as that conducted by the University of Chile establishes that 64% of the genetic component of Chile is from European ethnic groups and 35% of amerindian ethnic groups and 1% other,[78] another genetic study of the University of Brasilia in several America countries results, Chile has a genetic composition with European contribution of 51.6%, 42.1% amerindian contribution, and 6.3% African contribution.[79]
    A public health book from the University of Chile states that 30% of the population is of Caucasian origin; Mestizos with an average 60% Caucasian ancestry and 40% Native American ancestry are estimated to amount a total of 65%, while Native Americans (Amerindians) comprise the remaining 5%.[80]

    Chile was never an attractive place for migrants, owing to its remoteness and distance from Europe.[88][89] Europeans preferred to stay in countries closer to their homelands instead of taking that long tour across the Straits of Magellan or crossing the Andes.[88] European migration did not result in a remarkable change in the ethnic composition of Chile, except in the region of Magellan.[90] Spaniards were the only major European migrant group to Chile,[88] and there was never a massive immigration, as happened in Argentina or Uruguay.[89] Between 1851 and 1924 Chile only received the 0.5% of the European immigration flow to Latin America, compared to 46% of Argentina, 33% of Brazil, 14% of Cuba, and 4% of Uruguay.[88]”

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 12:55 AM


      Interesting points. One guess was that Chile received elite populations of both Europeans and Native Americans. That might be the explanation, but the region does warrant further investigation.

    • Garrett / Dec 29 2013 1:13 AM

      But Argentina received lots of immigrants from places like Germany and *northern* Italy.

      Likewise, the indigenous population of Chile never produced anything to rival the cultural or scientific achievements of the Mayans or Aztecs or even the Incas. I don’t know how anyone could claim that they ranked among the Amerindian elites.

      Interestingly, Chile’s Amerindians had a reputation for being among the most recalcitrant and difficult to pacify, yet in terms of corruption level and the stability of the its institutions, Chile ranks at the top of Latin America and approaches Western European levels.

      There is one elephant in the room: Chile never imported large numbers of African slaves like many other Latin American countries. I know you’re part black, and this may sound uncharitable (or maybe it won’t, since slavery is evil and slaves are hardly the cream of the genetic crop), but maybe if the Spaniards and Portuguese had never imported African slaves and simply intermarried with the Amerindians, more of Latin America would resemble Chile…

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 1:18 AM


      Well, what percentage of Argentinian DNA is African? What percentage is Chile’s? It may be a worthwhile guess, but only if we can track these things to the degree of African ancestry…

    • Anthony / Dec 30 2013 9:11 PM

      Much of Spain and Portugal’s history over the past 200 years looks very similar to the history of their former colonies in the Americas, despite the near-zero Amerindian population in the Iberian peninsula. There are cultural factors going on there too – perhaps hbd*chick could dig into cousin-marriage rates in both places?

      “Chile’s Amerindians had a reputation for being among the most recalcitrant and difficult to pacify, yet in terms of corruption level and the stability of the its institutions, Chile ranks at the top of Latin America and approaches Western European levels.”

      This isn’t contradictory – a corrupt people would be easier to conquer by being easier to buy off.

    • JayMan / Dec 30 2013 9:30 PM


      See How Inbred are Europeans?.

      Note the sections on Spain.

      I wonder if a possible resolution to the paradox of Chile and Argentina has nothing to do with the non-European populations they have, but the European ones.

      Note the regional origin of northern Latin Americans. In these countries, the Iberian component comes from the corrupt, inbred parts. Perhaps Chile was settled by residents from northern Spain?

  8. Staffan / Dec 29 2013 6:32 AM


    So are you saying that Chile and Uruguay are the second and third most White countries rather than first and second? That seems a bit nit picky to me. Look at the big picture. And in this case also the amount of Northwestern Europeans. I get the feeling Chile has more of these but I could be mistaken.

