Claimed Chinese IQ and culturally accepted cheating

Linking because: Please stop cucking for the Jews of Asia when you don’t understand the data.

103 isn’t even high, it’s within chance (5% alpha so 5 points) aka a fluke above the Western norm.

Chinese IQ, Cheating, Immigrant Hyper-Selectivity and East Asian “Genetic Superiority”

The East Asian race has been held up as what a high “IQ” population can do and, along with the correlation between IQ and standardized testing, “HBDers” claim that this is proof that East Asians are more “intelligent” than Europeans and Africans. Lynn (2006: 114) states that the average IQ of China is 103. There are many problems with such a claim, though. Not least because of the many reports of Chinese cheating on standardized tests. East Asians are claimed to be “genetically superior” to other races as regards IQ, but this claim fails.

They test urbanites preferentially, not the rural mass. They rig it, basically.

Caixin did not give the IQ scores for children residing in the rural areas covered, but quoted Mr Rozelle, who said that the average IQ scores for these age groups should range between 90 and 109.

Take the data yourself, they’re glorified rice farmers who enslave their kids. We surpassed that a century ago.

The IQ of the samples increased by 15.0 IQ points a decade over 18-year period.

Yeah that sounds physically possible.

So almost two SD for the whole group over a generation? And we cannot replicate that here HOW?

Data are reported for intelligence of children in China assessed by the Combined Raven’s Test in 1988, 1996 and 2006. The IQ of the samples increased by 15.0 IQ points over 18-year period. The British IQ of China in 1988 and 2006 is estimated as 94.8 and 109.8, respectively.

People can think I’m a bitch about this but I’m a bitch who reads the data first and forms an opinion later.

From search engine result on the paper:

Remember national IQ predicts GDP so it’s important for foreign investors, they have an interest in rigging it higher to keep the CCP going.

At a national IQ of 94?

That would put them on par with Vietnam. Do they have a reputation for being whiz kids? The Marxists are buying a reputation, wake up. They probably have the same national IQ as Kazakhstan (94), Romania (94), Armenia (94) and various other economic shit-holes nobody ever hears about, let alone considers bright and innovative. Stop cucking for cheats, that’s all I need. Portugal scores higher at 95 and look at their economy, like Romania they’re technically white.

At 100, being overly generous, that’s a solid average compared to smart, mostly NW or West European whites (the Renaissance, and Science people), and they’d be on par with Luxembourg. 

The intelligence scores came from work carried out earlier this decade by Richard Lynn, a British psychologist, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish political scientist, who analysed IQ studies from 113 countries, and from subsequent work by Jelte Wicherts, a Dutch psychologist.

They also call Italy 102 despite its economy and centuries of cultural stagnation (pdf) so calling various types of chink 105-107 in recent years only (when the Marxists got free money printer) smells suspicious. Academic fraud should be a crime with heavy prison time. There is trillions in international investment riding on this.

Lynn shouldn’t be the only guy cited yet he seems to be, just with his later studies, ignoring greater quantities of historical evidence to the contrary (also collected by him).

Since when do we only listen to ONE guy on ANY topic?

(Unless it’s evolution and Darwin, since he invented it).

More data info below, scroll if short on time.

East Asian doesn’t actually exist in genetic history, there was essentially a creation of them by multiple Empires (mostly British) and stories/studies of African inflows of mtDNA (which would explain their physical similarities e.g. broad jaw, reduced nasal bridge, recessed chin, rounded forehead).

Racial computer data by Marquardt studies’ collection:

But *pronounced fluted nostrils (*compared to body size) and broad, thick lips:

Commonly considered solely African but falsely. Asians have it too.

Photographs used by Marquardt are representative of group facial averages shown in computer model.
Source HERE.

If E Asians had such a higher IQ truly, it would be reflected in their originality and innovation e.g. genius inventors and patents.

Don’t hold your breath. IQ is one metric and only important to academia (because it can be faked).
They’re still coasting off the British Industrial Revolution.

Back to top link:

Before continuing, something must be noted about Lynn and his Chinese IQ data. Lynn ignores numerous studies on Chinese IQ—Lynn would presumably say that he wants to test those in good conditions and so disregards those parts of China with bad environmental conditions (as he did with African IQs). Here is a collection of forty studies that Lynn did not refer to—some showing that, even in regions in China with optimum living conditions, IQs below 90 are found (Qian et al, 2005). How could Lynn miss so many of these studies if he has been reading into the matter and, presumably, keeping up with the latest findings in the field? The only answer to the question is that Richard Lynn is dishonest. (I can see PumpkinPerson claiming that “Lynn is old! It’s hard to search through and read every study!” to defend this.)

Qian study embedded here (hope this works):

title is “The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a metaanalysis of studies conducted in China”

Although the Chinese are currently trying to stop cheating on standardized testing (even a possible seven-year prison sentence, if caught cheating, does not deter cheating), cheating on standardized tests in China and by the Chinese in America is rampant. The following is but a sample of what could be found doing a cursory search on the matter…..

