Bad choice, adoptive parents are abusive

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.


Bad blood will out.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Amplification IQ

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category
Self-report 0.39 0.06 0.55 13,329
Other report (usually parents) 0.53 0.22 0.25 6,851
Criminal records 0.33 0.42 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?


The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

  • Extraversion:           0.86
  • Openness:              0.92
  • Neuroticism:            0.59
  • Agreeableness:       0.85
  • Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

Adoption is dyscivic. It’s AA for bad parents.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.


A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s \rho = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

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.


Early male death isn’t sexism

-because of course it fucking isn’t, hysterical windbags of the MRA forums, it’s basic evolution.
More male babies die too. Their genome is weaker, more fragile. Sorry Mother Nature doesn’t coddle delusions of invincibility.

“suggesting the second copy offers a protective effect.”
known for decades
how many blues would you want to build a house? fewer or more?

“which could point to pathways for extending life” not for men
it’s like anything genetic, the people in a stronger position just win harder

HBD hates men? lol no

Imagine if immortality was possible but only for women?

Because it might be so.
Maybe doppel genes are required for it. We dunno.

Women existed in the genetic record prior to men, men are the mutants of the species. As abnormal, they’d be likelier to die. It isn’t personal, narcs.

Women can self-fertilise, men aren’t technically needed. Our cells can mutate into sperm, it’s biologically possible. The cell types that can mutate are called polar bodies.

“The idea that a second copy of the same sex chromosome is protective has been around for a while, supported by the observation that in mammals – where females have two of the same sex chromosomes – males tend to have shorter lifespans. In birds, males live longer on average and have two Z chromosomes, while females have one Z and one W chromosome.”

10/10 correct

God hates men? Would explain the proclivity to violence and why in Genesis Adam was told he needs a woman. One woman.

He did not tell women they need a man.


Any claim to that effect adds to the Word and is un-Christian.

“The results reveal that individuals with two of the same sex chromosomes live 17.6% longer, on average, than those with either two different sex chromosomes or just one sex chromosome.

The team say the findings back a theory known as the “unguarded X hypothesis”. In human cells, sex chromosome combinations are generally either XY (male) or XX (female). In females only one X chromosome is activated at random in each cell.

As a result, a harmful mutation in one of the female’s X chromosomes will not affect all cells, and hence its impact can be masked. By contrast, as males only have one X chromosome, any harmful mutations it contains are far more likely to be exposed.”

Part of genetic load. Maybe why men defend their mother so?

In degenerate times, even more men would die. This explains male interest in politics, which will influence their own epigenetics in society. Good conditions/rules – more likely to survive.

“The team found that in species where males have two of the same sex chromosomes, these males live on average 7.1% longer than females. However, in species where the sex chromosome pattern is the other way around, such as humans, females live 20.9% longer on average than males.”

Mother Nature.

“But there are also other possibilities as to why the longevity gaps differ in size, including that oestrogen appears to protect the ends of chromosomes from being damaged – a process linked to ageing.”

Oestrogen also protects the brain from stress.
T-takers are literally killing themselves.

“For instance, owl monkey males live longer than females and the males play a big role in infant care in that species,” he said, noting such males have two different sex chromosomes.”

I have noted anecdotally that responsible K-type men outlive r-types of the same birth year, who often succumb to young (40-60yo) heart attacks and strokes, suddenly. If anyone has a study about r/K health outcomes in men esp. mortality, please link?

We know the children of monogamous men fare better.

I said you can’t pretend to be K, since it’s in your DNA.
Early cancer in r-types can easily be attributed to their microbiome being overloaded with STDs.

Inbreeding without depression

As in, normal group preference, genophilia. No mutations.

Reminds me of the study that found distant cousins most fecund.

Britons are still living in the same ‘tribes’ that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.

In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.

Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.

“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.


The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.

And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities.

The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population.

By choice or rape?

But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.

“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived they intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly.