    Still, a comparison of the countries could be interesting. But if we should compare Chile and Argentina we need some data on both countries. You claim Argentina is “much whiter” based solely on data on Chile from an unnamed source. According to Wikipedia, Argentina count their 4 percent Arab population as White and Chile has some 4.5 percent people of British ancestry. Is this part of why Argentina is much Whiter? Lots to consider here…

  9. Racial Reality / Dec 31 2013 8:27 AM

    Wicherts might not be convinced by Mani’s study (though that has in no way been settled yet), but he agrees that IQ differences are mostly environmental:

    Given the well-documented Flynn Effect, we know that “national IQs” are subject to change. An average IQ around 80 among Africans may appear to be low, but from a historical perspective this average is not low at all. A representative sample of British adults, who took the SPM in 1948 would have an average IQ of 81 in terms of the British norms of 1992 (J. C. Raven, 1960; J. C. Raven et al., 1996). Using older British norms, the average IQ of Africans would be much closer to 100. […] Because the environmental variables that potentially contribute to enhanced IQ have yet to improve in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, we regard the Flynn Effect as still in its infancy. There is in fact considerable empirical support that (mal)nutrition (Grantham-McGregor & Baker-Henningham, 2007; Sigman & Whaley, 1998), health (Williams, 1998), sanitation (Boivin et al., 1993), and schooling (Ceci, 1991) have an effect on IQ. […] There is now a clear indication that the Flynn Effect seems to have come to a halt in developed nations (Flynn, 2007). It is, therefore, reasonable to think that as circumstances in sub-Saharan Africa improve, the IQ gap between western samples and African samples will diminish. […] More importantly, there is little scientific basis for the assertion that the observed lower IQs of Africans are evidence of lower levels of general intelligence or g.

    As for the Daniele study, I’ll wait for any peer-reviewed criticism of it to come out. Your obviously biased opinion is irrelevant.

    Thanks for all the free advertising though, but I still want to know what happened to my final reply in the “Those Italians…” thread.

    • JayMan / Dec 31 2013 8:52 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      Your comment was deleted for reasons that will become very clear shortly.

      You’re welcome for the free advertising. That I am the one giving you the advertising is telling. Perhaps people are more interested in the truth than wishful nonsense?

      You see, there’s a reason you and I can’t debate for too long. That is, it doesn’t matter what any purported academic thinks, all that matters is the data. Right off the bat, you come here and you invoke two logical fallacies, the appeal to authority and the ad hominem. See my post Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit, which was written for folks like you. You have just seriously set off that alarm, despite your claims to the contrary.

      Your comment was deleted because I got tired of arguing over what color the sky was with you. Any future comments in that direction will face the same fate.

      As for Wicherts, even James Flynn himself has given up on the Flynn effect as being the source of the Black-White gap. Some of the gap between Northern Europeans and Africans in Africa is due to environmental factors (e.g., malnutrition, disease), but then what of the gap between Africans in Europeans countries and Europeans? Wicherts can’t explain that.

      See my HBD Fudamentals page for a ton of other things Wicherts can’t explain. Any theory needs to explain all the data, not just select parts of it.

    • JayMan / Dec 31 2013 9:54 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      For the record, any time someone tries to take the argument “to the man”, that’s a sure sign that they’ve got nothing…

    • JayMan / Jan 1 2014 12:49 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      In fact, here you go, so you can start the new year right!

    • elijahlarmstrong / Jan 1 2014 4:11 AM

      Racial Reality:

      Indeed, the high IQs of Africans (whether 70 or 80) are somewhat incongruous with hereditarianism. However, you make no notice of the fact that the African-white difference is g-loaded, unlike the cohort difference. Raw IQ differences are less informative than IQ differences coupled with g-loadings.

    • Racial Reality / Jan 2 2014 8:35 AM

      You give me a lot of free advertising because you can’t stop talking about me. I give you almost none because I never talk about you unless I’m forced to. I also don’t blog very often since I’m busy running an anthropology forum that’s more successful than anything you’ve ever done or ever will do. Your “success” comes from spamming links to your nonsense on everyone else’s more popular blogs and websites, not from your content.

      As to your “reason” for deleting my reply, it’s a lie. If it were true, you would have deleted the reply right away, acknowledged doing so in the thread, and then given me some kind of bogus warning (which I would have challenged). But no, you left it there a long time and waited for it to be forgotten before secretly deleting it so you could pretend it never existed when you linked to the post again. And why did you do that? Because it proved you wrong and you had no answers for any of it. It showed that you didn’t properly understand logical fallacies or Occam’s Razor, demonstrated that achievement tests are not equivalent to IQ tests and that parasitic infection inhibits cognitive development, exposed your ignorance about the history of Israel and the Scandinavian countries, and contained your four epic fails attempting to refute my sources, revealing that your only sources were the biased and refuted Rushton/Jensen and Lynn. It made you look like a fool, and you knew it, so you had to get rid of it. The commenter “Azizoo” knew it too, and he called you out. I bet you deleted his last reply also, to further cover up your embarrassing defeat.