In 2000, more than 2000 people protested outside of a university to protest a new law which banned cheating on tests.

When are we getting one of those?

The rift amounted to this: Metal detectors had been installed in schools to route out students carrying hearing or transmitting devices. More invigilators were hired to monitor the college entrance exam and patrol campus for people transmitting answers to students. Female students were patted down. In response, angry parents and students championed their right to cheat. Not cheating, they said, would put them at a disadvantage in a country where student cheating has become standard practice. “We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat,” they chanted. (Chinese students and their parents fight for the right to cheat)

Surely, with rampant cheating on standardized tests in China (and for Chinese Americans), we can’t trust the Chinese IQ numbers in light of the news that there is a culture of cheating on tests in China and in America.

Never hire them.

This has been outright stated by, for example, Lynn (1977) who prolcaims—for the Japanese—that his “findings indicate a genuine superiority of the Japanese in general intelligence.” This claim, though, is refuted by the empirical data—what explains East Asian educational achievement is not “superior genes”, but the belief that education is paramount for upward social mobility, and so, to preempt discrimination, this would then be why East Asians overperform in school (Sue and Okazaki, 1990).

They don’t believe in meritocracy, just the mobility part.

Meritocracy is a white concept. WEIRD is globally weird.

Minus Marxist so-called positive discrimination?

The success of second-generation Chinese Americans has, too, been held up as more evidence that the Chinese are ‘superior’ in their mental abilities—being deemed ‘model minorities’ in America. However, in Spain, the story is different. First- and second-generation Chinese immigrants score lower than the native Spanish population on standardized tests.

Americans: Spain is considered a shit-hole.

Findings from this study show that Chinese youth in Spain have substantially lower educational ambitions and attainment than youth from every other nationality. This is corroborated by recently published statistics which show that only 20 percent of Chinese youth are enrolled in post-compulsory secondary education, the prerequisite level of schooling for university education, compared to 40 percent of the entire adolescent population and 30 percent of the immigrant youth population in Catalonia, a major immigrant destination in Spain (Generalitat de Catalunyan, 2010).

It isn’t racist to note this, since nationality is NOT race.

US-born Chinese immigrants are shuttled toward higher education whereas in the Netherlands, the second-generation Chinese have lower educational attainment and the differences come down to national context (Noam, 2014).

nice term for child abuse (tiger mom is PR)

—in fact, the Chinese in Spain show lower educational attainment than other ethnic groups (Central Americans, Dominicans, Morrocans; Lee and Zhou, 2017: 2236) which, to Americans would be seen as a surprise.

if you’ve never worked with clingy Chinese people asking you to constantly “help” them perform basic tasks, yeah.

They stopped doing SATs here because it was showing up the thick Asians before they could cheat (to get into secondary school).

Second-generation Chinese parents match their intergenerational transmission of their ethnocultural emphasis on education to the needs of their national surroundings, which, naturally, affects their third-generation children differently. In the U.S., adaptation implies that parents accept the part of their ethnoculture that stresses educational achievement. (Noam, 2014: 53)


Teachers even favor Asian American students, perceiving them to be brighter than other students.

In our own countries. So nurture favours them too. They still vote Left.

The fact that the term “Mongoloid idiot” was coined for those with Down syndrome because they looked Asian is very telling (see Hilliard, 2012 for discussion).

Really? I never noticed.

Is there an autism study in mongrels yet? (No, not yet).

“Researchers have found in an analysis that minorities were widely underrepreseted in autism identifications in 2014″

Even the ‘successful’ half breeds hate the “racist” white parent, fair enough.

“So then you have millions of half-Asians that look more or less Asian, ethnically ambiguous, and are deeply ashamed of their Asian heritage, being raised by some weird, misogynistic, anti-feminist, anti-Islamic, anti-black guy, raising some half-Asian kid whose mother tells him that he or she is white and that it was a brilliant life choice to marry some racist asshole. …”

funny how the white race traitor feels entitled to racial respect from a mongrel of their making, weird assumption you’d think?

“These are the same people who go onto raise us. Hateful, bitter, racist white men – since white men love humiliating Asian men in order to increase their access to Asian women. Literally – the entire premise of WM/AW is that Asian men are not men – and we, their sons, look totally Asian.”

Cook the rice, pay the price. I’m only sad for the kid/s, they didn’t choose it.

So they’re not happy, whatever the parents claim to have planned. People shouldn’t cover for the parents. I hope the kids throw them in a home to rot.

Back to IQ.