“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.”

Inbreeding is great if you have low genetic load in the participants, it preserves the health, looks and intellect of the bloodline. The breeding of good breeding was this deliberate sexual selection for fitness. It’s only a problem when you introduce mutations. They compound.

Outbreeding is far more likely to produce diseased or infertile offspring, much like a liger or a mongrel, the depression of mutations in genetic load can occur in a single generation.

Scanning for survivors

They want to know who to keep alive during the depopulation efforts.

Admitting fitness (g is Darwinian fitness) involves admitting low fitness including the most dysgenic ranges of human specimens ever to exist. We live in an era where multiple generations of imbeciles were allowed to breed and succeed. It corrupts the rest, one rotten apple spoils the barrel. It’s a unique time in history.

The rich outgroup that echoes will steal genius genes from the docile public.

And then there’s no need to keep those aged workers or useless eaters alive, is there?

In an editorial about the genetics of race published in the New York Times on March 23, Harvard University biologist David Reich cited the new genetic IQ predictors and cautioned that “all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations.”

trans. we know race is real stop blaming us

they also have to admit that “low IQ” is sub-human (an excuse for aggressive sexual deviance found in intellectually disabled populations) or even non-human in the case of basic chromosomal print errors – this is again Darwin 101 and the reason your “pro-science” schools won’t permit his work

“We are in a situation when you mention you work in intelligence, people say, “Oh, you can’t measure that.’

Testing for idiots is rather simple.

Forging transcripts to justify special treatments would also occur.

Equal treatment in education was noble. Slow kids would get extra help, the mass in the middle would get along as quickly as possible to get out and work and the smart ones given extra work when they finished early.

It was a way of boosting every child to their max potential – but you can’t magic potential out of thin air.

Darwin predicted genes and this stuff over a century ago, it isn’t deep.

There are already pressures and stereotypes and biases impairing kid performance, teachers don’t care! They support mixed sex schools that drag down female performance, they support busing in black kids to white schools while claiming the white kids are toxic – same white kids gradeboosting the black kids but dragging their own down. Mixing religions also drags down performance on tests. Employers can’t use IQ tests even when it’s life/death.

Of course environment matters. Have the longest gazelle legs, if the other guy has an AK47 to trap you it won’t matter. The State itself is an IQ shredder.

End pathological altruism of lying to idiots, making them think it’s their fault or someone else that they fail when it’s just fact, like a shortarse trying to jump high, fails.

Stop infantilising bad kids and giving them “support” for being hostile little bullies to the others while your geniuses/tall poppies languish and wither and die, your futures with it.

Otherwise GDP won’t just STAGNATE it’ll COMBUST.

Genetic culture (collectivism, individualism) paper

Over the last 30 years, social psychologists have documented an impressive array of psychocultural differences. For example, in East Asian cultures the self tends to be defined in relationship to the group, or collective, whereas in Western cultures (e.g. Europe and the nations of the former British Commonwealth) there is a greater proclivity for the self to be viewed as unique, stable and independent of the social group (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A critical question raised by such findings is how do such cultural differences arise? Why do some groups tend towards collectivism, while others tend towards individualism?

Answering this complex question will require integrating many levels of analysis including ecological, sociological, demographic, economic, psychological and biological. A helpful means of integrating these diverse influences is to adopt a cultural neuroscience perspective (Chiao and Ambady, 2007), because the brain is the central hub where each of these influences converge. Accordingly, genes affecting brain function are likely to influence the adoption and formation of cultural norms and, conversely, culture may also shape the expression and selection of genes.

The second part is like saying horses evolved to run in front of carts.


People build on their homeland. Look at architecture. Anglo is quite specific, Germanic, France/Italian/Romantic again, specific. That’s just WEST Europe.

I know some nerd in the future will write their dissertation on how you could predict multiculturalism’s failure by America’s inability to agree on one architectural design aesthetic and I hope I’m here to read it.