      And btw, that comic is actually making fun of you, always crying “fallacy” over everything and committing argument from fallacy yourself. I’m not surprised you didn’t get it.

    • JayMan / Jan 2 2014 8:48 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      Arguments to the man, just like I noted.

      It’s absolutely amazing that you double down on your bullshit even when called on it.

      Actually, Racial Reality, you taught me a very important lesson: unrestrained discussion is unworkable. Hence I engaged you in a lot of discussion basically tantamount to the definition of “is”.

      I don’t do that shit anymore.

      I left the comments as they are because the truth of the matter and the nonsense of your comments will be self-evident.

      Note that there is no content here, just your fallacies. What a fine mark of a great bullshit artist.

      For the record, you make one more content-free attack comment, and it will be deleted.

      As for your supposed points of victory in the comments, look, there are teams of evidence you haven’t even began to touch. See the links in the post calling you out. When you can do that, let me know.

    • Racial Reality / Jan 2 2014 8:41 AM


      You cannot dismiss the score gains of one group on another merely because the reduction of the score gap by subtest has a negative correlation with the g loadings of those subtests. […] The assertion that “if population group differences are greater on the more g-loaded and more heritable subtests, it implies they have a genetic origin” is simply false.

    • JayMan / Jan 2 2014 11:23 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      I hope you realize you’re talking to the person who co-authored a paper with a potential explanation for much of the Flynn Effect. You should read it some time.

      From your very paper:

      American blacks are not in a time warp so that the environmental causes of their IQ gap with whites are identical to the environmental causes of the IQ gap between the generations. The race and IQ debate should focus on testing the relevant environmental hypotheses. The Flynn Effect is no shortcut

      I realized that yes, debating with you is very much like debating a creationist; here, you’re cherry picking questionable snippets of words from academics that say something you feel support your case, as if there wasn’t a vast sea of evidence out there that contradicts your point. You’re missing the forest for the trees.

      See Steve Sailer on Flynn. A key problem here is that you are, at best, fighting rear-guard against an advancing wave of evidence for a heritable component to racial differences. Let’s ignore for the moment that there is no evidence that racial gaps in IQ are closing thanks to the Flynn effect. If lower IQ groups are behind higher IQ groups thanks to a delayed Flynn effect, why do White from low-income backgrounds outscore Blacks from high-income backgrounds? Why do Blacks seem to face this problem everywhere? Indeed, for that matter, why is there a consistent global racial hierarchy in average IQ? Why is there no evidence that any attempt to ameliorate this gap environmentally has succeeded? This ignores the basic question of why are Blacks even behind in the first place?

      If you got (non-fallacious) answers to these questions, I’d love to hear them.

    • Racial Reality / Jan 7 2014 8:47 AM

      The problem with your defence/threat is that the reply you deleted in the other thread was not “content-free”. It was FULL of content — arguments, links to sources, quotes etc. Just admit that you deleted it to try and make yourself look better. I know you were hoping no one would ever notice, but that ship has sailed so you might as well be a man and own up to your deceit.

      As for cherry picking…you left out the important final part of that quote:

      The race and IQ debate should focus on testing the relevant environmental hypotheses. The Flynn Effect is no shortcut; correlations offered by Rushton and Jensen are no shortcut. There are no shortcuts at all.

      [JayMan: Appealing to authority again? What did I tell you about the content-free posts?]

    • JayMan / Jan 7 2014 9:38 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      The problem with your defence/threat is that the reply you deleted in the other thread was not “content-free”.

      Again RR, I’m not arguing what color the sky is with you.

      Whether or not that comment was content-free, this one sure is. Moderation…

    • JayMan / Jan 7 2014 9:42 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      Then again, I think I’m just going to use your comments for my amusement, until I get bored/sick of you.