But, the IQ-ists switched from talking about Caucasian superiority to Asian superiority right as the East began their economic boom (Liberman, 2001). The fact that there were disparate “estimates” of skulls in these centuries points to the fact such “scientific observations” are painted with a cultural brush. See eg table 1 from Lieberman (2001):

This tells us, again, that our “scientific objectivity” is clouded by political and economic prejudices of the time. This allows Rushton to proclaim “If my work was motivated by racism, why would I want Asians to have bigger brains than whites?” Indeed, what a good question. The answer is that the whole point of “HBD race realism” is to denigrate blacks, so as long as whites are above blacks in their little self-made “hierarchy” no such problem exists for them (Hilliard, 2012).

Weebs are cancer.

Note how Rushton’s long debunked- r/K selection theory (Anderson, 1991Graves, 2002) used the current hierarchy and placed dozens of traits on a hierarchy where it was M > C > N (Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids respectively, to use Rushton’s outdated terminology). It is a political statement to put the ‘Mongoloids’ at the top of the racial hierarchy; the goal of ‘HBD’ is to denigrate blacks. But, do note that in the late 19th to early 20th century that East Asians were deemed to have small brains, large penises, and that Japanese men, for instance, would “debauch their [white] female classmates” (quoted in Hilliard, 2012: 91).

Asians are r-select, the most numerous race on the planet by FAR. I have covered this before. They swamp local resources and have inhumane population density. That is characteristic r-selection, with low overall group loyalty (close family doesn’t count, they’re low trust societies) and low group altruism (low altruism to animals as well).

Africa is less R than Asia.

Asians were also considered disease-ridden pet-eaters and we know how that went.

Where they go, death follows. Almost like America tried to keep them out until the 1960s…

Class is a confound for any immigrant.

From end of top link:

So if Chinese cheat on standardized tests, then we should not accept their IQ scores; the fact that they, for example, provide non-random children from large provinces speaks to their dishonesty. They are like Lynn, in a way, avoiding the evidence that IQ scores are not what they seem—both Lynn and the Chinese government are dishonest cherry-pickers. The ‘fact’ that East Asian educational attainment can be attributed to genes is false; it is attributed to hyper-selectivity and notions of class and what constitutes ‘success’ in the country they emigrate to—so what they attempt is based on (environmental) context.

lemmings at best, narcissists adopting the local mask (r-types) at worst

Common sense conclusion, the so-called redpills shall ignore it. 

Then rediscover it in a decade while we’re at war with them.

A table was presented by Lynn showing 31 IQ studies on China’s population. A claim was made that “there are no samples on Chinese population citing IQ to be less than 95”. Here I will present contrary data set on China where average IQ results are less than 90 which as per Lynn’s claim do not exist. First lets look at IQ of China which is presented:-

Call out China.

Always, always call out the Commies.

Obviously when the data came into the scientific community, almost everyone was shocked not because of high results, but because of consistency of data. Average IQ in 31 different regions of China was within 10 points.

That never happens. If it sounds fake…. it probably is.

As it is noticed in IQ testing, average IQ in cities is 15 points higher than rural areas.

107-15 = 92

105-15 = 90 (assuming former number is true)

100-15 = 85 (one full SD below the UK)

94 (from old study above) -15 = 79

No wonder they have no trouble enslaving one another. What else would they be good for at that level?

On top of that, average IQ heavily depends on the people tested. If you were to test factory workers, the average will be 90. University students will show average of 110. So, the scientific community always doubted his work on China.

Uni students always score 110-115, that’s why they’re Uni students. Poor analogy. Stop relying on student scores to describe full adults, IQ people, it’s poor method (generally). US college students are like 115 at the low end.

How did he test Chinese population for IQ ?

A website was created and people were asked to take IQ tests. Unlike African samples where people were downward selected, Chinese IQ was upward sampling of population.

Chinks are renowned for forging ANY online test. Disregard Lynn.

TLDR: So Lynn lied about China’s low IQ, covering for them.

When he himself had previously taken data to that effect. Then he’s been caught fudging modern data and boosting its minimum to help them save face (and get into places like Eton).

I’m quoting most of that post in block for reference in case his site goes down:

Lastly, how easy it is to cheat on internet IQ testing. It’s quite easy. The results should not have been published as there is no control over test takers over the internet. There are many websites where even people in Latin America have reported 118 average IQs on many people.

It doesn’t really make sense to compare this IQ data on China with Thailand where most samples cited are in rural areas. Better will be to compare the data with Bangkok which shows IQ of 103.

Anyways, here are the low scoring IQ samples on China’s population :-

Wang, 2001 (Average IQ of 76-81)
Average IQ: 81 and 76

81+76 /2 =78.5

Hong, 2001 (Average IQ of 65-82)
Average IQ fluctuates between 65 and 82 for china, depending on amount of fluoride in water. Shandong province, china.

65+82 /2 =73.5

Li, 1995 (Average IQ of 79-89)
Average iq is in between 79 and 89 for china. Guizhou province, china.

79 + 89 /2 = 84

Yang, 1994 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Jinan, China.

76 + 81 / 2 = 78.5

An, 1992 (Average IQ of 76,84)
Average IQ for china is 76 and 84. Guyang county, inner Mongolia.

76 + 84 / 2 = 80

Guo, 1991 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Hunan province, china.

76 + 81 / 2 = 78.5

Lower results are in mild fluoride regions and higher results are in very optimum conditions.

Very optimum doesn’t count. Optimum would maybe but very? Anomaly.

ALL of those studies cited, averaged: 

78.5+73.5+84+78.5+80+78.5 (check me, weebs)

473 / 6 =

78.8333 recurring.


well they do think Communism is a good idea so

Also 78, the Congo (source).

The question arises, why did Lynn ignore these samples on China’s population. Well, if you go out with a propaganda of proving one nation smarter than another, such result manipulation is a must.

If my people had an average of IQ78, I’d make money printer go brrr too.

On top, these are the samples that are done in very optimum conditions like low fluoride, etc. and in top notch states of China.

Imagine if I cite these article which are pretty much done on rural population of China and compare it with cities in Europe, I will be able to prove that Europeans have average IQ of 105 and East Asians to be 83. Isn’t it. Its just a matter of what you want to show to the world.

aka Lynn is a liar.

and when I bitch about class and SES confounds, I’m being accurate.

Here are the IQ results in European cities:-

Amsterdam: 109.4, Hamburg: 109.3, Warsaw: 108.

Even in South East Asia, India and Iran; you get IQ data to be 103+ in cities. Urban rural gap is only due to cognitive clustering in urban areas.

IQ in Bangkok: 103, Iran(urban): 105, Lucknow: 110, Ahmedabad: 104. There are several reports covering the same which I will discuss later. If the Chinese IQ data is to be compared, comparison has to be done in urban samples on rest of the world.

Exactly it’s like measuring height when one guy jumped.

Now, it has been proven that IQ dataset of China has also been obtained by selective citation just like any other nation. A question arises as to why East Asians do better on PISA which is an unbiased sample covering entire population randomly and unbiased ?

TLDR: they don’t. They cover to avoid giving out a lot of data. Typical Marxists.

I will talk about the Chinese. I will talk about Korea, Taiwan and Japan later on. Results of Shanghai and other urban areas were published. Chinese government did not allow PISA to publish the results of other provinces. A statement was made by PISA that “we have done PISA sampling in 12 provinces in China and in some of the poorest regions, you get performance close to the OECD average.”

Its a very generalized statement which doesn’t really mean anything. “Close to the OECD average”. It can be 50 points less or 20 points. Unless, PISA results on China which are held back are released nothing can be said about average IQ of China.

Weebs always look silly.

However, results of Chinese in South East Asia are well known and they do not show high IQs.

Imagine my shock. What next? Are there not hot singles in my area?

Let me attach PISA scores for you. Source:…
On maths PISA:- Singapore scored 573, Malaysia scored 421, Thailand scored 427.
On reading:- Singapore scored 542, Malaysia scored 398, Thailand scored 441.
On science:- Singapore scored 551, Malaysia scored 420, Thailand scored 445.
Mean scores:- Singapore: 555, Malaysia: 413, Thailand: 437. (All in the report).

There are 3 million Chinese in Singapore which is a magnet for cognitive elites of China, 8 million Chinese in Malaysia, 10 million in Thailand.

A common argument given is that Malays and other races pull down the scores in Malaysia. It is well known that “other races do not pull down scores” in SEA and even if they do, the gaps are negligible. It is well evident in Singapore school results which I will discuss later to compare East and South Asian IQs.

For verifying whether there is multi modal distribution in PISA scores in Malaysia, I had to calculate the percentile of scores.

There is a table mentioned in PISA report which is attached above. Or detailed results can be seen here (…). Page number 308 and 309:-
In Singapore:- 10 percentile score was 432, 25 percentile: 501, 75 percentile: 650, 90 percentile was 707.
In Malaysia:- 10 percentile: 319, 25 percentile: 363, 75 percentile: 474, 90 percentile: 530.

In Thailand:- 10 percentile: 328, 25 percentile: 372, 75 percentile: 476, 90 percentile: 535.

Even top 25 percent of Malaysia has an average PISA score corresponding to 98 IQ that is 87 percentile of Malaysian PISA data (520 is 100 IQ and 100 points is 1 standard deviation as discussed before). If I assume that all these are Chinese (that is each and every person of Chinese decent scored better than other races), how does it lead to high IQ and PISA scores among East Asians. This is the best case estimate.
For decent estimate, average IQ of Chinese in Malaysia: 95 IQ, Thailand: 97 IQ (according to PISA reports).
Performance in PISA level 5 and level 6:-
Page 31:-
Singapore: 29% students above level 5 and 6.
Malaysia: 0.9% students above level 5 and 6.
In Malaysia (a nation with moderate education system), “at the absolute maximum” 2.5% Chinese students scored in level 5 and level 6. V/S large majority of Chinese students in Singapore (“minimum 6.5% and maximum 38%”).
You can clearly see East Asian PISA score to be same as Czech Republic level once we include Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore; instead of just concentrating on Singapore which is a magnet for China’s cognitive elites.
Czechs, you know, our overt intellectual superiors, fellow whites.
Chinese IQ in SEA (based on PISA) is 98 (best estimate) and 96 (decent estimate).
And PISA is the most reliable large scale study on IQ.
So, at their expat best is still below our average. Explains the nepotism. And the expectation you NEED to cheat versus white kids to even get in.
What’s the Asian dindu nuffin?
As IQ of China is unknown and there are contrary studies (some showing very high IQs, some very low IQs) and as large scale studies like PISA on China are unavailable to public; it is resonable to assume that China’s IQ will be same as Chinese living in SEA as per PISA reports. Chinese in SEA are net importers of high skill immigration from China unlike China which is a net exporter of high skill immigrants. So, at any cost Chinese IQ cannot be more than Chinese in SEA.
Now what about the people especially the bloggers who post IQ of 115 for China. To be frank, most of them are misinformed. IQ of 115 on China is based on an assumption that presently IQ of China is 105 and China will score 115 due to optimum living conditions and first world environment. That’s not the case.
Wait, so they’re crystal-balling it?
Hard cope from the race mixers.
Muh magic dirt of the Western schools + clean air nurture theory BS.
Present IQ data available on China shows 95 IQ or 97.5 IQ as per Lynn’s work (which is based on his own calculations). 105 is the long term ceiling of IQ in China.
So not even 105 ever, let alone now.
Lynn is such a cucky little shit. Weebs keep rigging data like this to be anti-white, no wonder he keeps getting funding.

112 is the PISA IQ for Shanghai which is the highest IQ recorded in China where people are living in absolute optimum conditions. As cities generally score 15 points higher, average in China cannot be more than 105. Even the estimate of 105 comes at the cost of assuming optimum living conditions (excluding iodine deficiency, etc., etc.). Present IQ of China as per the data available is 95 as people are not living in optimum conditions. Many of the states have iodine deficiencies, many have underweight children.

But again if I start optimizing IQs for the rest of the world, most nations would score very high. To be frank, Africa and South Asia are the biggest victims of malnourishment and iodine deficiencies.

By the same logic: If China is smarter than us, so is Africa.
Talk about rationalizing a fetish.
While comparing IQ of two nations, you cannot compare an optimised number for one with an unoptimised number for another nation. Isn’t it.
“optimised” and futuristic = rigged
might as well be sodding Terminators

So, Lynn’s IQ comparisons between Europe and China by taking an optimised number for China (105) and an unoptimised number for Europe (97) is unacceptable and not in lines with the scientific methods of research.

If the data cited on other nations is un-optimised for iodine deficiencies etc.  etc.; why is he comparing it with an optimized estimate for China ? Of-course if you want to propagate a racial fallacy in the public, such stuffs are required. Even nations in Europe face iodine deficiencies at par or higher than people in China and European IQ can also be adjusted to 104, or I can calculate European IQ by taking highest scoring city in Europe, Amsterdam and subtracting 7 IQ like how he is doing for China which will put Europeans at 103. Isn’t it.

Plenty of European countries are white trash. We all know it. Try living near Little Polands. Thugs.
Eastern Europe didn’t have the same selection pressures as North West and hence has no First World culture, as we’d recognize it.
And rather Europeans face much higher iodine deficiencies than East Asians and I will show the same with appropriate data later on. On top of that, East Asians do not face any mal-nourishment. In the above text, I showed a few samples on East Asia in mild fluorosis regions that the average IQ in such villages is also in low 80s, let alone 100+. If I show East Asian IQ samples where they are done on malnourished population, the results will be very very low (less than 75 IQ).

So, it is funny if he is optimizing East Asian data to 105 and Europe is kept constant at 97 because it is Europe that faces higher environment contamination due to iodine deficiencies, etc.

And remember, the IQ numbers of India, mid-East that is shown in his book is not optimized unlike East Asia.

The main purpose of him writing his book is to get famous in the public by propagating a racial fallacy that is far from the truth. The scientific community does not acknowledge his books which does seem to be a fiction.

I will further prove that average IQ in Iran in optimum living conditions is also 105, same as people in China (in my coming posts). And will present relevant data.


Liars lie

Liars hiring liars leads to corruption? NO. I thought they were pure moral virtuous people better than us and smarter who can never be wrong! Saints in different robes!

Fix their hiring practices, criminal charges for fraud. Done.

no more tenure

it’s an ideological dictatorship

As I’ve covered most of the lies are in social psychology, which is heavily politically biased. It’s propaganda at this point e.g. Islamophobia bullshit.

human rights violations from experimenting on wider society

ban ‘think tanks’

Einstein e=mc^2 fraud

I didn’t embellish before but it’s a clear-cut case of plagiarism.

Archive a few of these.

“Professor Bartocci traced a link between De Pretto and Einstein, through Einstein’s best friend, Michele Besso.”

He hated being famous because he feared being outed in his own time.

The guy practiced incest and people still praise him.

Incest has never been a controversial thing to oppose.

The Jewish IQ posterboy is a plagiarizing pedophile.

“like a beggar clothed in purple, whom ignorant people take for a king.” 

spot on! strong words from a mild-mannered foreigner

The crazy hair matched his sexuality, even to divorce in that time was a no-no. His first wife got the Nobel money because her work as a mathematician nabbed him the prize. Letters proved it, he had to run everything past her. It’s no coincidence the Nobel is a public fiction of rich Jews giving other Jews prizes for their mutually-agreed superior intellect, think of the optics.

Why are no other intellectual prizes recognized or allowed?

Curiously, his socialism is praised despite famously running away from …a socialist regime.

Like a typical sociopath, he was a creep, a hypocrite, a liar and a thief. That’s simply the proven fact.

He denied the science required to operate on his triple A and the hubris killed him.

Comic: The Routine

Every. Fucking. Time.


Alternate title: Damsel in distress, pathological altruism edition.

This toxic colonialism is bullshit. Deport the cuckians first.

IQ has nothing to do with gullibility. Predators have their own intelligence.

It isn’t charity with somebody else’s money. Damselling is pride.

(And by all definitions I know, treason!)

If it’s about love, why do they want money? – hookers come in many forms

Behold, the savage prostitute. A dog turd spray-painted gold still smells like shit.

“I don’t care if she’s a stripper, we’re in love!” Geopolitical edition.

World, you aren’t a damsel, you aren’t even a dame. Whitey is not your husband, we owe you nothing.

Okay, I’ll be happy to give them a one-time lump sum if they 1. leave us alone and STFU on it forever and 2. are forbidden from using White developments, all of them. Globalism is expensive.

Technological multiculturalism is killing us. Literally.

A Breakaway Civilization

“The legendary physicist, Robert J. Oppenheimer, put the matter succinctly. “There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry,” wrote the man who led the Manhattan Project. “There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.””

If I had a frontpage, that’d be on it.

…”What’s especially galling is that the nature of modern scientific and academic work enable such secrecy to thrive. This belies what they are supposed to do, at least according to the proponents of an open society.

They’re lying to prevent the masses from rioting.

One reason for this unhappy situation is simply how science operates. All scientific and academic inquiry is predicated upon being able to work from open and fully accessible sources. As Oppenheimer understood, scientific research must be available for examination by outsiders. The word for this is falsifiability. It’s an important concept in science. If you lack the chance to “falsify” a proposition – that is, to prove it wrong – then it’s not valid. It may in fact be true, but philosophically speaking, it’s not valid.”

Scientism loves the paywall but hates borders.

Go figure.

Pathological science

“Many researchers, even hobbyists and enthusiasts, want for some one result in particular to be true. They’re always on the lookout for data that support their desired conclusion. This is not, by itself, pathological;”

actually experimenter bias is a bias

“but for some who take it to an extreme, it can become that way.”

Money, fame and tenure are on the line, what incentive?

Publish or perish threat?

Your life ruined? Family ashamed? Reputation at stake? What subconscious motive?

Many famous cases of pathological science began as legitimate science, and often the researcher would become distracted by tiny results that suggested an effect when in fact there was none. Belief supplanted objectivity, and the science became pathological science.”

While it shouldn’t be used to deter experimentation, it’s the grand reply to the phrase “established science”, an appeal to authority that doesn’t exist.


Smells like social psychology.

Islamophobia, patriarchy (as poltergeist), systemic racism (well, if it’s the system – the evolved system – it can’t be the people in the system), creationism (not that evolution is perfect), global warming by ignore cooling data over decades etc.

Anything heavily political would be pathological science e.g.

And attitude surveys aren’t science. Seriously. You see an attitude survey, you swerve.

There’s also the problem of finding one thing but claiming another e.g. woman A makes less money than man B, but failing to control for enough other factors and still have a significant gap (above chance) to claim sexism. However, there are sexist pay gaps. Why don’t they study this? Why don’t they follow the proper method? They also apply to men in female-dominant fields too! It’s political because they’d rather lie and do bad science (hurting poor women, ironically) than let men seem like the victims for five minutes!

Pseudoscience is used by self-proclaimed “skeptics” to poison the well against the competition. Team Red will say Team Blue’s work in the same field is “pseudoscience” to boost their chances of getting the finite research grants they compete over. It’s all about the money.

So you’ll find the most successful liars comprise most “celebrity scientists”, the hallmark of scientism (personality cults develop), and when their work is eventually exposed (some Freud, Kinsey not yet, Zimbardo recently) then the world is shocked because echoes don’t pass through Ivory Tower walls. The field knew. It always knew. It hid it.

There’s no such thing as pseudoscience in the sense of a forbidden topic. Distasteful yes, but so what? Do politicians dictate freedom of thought now? No, but they sign grant checks and that’s basically the same thing.

Past a certain level, isn’t commonality of a certain unPC disposition just normal?

Good men versus porn addict liars

Prime example why women need social protection.

Christians need to talk about this or our own group is a sitting, gullible duck.

Lies have legal consequences.

A few obvious points, obvious to fellow K-types.

Never marry an addict.
Porn is cheating.  (see Bible)
Porn destroys marriages. (because adultery is the thrill)

“The coldest thing I’ve ever witnessed in my entire life is the lying eyes of the man I love, gazing deep into my soul as multiple lies rolled from his lips. He knew it was all a lie, but for some reason, he could look at the woman he claimed to love so dearly straight in her eyes, and lie to her face. I never knew until that moment how unconsciously cold a single person could be.”

A liar for years? Congratulations, you avoided a miserable marriage to a filthy narcissist. Being married to one of those (m/f) can make you wish you were dead, if you read countless online accounts, so God was protecting you from that.

To lie multiple times (and every day) plus once caught? Narc.
Possibly psychopath, since he only seemed to value her as a status object (wife).

Good women can still be treated like dirt by burned out r-types pretending to be traditional to cash out and “have it all” (but once the novelty has worn off, they cheat and get divorced anyway, they just wanted the status – women can do it too). Women have a right to know and avoid bad marriage prospects. (As do good men from bad women).

betrayal trauma occurs when someone we depend on for survival or are significantly attached to, violates our trust in a critical way.”

A divorce would be Christian in this case, if they had married because 1. he was depicting himself in “false light”, she didn’t know who she was marrying. Plus the abuse psychologically from the cheating (2, betrayal trauma) and the addiction itself (3, which causes brain damage).

He portrayed himself as a good, honest man to trick her into legal wedlock.

Good honest women need to be protected from this type. She was true.

He didn’t even know what love is!

Makeup you can wash off. Lies void contracts. His narc mirroring caused her emotional bond, she never really fell for him because there is no him. There’s nothing in there! No person!

Narcs prefer to bond with empaths so good women must be especially vigilant. They assume you’ll be like a replacement mother figure and never leave them, you see. There’s logic. Whatever abuse, a mother’s love is eternal.

You can’t have a good marriage and Christian life + children with an r-type.

They are never satisfied in ANY marriage, it’s the nature of personality disease!

If they could change, they’d have done it before you met or they’d be prudent enough to never get an addiction in the first place.

Narcissists run the Bird with a Broken Wing routine, don’t fall for it.

Send them to a shrink, don’t play Mommy! Your husband is supposed to be the one caring for YOU.

Professionals have to train and gain the ability to prescribe serious meds for this! You can’t talk it out!

The level of psychopathic disdain to lie to her and plan this deception over years…. likely psychopath.

I bet he randomly showed up at a church to go wife-hunting (yes, hunting) because a PUA forum told him to. AVOID the crazy. Peeple was a good idea – as a courtship app. It replicates an honour culture, where reputation is well known.

Imagine hiring a business partner and finding out they have a criminal record. Like that only a very intimate betrayal. Possibly rape by fraud. Possibly. Note her disgust at the mask drop. Solid K response.

Psychopaths’ MO is to hide who they really are (for years) until AFTER the marriage. So you can’t run.

All other mental illness typically presents before a wedding so a psycho is literally every man/woman’s worst nightmare as a fiance/e.

Get a background check. If they get defensive, immediately break it off.

False light on wikipedia doesn’t discuss marital fraud anymore (bring it back, Trump!) but there are others.

misrepresentation is an untrue or misleading[1] statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party into the contract.[2][3]

Marriage is a contract.

Legally binding.

The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well (or instead of rescission).

The definition of fraud in the context of divorce law varies between states. Generally, it means that one spouse grossly misrepresented issues so important that the other spouse would not have married him had she known the truth. For example, when a husband tells his wife before they married that he had never been married before and she discovers after the marriage that he was lying. His lie about his previous marriage may be considered fraud, especially if the wife can show that she would not have married him had she known this was his second marriage. Little white lies usually do not constitute fraud.”

Precisely. Christian expectations for a Christian marriage. It’s very simple.

Lies have legal consequences, degenerates.

Marriage is all about who/what you are. You lie about that, clear-cut case of fraud. K-types deserve legal protection. R-types shouldn’t care because they don’t want to marry!

Do we have to get them to sign a legal disclaimer that they haven’t falsely represented themselves?

Isn’t the marriage contract enough?

Social psychology fraud

I am shocked.

I am looking at his book “The Lucifer Effect”.

Literally looking at it.

It is also full of shit.

He wanted to be famous because he was jealous of Milgram, ask around.

Charge him with fraud.

Make an example.

Who wants to tell them personality tests are a way to exclude races and classes you don’t like from job applications, since you aren’t allowed to use IQ?

Narrative: criminals are innocent little babies.

“I have three psychology degrees (two postgraduate). One of the reasons I left academia was because I felt frustrated with the way research was conducted and how results were interpreted. Researchers often get the results they want to see and only ‘successful’ studies make it into journals. There are many highly intelligent people working in this field (or fields- psychology is diverse) and these are good people. What I discovered was often a lack of common sense in the academic bubble. In fact, ‘common sense’ was sneered at.”

Ah, confirmation bias!
Experimenter bias!

The new priests. No questioning!

Next, Kinsey.

A lot of faking about child sexuality and consent there.

In the #MeToo age, come on!

Smash all the sacred cow jars.

Obviously, embracing the animal nature of your sexuality and exaggerating it is doubleplusgood. Be less human! It’ll end well!

I’ve never seen a single life outcome study on that.

Not one.

Yet we all accept it as “fact”…

despite how basic observation demonstrates sexuality is corrosive to 1st world society.

Reproduction Crisis only in social psychology?

It sure looks that way. Many of the failures come from that specific area.

They denied away ANY replicable failure for years.

This isn’t something I’m making up but it hasn’t hit mainstream because suppression. It’s commonly known within academic circles.

Here’s an entire paper on it. I don’t think they covered their arses quite enough?

Over the last few years, psychology researchers have become increasingly preoccupied with the question of whether findings from psychological studies are generally replicable.

forced to pretend you care

The debates have originated from some unfortunate events of scientific misconduct

mistakes were made

in the field, and they have reached a climax with the recent discovery of a relatively weak rate of replicability of published literature,

lots of lies without liars

leading to the so-called replicability crisis in psychology. 

so-called problem in a science funded by the taxpayer

The present paper is concerned with examining the issue of replicability in the field of social psychology.

where most failure is, as if by magic!

We begin by drawing a state of the art of the crisis in this field.

lotta people need to get fired

We then highlight some possible causes for the crisis, discussing topics of statistical power, questionable research practices, publication standards, and hidden auxiliary assumptions of context-dependency of social psychological theories.

Nurture =/= making shit up.

Sociologist’s fallacy also comes into play.

Finally, we argue that given the absence of absolute falsification in science, social psychology could greatly benefit from adopting McGuire’s perspectivist approach to knowledge construction.

Let us have some creative license, like theoretical physics!

Without postmodernism, we’d have to get a real job!

Another paper because someone, somewhere will claim I’m imagining things.

A dude who feels threatened intellectually.

The (latest) crisis in confidence in social psychology has generated much heated discussion about the importance of replication, including how it should be carried out as well as interpreted by scholars in the field. For example, what does it mean if a replication attempt “fails”

what is a red hand, really?

You were caught red-handed. “Oh, it isn’t crimson, it’s scarlet!”

does it mean that the original results, or the theory that predicted them, have been falsified?


What is a lie? That’s where you are going with this?

And how should “failed” replications

bitchy quote marks, I know thee well


your money?

our belief in the validity of the original research?

trans. We said it so fuck you. It’s true.

In this paper, we consider the replication debate from a historical and philosophical perspective, and provide a conceptual analysis of both replication and falsification as they pertain to this important discussion.

If we talk long enough, we can talk our way out of this!

Lying in a professional role is up for debate!

Along the way, we highlight the importance of auxiliary assumptions (for both testing theories and attempting replications), and introduce a Bayesian framework for assessing “failed” replications in terms of how they should affect our confidence in original findings.

trans. You should trust us anyway, fuck your data. Something something Bayesian.

Hint: that isn’t how Bayesian models work?

Bayesian models are predictive.

The whole point is you predict nothing real. Re-train for climate science.

Why did this take so long to come out? Well, they were hiding it.

Modern psychology is apparently in crisis and the prevailing view is that this partly reflects an inability to replicate past findings.

No, it’s about people who clearly fudged their data then published it. The replication proved this after the fact.

If a crisis does exists, then it is some kind of ‘chronic’ crisis, as psychologists have been censuring themselves over replicability for decades.

no need to take our monies away, taxpayers!

While the debate in psychology is not new,

public admission is

the lack of progress across the decades is disappointing.

Deliberate and to be expected.

Recently though, we have seen a veritable surfeit of debate alongside multiple orchestrated and well-publicised replication initiatives.

Blame the skeptics!

Doubt is a sin!

The spotlight is being shone on certain areas and although not everyone agrees on how we should interpret the outcomes, the debate is happening and impassioned. The issue of reproducibility occupies a central place in our whig history of psychology.

We fucked up, majorly. We’re hoping to pretend this is ongoing, normal and nothing to react to.


No Evidence for a Replicability Crisis in Psychological Science

Ten Famous Psychology Findings That It’s Been Difficult To Replicate