Although the study of psychological genetics is in its infancy and much is still to be learned, in this article, we present data suggesting that variation in several genes known to affect brain function appear to influence the degree to which one is emotionally responsive to the social environment. We then extend this social sensitivity hypothesis to the cultural realm and present evidence indicating that it may be of relevance to the cultural construct of individualism–collectivism. Although the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (Lewontin, 1972), a measurable proportion of human genetic variation does exist between populations of different ancestral origins. Therefore, we examine below the relationship between population differences in cultural orientation and the relative frequency of several genetic variants thought to affect sensitivity to the social environment. In addition, we also explore potential psychological processes that may explain the effect.

They’ll catch up.

Click to access 2007Chiao.pdf

Cultural Neuroscience chapter

see page 3 or 239

“The neuroscience of culture versus race”


Cultural neuroscience: parsing universality and diversity across levels of analysis (2007)

Stop straining, sub-species (better known as race) is as real as species and genus.

Arguing for Darwin in biology is common sense, like men and women EXIST (sexual dimorphism).

Even the Creationists don’t question that.

So again, for the cheap seats:

no magic dirt, no magic equal economic cogs and no, cuckservatives, you can’t talk Asians into “acting white” and voting for small gov. They don’t even view themselves as an individual person. Stop projecting libertarian 115IQ white guy reasoning onto the entire planet. You are wrong.

And whatever their upbringing, foreigners NEVER share exactly the same culture.

Even a host culture of a hundred plus years, like blacks had in America to “integrate”.

Never gonna happen.

They’re not like a petri blank.

Fuck, look at Chinatown. In American cities or London, it’s more alike than the host nations.

Over a hundred years. What’s your excuse?

[White culture is also the easiest and nicest to integrate into, so WTF.]

Link: IQ and corruption

Throwing this here.

and the spread is nice and geographical — west to east/north to south: the anglos and the dutch (and are the scandinavians there? i can’t tell), my long-term outbreeders, are the least corrupt — then, working upwards on the chart (i.e. towards more corrupt) you’ve got the belgians and french and spanish — crossing the line into the more corrupt zone you start to have poland and hungary and the czech republic, places on the border of the hajnal line and the medieval outbreeding project — and then you get up to italy and the ukraine and russia.

east asia is, of course, interesting with singapore, hong kong, and japan being some of the least corrupt, and china being way up by corrupt italy. need to work on figuring out east asia one of these days! (~_^)

Nobody looks at Asia.

We know about Africa and Europe, we all know at this point. For about a century, we have known.

The interesting thing now is Asia/Europe. Are you all too scared to look?

Look at voting patterns, this is important.

so, there’s definitely a connection between intelligence and corruption, but that’s not the whole story, otherwise china and russia and italy and korea wouldn’t be very corrupt at all.

maybe their IQ scores are as real as their college transcripts?

“How an industry helps Chinese students cheat their way into and through U.S. colleges”

Muh model minority.

Cheating is illegal BTW. It’s fraud and theft from the worthy applicants who lost out (zero sum).

Teachers help too: racketeering.

one thing that the chinese, russians, and italians have in common (don’t know much about the koreans) is a longer history of inbreeding as compared to the english and the dutch (see mating patterns series below ↓ in left-hand column). the awesome epigone did find a correlation (0.44) between consanguinity and corruption, but like i said then, i’m betting that the correlation would be stronger if we could calculate something like degree+length-of-time inbreeding.

All trader nations. Merchants. Former merchant empires.

see also: Corruption: The Exception or the Rule?

Brain size of males by race

includes this

The third piece of evidence is that the racial gaps have existed for a long time. In fact, based on the data from the tables above, the White/Black brain size gap doesn’t seem to have gotten any smaller during the 20th century.

Long before your 60s immigration acts.

The first thing to note is that brain size in the general population has a heritability of 87%. Thus, almost all the differences between individuals in brain size are caused by genes.

Secondly, we should note that racial brain size differences are present at, and even before, birth.

Keep blaming women though, that’ll help.

We need more direct studies like this. Gestation length and other variables must be accounted.

Menarche and other variables like WHR vary by race in the women too. More studies! MORE!

The manosphere is based on a myth of equalism, it was destined to fail.

Fourthly, racial brain size differences have been found all around the world. For instance, the Beals and Smith data set previously referred to features skulls from over 100 populations world wide. Many of the autopsy studies previously cited were done in East Asia, as were two of the MRI studies. This makes any gene independent cultural explanation less likely.

Fifthly, several studies have shown that mulattoes have an average brain size in between that of Blacks and Whites (Pearl, 1934Bean, 1906). This finding has been established on multiple occasions and is what a hereditarian hypothesis would predict since mulattoes are half White and half Black genetically speaking.

Do studies for other mixes.

Sixth, many traits which tend to co-evolve with larger brains also differ racially in a way that mirrors the body size adjusted brain size patternRushton and Rushton (2003) looked at 37 anatomical features which 3 textbooks on human evolution identified as tending to co-evolve in the hominid line with larger brains. For instance, larger pelvic size tends to co-evolve with brain size so that mothers can give birth to larger brained infants.  Rushton then utilized 5 forensic anthropology textbooks to look at racial differences in these traits. These traits followed the East Asian>White>Black pattern in 25 out of 31 cases. The probability of this happening at random is .000000001.

WHR is important.

Follow the tag, there are racial differences in studies.

And East-Asian isn’t a race, at best it’s a sub-group, do more studies. Properly.
Asians fail more often on IVF, also posted about that.

Similarly, Rushton (2004) showed that, across 234 mammalian species, brain size correlates with longevity, gestation time, birth weight, litter size, age of first mating, body weight, and body length. Various studies have shown that each of these variables also differ between the races in a way that, based on what we find across the animal kingdom, would predict the body size corrected brain size differences we observe (Rushton, 1995Templer 2006Rushton and Templer, 2009;).

Longevity – must look at averages e.g. not Danes for all whites nor Japs for all Asians.
Gestation – we know this varies.
Weight – control confounds.
Litter size – look at natural rate of twinning.
Virginity loss is r-select, do not want.
Body weight – vague.
Length – we already know racial height. Still, add to the rest, I guess.

Thus, we have six lines of evidence all of which would be predicted by a hereditarian view on racial differences in brain size. While each line of evidence on its own may not be compelling, the combination of all six seems to strongly imply that racial brain size gaps are partly heritable.

It is worth noting that the racial brain size gaps are probably not entirely attributable to genes. Some authors, including Richard Nisbett, have plausibly argued that nutrition also plays a role. However, there explanations are not mutually exclusive, no environmental variables has been shown to account for the majority of the gap, and,  as we have seen, there are many separate lines of evidence indicating that genes also play a role

A confound, in weight.

I suggest seafood consumption.

There is good evidence that the races evolved different brain sizes in response to climate. Specifically, various studies have found that a population’s brain size correlates with climate related variables. For instance, Pearce and Dunbar (2011) ‘s data set produces a correlation of .74 between a population’s brain size and its latitude. Similarly, Ash and Gallup (2007) found a correlation of .48 between the size of 109 fossilized human skulls and the latitude at which they were found. Further still, Bailey and Geary (2009) analyzed 175 skulls ranging in age from 10,000 years old to 1.9 million years old and found a correlation of -.41 between brain size and winter temperature and -.61 between size and latitude (larger brains were found in areas more distant from the equator).

How dare you use science.

The weebs might reee!

Lynn (2015) used Smith and Beals data set of 20,000 skulls from 122 populations to estimate that roughly 30% of the African-European IQ gap can be statistically accounted for by brain size differences. By contrast, brain size differences would actually predict an Asian-European IQ gap 35% larger than the one that actually exists. Thus, brain size is probably one of many factors, both biological and environmental, which account for racial intelligence differences.

Can ya rig the test?

Easy, who’s the most innovative?

Especially before colonialism spreading info. Right?

You can rig IQ tests and college transcripts, not more advanced farming equipment when the other group invented it centuries prior.

Whites were the original Native Americans (Clovis people)

Solutrean hypothesis. [Aside from small bands of Viking later on].

“The Solutrean-Clovis connection (more formally known as the “North Atlantic Ice-Edge Corridor Hypothesis”) is one theory of the peopling of the American continents that suggest that the Upper Paleolithic Solutrean culture is ancestral to Clovis. This idea has its roots in the 19th-century when archaeologists such as CC Abbott postulated that the Americas had been colonized by Paleolithic Europeans. After the Radiocarbon Revolution, however, this idea fell into disuse, only to be revived in the late 1990s by American archaeologists Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford.

Time of academic standards and real proofs.

Radiocarbon is bullshit and everyone knows it. The hard limit is a thousand years or two.

Radiocarbon Dating Becoming Unreliable

“I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

(1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago.  This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. ”

And that’s wood, DNA dies faster but thankfully, we have skeletal forensics.

Their supposed and awfully convenient Asian DNA/Clovis finding was based on, you guessed it, radiocarbon data.
Plus a hefty pinch of BS.
“Only 1 to 2 percent of the collected DNA was human,” Willerslev said. “The rest of it came from bacteria that invaded the skeleton after death.” “Comparison studies of the ancient DNA showed that it was similar to the genomes of ancient people living in Siberia and the ancestors of East Asians.”
– Siberia is European, racially, especially at that time. So they didn’t actually disprove Solutrean whatsoever.
You also cannot compare 1% of an ancient child’s skull shavings, tops, with modern 100% human DNA.
ANY modern human. It’s well within error range for a racial study. Hypothetically, however….
If they were Asian, they’d be comparable with modern Asians including those living American tribes, not ambiguous and long-dead ‘ancestors’ of certain Asians. AKA they’re (Clovis) not actually related to the modern tribes at all claiming the name ‘Native American’, by their own admission. What does ancestors mean? Could be bloody African for all we know, because they do not explain. Could be an amoeba. Literally.

And why would they genocide their own relatives? Think.

More on Solutrean:

Bradley and Stanford argued that at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, ca 25,000–15,000 radiocarbon years ago, the Iberian peninsula of Europe became a steppe-tundra environment, forcing Solutrean populations to the coasts. Maritime hunters then traveled northward along the ice margin, up the European coast, and around the North Atlantic Sea. Bradley and Stanford pointed out that the perennial Arctic ice at the time could have formed an ice bridge connecting Europe and North America. Ice margins have intense biological productivity and would have provided a robust source of food and other resources….”

Migration proof, timing, ecosystem, food supply. All in keeping with Darwinism.

In line with other intellectually honest, more recent info e.g. A Troublesome Inheritance.

Cue bullshit cover-up.

“Evidence supporting the Solutrean theory of Clovis colonization includes two artifacts—a bi-pointed stone blade and mammoth bone—which are said to have been dredged from the eastern American continental shelf in 1970 by the scalloping boat Cin-Mar. These artifacts found their way into a museum, and the bone was subsequently dated to 22,760 RCYBP. However, according to research published by Eren and colleagues in 2015, the context for this important set of artifacts is completely missing: without a firm context, archaeological evidence is not credible.”

It’s negative evidence for the latter Asian hypotheses, you are wrong.

Appeal to credulity, fuck off with your scientism.

No artifact has context because you can’t go back in time and ask them questions, not an argument.

They literally have objects taken from areas of the earth from those time periods, no radiocarbon required.


One piece of supporting evidence cited in Stanford and Bradley’s 2012 book, ‘Across Atlantic Ice,” is the use of caching. A cache is defined as a tightly clustered deposit of artifacts that containing little or no manufacturing debris or residential debris, artifacts which appear to have been deliberately buried at the same time. For these ancient site types, caches are typically made up of stone or bone/ivory tools.

Ancient preppers, aye.

So you have undisturbed earth, specific cultural objects and known white behaviour.

Stick a fork in it, it’s done.

Bone artifacts are recorded as European and Neanderthal based. They are still used in Europe for leathercraft.

Related reading to Solutrean:

“A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast.”

Stanford and Bradley suggest that “only” Clovis (such as Anzick, Colorado and East Wenatchee, Washington) and Solutrean (Volgu, France) societies are known to have cached objects before 13,000 years ago. But there are pre-Clovis caches in Beringia (Old Crow Flats, Alaska, Ushki Lake, Siberia), and pre-Solutrean caches in Europe (Magdalenian Gönnersdorf and Andernach sites in Germany).”

“The most prominent opponent of the Solutrean connection is American anthropologist Lawrence Guy Straus.”
One guy means fuck-all. Whataboutism doesn’t work.

The proof wouldn’t be there if the peoples were not.

Since the discovery of credible Preclovis sites, Bradley and Stanford now argue for a Solutrean origin of Preclovis culture. The diet of Preclovis was definitely more maritime-oriented, and the dates are closer in time to Solutrean by a couple of thousand years—15,000 years ago instead of Clovis’s 11,500, but still short of 22,000. Preclovis stone technology is not the same as Clovis or Solutrean technologies, and the discovery of ivory beveled foreshafts at the Yana RHS site in Western Beringia has further lessened the strength of the technology argument.”

Lessened is not debunked, lessened is your claimed opinion, they just need more data (edit: found, added above). The data they have doesn’t vanish.

Above link up to 26,000 years ago now, guess they found the extra evidence they needed.

“Finally, and perhaps most compellingly, there is a growing body of molecular evidence from modern and ancient indigenous American people indicating that the original population of the Americas have an Asian, and not a European, origin.”

Conflation, intellectual dishonesty, false equivalence.

Er, studying modern people claiming a title means NOTHING to ancient ones. Non sequitur. The modern tribes are Asian based but they’re noticeably not dead under icy layers. It is mathematical certainty the modern Asians in America must’ve killed the ancient Clovis tribes. Genocide.

So there’s no thing as a Native American – that’s still alive.

Latter X2a studies essentially try to prove a negative, therefore impossible, as well as wrong.

Modern tribal Asians in America are also European-Asian mongrels, drawing any conclusions on their DNA is patently false, as it pertains to ancients. Shit in a pool is still shit.

Outside of America, the Clovis child skull study was interpreted correctly:

Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy’s origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy’s ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.


Krauts are so Asian, aren’t they?

Their findings go even further: More than 80 percent of all native peoples in the Americas — from the Alaska’s Aleuts to the Maya of Yucatan to the Aymaras along the Andes — are descended from Montana boy’s lineage.

Mongrels, discounted. Some of those the product of white female rape. Well documented into the late 19th century.

Last week, the scientists published the results of sequencing the child’s DNA in the scientific journal Nature. Late last year, the same team published the decoded genome of another early human: A juvenile buried near Lake Baikal in Siberia some 24,000 years ago. Their genomes showed surprising ancestral similarities.

That American publications forgot to mention.

Along with the entire Siberian study, really.

Totally forgot.

Not suppressed, no.

Perish the thought.

This earned Willerslev’s team an astounding publishing achievement in just 100 days: The decoding of the genomes of the oldest analyzed members of homo sapiens in both the Old and the New Worlds. This has allowed them to reconstruct the settlement of the Americas via the Beringia land bridge during the ice ages — when what is now the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska was frozen over — in greater detail than ever before.

specific DNA, mapped migration patterns, items used…. where’s the argument against now?

In the trash, where it belongs.

A third of both juveniles’ DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal’ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany’s Swabian Jura mountains.

Germans are the new Asian?

Such genetic analysis of Native American bones is highly controversial. It is a sacrilege to some. Others fear it could link their ancestors to Europeans, as this study has done. 

If you don’t like science, stop taking our antibiotics.

Gathered at the burial site, Willerslev revealed the team’s results: the remains’ age, the boy’s ancestry to native tribes of the Americas and the links to Siberia and Europe. Doyle’s reaction would determine whether or not Willerslev’s study could be published or not because the scientist had promised to destroy it if he didn’t obtain permission.

Quit your bullshit, scientism.

We don’t destroy findings because the non-whites get uppity. They raped enough white women to have that DNA, it means f-all. It doesn’t connect to ancient peoples directly, as the most PC reporters actually admit.

I’ll believe they’re related to whites when they stop taking AA.

Further reading

New book reveals Ice Age mariners from Europe were America’s first inhabitants

Some of the earliest humans to inhabit America came from Europe according to a new book Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. The book puts forward a compelling case for people from northern Spain traveling to America by boat, following the edge of a sea ice shelf that connected Europe and America during the last Ice Age, 14,000 to 25,000 years ago."Across Atlantic Ice : The Origin of America's Clovis Culture" Across Atlantic Ice is the result of more than a decade’s research by leading archaeologists Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, and Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Through archaeological evidence, they turn the long-held theory of the origins of New World populations on its head. For more than 400 years, it has been claimed that people first entered America from Asia, via a land bridge that spanned the Bering Sea. We now know that some people did arrive via this route nearly 15,000 years ago, probably by both land and sea. Eighty years ago, stone tools long believed to have been left by the first New World inhabitants were discovered in New Mexico and named Clovis. These distinctive Clovis stone tools are now dated around 12,000 years ago leading to the recognition that people preceded Clovis into the Americas. No Clovis tools have been found in Alaska or Northeast Asia, but are concentrated in the south eastern United States. Groundbreaking discoveries from the east coast of North America are demonstrating that people who are believed to be Clovis ancestors arrived in this area no later than 18,450 years ago and possibly as early as 23,000 years ago, probably in boats from Europe. These early inhabitants made stone tools that differ in significant ways from the earliest stone tools known in Alaska. It now appears that people entering the New World arrived from more than one direction.

In “Across Atlantic Ice,” the authors trace the origins of Clovis culture from the Solutrean people, who occupied northern Spain and France more than 20,000 years ago. They believe that these people went on to populate America’s east coast, eventually spreading at least as far as Venezuela in South America. The link between Clovis and contemporary Native Americans is not yet clear.

Sure it fucking is – there isn’t one.

They’ve looked and found nothing.

Bradley and Stanford do not suggest that the people from Europe were the only ancestors of modern Native Americans.

They’re mixes, duh. Heavily Asian, look at the skulls.

They argue that it is evident that early inhabitants also arrived from Asia, into Alaska, populating America’s western coast.


Their ongoing research suggests that the early history of the continent is far more intriguing than we formerly believed. Some of the archaeological evidence analyzed in the book was recovered from deep in the ocean. When the first people arrived in America, sea levels were nearly 130 meters lower than today. The shore lines of 20,000 years ago, which hold much of the evidence left by these early people, are now under the ocean. This is also the case in Europe.

We now have really solid evidence that people came from Europe to the New World around 20,000 years ago,” Bradley says. “Our findings represent a paradigm shift in the way we think about America’s early history. We are challenging a very deep-seated belief in how the New World was populated. The story is more intriguing and more complicated than we ever have imagined.” “There are more alternatives than we think in archaeology and we need to have imagination and an open mind when we examine evidence to avoid being stuck in orthodoxy,” Stanford adds. “This book is the result of more than a decade’s work, but it is just the beginning of our journey.” Across Atlantic Ice is published by University California Press, Berkeley.–Source University of Exeter