      Come on dude, you are trying to prove the world is flat when all the evidence shows otherwise. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad…

    • Racial Reality / Jan 8 2014 8:47 AM

      1) You’ve already shown that you don’t know what appeal to authority means (hint: it’s not quoting a peer-reviewed study), and 2) That was the same paragraph you quoted in your previous post, so you’re also “appealing to authority”. Better moderate yourself.

      And I know you don’t want to argue what color the sky is with me, because I prove to you that it’s blue and then you have to delete my post so that no one will notice. 😉

    • JayMan / Jan 8 2014 9:35 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      OK, I’m done with you. I was hoping for something remotely redeeming, but all you do is troll. I think you’ve been given fair enough opportunity. Banned.

      Feel free to whine about it at your blog for eternity. Folks will merely be entertained by you.

  10. awatcher / Jan 2 2014 1:11 PM

    Racial Reality, i’m confused about your position (?). Back at Egyptsearch under your “EvilEuro” account from 2005-2007 you posted a string of racist claims against ‘Blacks’/’Negroids’ calling them lower IQ and not capable of building a civilization, even calling African-American posters you were debating “monkeys”. All those comments are still logged there. Suddenly skip to around 2010 to present and you now are denying race difference in intelligence and achievements. Was this a genuine change or what?

  11. 324t4t / Apr 3 2014 9:53 AM

    “Here is where I will invoke a new verb I’m coining in honor of man who noted it. I am going to “Staffan” this study. The man behind Staffan’s Personality Blog noted that modern commenters try to explain away the problems of modern peoples or the incongruities between these peoples and whatever pet theory commenter is trying to advance by claiming that we need to adjust for some feature of these peoples’ present or recent history.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this (along with the rest of your elaboration on this point) essentially saying “we can’t correct for all of their history, therefore we can’t correct for some major part of it?”

    Russians didn’t exactly “invent” communism, by the way; it was invented by a german with jewish ancestry. I have no problem admitting Russia (and a good deal of other slavic countries) have dysfunctional, sociopathic elements in their societies at higher rates than much of the rest of the europe, which are essentially rooted in “biology” and trends of the last several hundred years, but communism wasn’t something that was going to come to them so much more easily than many other parts of europe. But, see, if Russia wasn’t doing as well before communism came along (which they “invented”, I’ve been informed), we can’t correct for that.

    I wonder if we could do the same for North and South Korea, though. I searched them on your blog and couldn’t find a word about their differences.

    • 324t4t / Apr 3 2014 10:05 AM

      On another note, I would be curious to see how you (and Staffan) would consider how Cambodia’s adoption of communism could be “corrected” for. On one hand, I’d wholeheartedly agree Cambodia has a much lower IQ than other southeast asian countries (which, if the Thai government’s assessment using actual, widely agreed on IQ tests is anything to go by, are much higher, outside of correcting for disease/malnutrition, than Lynn and co.’s figures imply) due to a social trend that ultimately affected them on a biological level, and perhaps other behavioral traits. But that involved huge numbers of the educated populace being killed off. We can’t correct for their entire history, though, so surely something else must have this not as significant as it’s made out to be.

  12. Anonymous / Jun 22 2016 5:22 PM


    Surely there must be at least a certain amount of self-hatred, or at least racial hatred of sub-Saharan Africans. How can there not be, when every amount of information you have found shows that your (our) race is incapable of producing anything of value on its own, will always be at the bottom of the racial hierarchy in terms of intelligence and success, and can seemingly only achieve these things either with admixture from other racial groups or in societies created/maintained by these other racial groups? I’m certainly disheartened, and I can’t imagine that you’re not.

    • JayMan / Jun 22 2016 9:22 PM

      As New Yorkers are apt to say (a saying which is annoying to me, but is appropriate in this case), it is what it is. And it’s hardly true that Blacks are incapable of producing anything of value, as there are plenty of accomplished Blacks. (And I guess reggae is not your thing?)

      Now if you held out hopes that one day Africa would come to resemble Northwestern Europe, then sure, your hopes would be dashed, as that’s not going to happen in the foreseeable future. But the world is way it was before you knew anything about it, and will continue to be so. But understanding it can help you work with things as they are, which is generally helpful.


  1. Why HBD | JayMan's Blog
  2. 200 Blog Posts – Everything You Need to Know (To Start) | JayMan's Blog
  3. National Prosperity | JayMan's Blog

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: