Bloody Yanks

You’ll focus on THIS shit.

THIS shit.


crime rates

IQ data (not bell curves, the actual sodding data)

or demographic replacement.

God fucking forbid you put the big brained wiggers on important sheet.

It’s 16 though, fucking obviously, because I happened not to be taught by a turnip.

A 12yo in our system could do that.

A literal 12yo.

This is everything wrong with academia. Midwits of +1-2SD who think everyone is impressed with their shit, like a toddler with power.




They are that confused by a troll’s piss-poor notation and still, inexplicably, riding the dick of theoretical physics, with theoretical findings and theoretical applications and theoretical teapots circling theoretical moons in theoretical universes, because this is serious.

Physicists are not smarter than you, they’re mathematicians with more lies and bigger budgets.

I know because I was banned from the physics department. Even using their kettle.

Tea leaves are at least REAL and DEMONSTRABLE and FALSIFIABLE.

Fuck me.

Global cooling and poles

People moving from warm countries to cold ones will freeze to death or move home.

Bolded abstract for the lazy:

Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23

A comprehensive spectral analysis of both the solar background magnetic field (SBMF) in cycles 21–23 and the sunspot magnetic field in cycle 23 reported in our recent paper showed the presence of two principal components (PCs) of SBMF having opposite polarity, e.g., originating in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively. Over a duration of one solar cycle, both waves are found to travel with an increasing phase shift toward the northern hemisphere in odd cycles 21 and 23 and to the southern hemisphere in even cycle 22. These waves were linked to solar dynamo waves assumed to form in different layers of the solar interior. In this paper, for the first time, the PCs of SBMF in cycles 21–23 are analyzed with the symbolic regression technique using Hamiltonian principles, allowing us to uncover the underlying mathematical laws governing these complex waves in the SBMF presented by PCs and to extrapolate these PCs to cycles 24–26. The PCs predicted for cycle 24 very closely fit (with an accuracy better than 98%) the PCs derived from the SBMF observations in this cycle. This approach also predicts a strong reduction of the SBMF in cycles 25 and 26 and, thus, a reduction of the resulting solar activity. This decrease is accompanied by an increasing phase shift between the two predicted PCs (magnetic waves) in cycle 25 leading to their full separation into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26. The variations of the modulus summary of the two PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21–24 and to predictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26.

trans. the Sun is taking a chill pill and expect bad harvests.

Turns out when you look at the Sun, Earth’s surface temperature is predictive!

New readers who don’t know I read physics papers:



Had to.

From the conclusion:

We can conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence
that the solar activity in cycles 24–26 will be systematically
decreasing because of the increasing phase shift between the
two magnetic waves of the poloidal field leading to their full
separation into opposite hemispheres in cycles 25 and 26. This
separation is expected to result in the lack of their subsequent
interaction in any of the hemispheres, possibly leading to a lack
of noticeable sunspot activity on the solar surface lasting for a
decade or two, similar to those recorded in the medieval period.

The Mini Ice Age? Famine? Specify.

Low T = spatial ability

You don’t really hear men online look for data.

Why? They’re dumb enough to assume their opinion = fact.

In evobio, for example, if you actually look, women are likelier to be good at say, spatial intelligence.*

For foraging.

And remembering where they left the baby.

And obvious chick stuff like cave painting.

It’s simple enough to test.

The cognitive performance of normal men and women was studied, grouped according to whether the subjects had relatively high or low salivary testosterone (T) concentrations. Men with lower T performed better than other groups on measures of spatial/mathematical ability, tasks at which men normally excel. Women with high T scored higher than low-T women on these same measures. T concentrations did not relate significantly to scores on tests that usually favor women or that do not typically show a sex difference. These results support suggestions of a nonlinear relationship between T concentrations and spatial ability, and demonstrate some task specificity in this respect.

This explains STEM.

Naturally both sexes have an important place in the tribe. Only Americans would be dumb enough to assert otherwise. It’s the lone wolf myth. In biology, the lone wolf dies.

And men have no excuse to perform poorly on chick subjects.
It’s mostly productive personality traits like grit and conscientiousness. Basically, the only subject where your T levels matter is as a competitive athlete.

Meatheads can’t do maths. I find it funny they think they can calculate their own testosterone supplements (clue: more = better), much favoured is the Popeye to spinach approach.

“Why are there so many women in STEM?” they bitch.

Well, when it’s a blinded, fair test, they’re literally better at the material.
It’s meritocratic.

*Spatial should be studied separately from mathematical.
They are different types of intelligence.
It’s kinda like conflating a false equivalence of dancing and music composition.
Similar but very different.

Math or maths?

It is a technical specialist term. Layman and verbal use means diddly squat.

Real English (based off Old English) is superior to Americanisms. Americans do not have a language, they stole one and that’s called barbarism in linguistics. None of the origin rules are observed.

Math is normally the shortened form used on American college classes.


Math 101

Math is not a singular like Science.

Science is a single paradigm, all the same rules and assumptions and operations governing within it.

The Scientific Method.

While it has plural divisions (biology, chemistry, physics, so on) the same assumptions remain throughout.

Sub-divisions exist e.g. neurobiology, evolutionary biology so The Biological Sciences, plural, would also work, at a level reduced from the total.

“Math” is a plural subject.

“Mathematics” is the term encompassing many branches, all with different rules and aims and calculation methods.

To calculate in geometry is not how one calculates in pure mathematics.

The rules are literally different.

There is no unifying math. There is mathematics.

Why is it referred to as singular? With is?

  1. It is considered as having higher-order similarities but it is not practically the same. For example, it uses symbols, heavy on the numbers in digit format and in line with co-ordinate meanings (linear sequence of computation, down).
  2. History. In older books you will find the term “histories” as in “the histories of Europe” and this would of course refer to geographic nations, plural. The term history refers to its united way of parsing evidence once it has been gathered for the unified purpose. Science is comparable, history is comparable, maths is not comparable. e.g. A number 3.14 means something totally different in algebra as geometry.

Are we done?

Can I stop explaining this now? Forever?

[Technically, a language only counts when it is formalized in written form, codified. Hence, there are no languages in pre-recorded history that count in linguistics. On the contrary, Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics count despite no verbal equivalent.]


What about sports?

(Ignoring the fact you base your language off of TV announcements and expect me to take it seriously.)

Sport is related to archaic terms like sporting. You cannot be sportsing, America.

To be a Good Sport.

It’s also a verb.

Do not conflate with Sports Day.

Note the apostrophe.

Why aren’t women doing STEM? They don’t meet the requirements for maths.

applause clap clapping yes well done

Women were the first computers, they’ve got no excuse. Lazy lazy lazy.
The type who make a flighty decision to go into it because nerds are trendy now fail to understand it requires years of preparation. A career is lifelong.

The best description of these simpletons is this biography;

“Lauren “LMoney”

Martin grew up with one goal: to be the first woman engineer. Upon finding out there already were women engineers, and unable to pass Calc 1, she chose to study the beautiful and honorable art of advertising. After advertising proved uninspiring, she attempted a career in acting which was over before she could get on stage. And when she failed at everything else she decided to become a comedy writer.”

Math standards fall to new low in the West

There’s a ruckus in the UK as the most recent school-finishing exam (GCSE) in Maths had a question idiotic teens are petitioning about for being too difficult. I am not joking. Outrage.

oh come on my god why NO kill me now

Here’s the PETITION:

The C2 exam was just hard for no reason. You can’t just set questions so hard and still expect people to pass with good grades or don’t Edexcel know we want to make it into Uni.

I just want to ask the people who set the quetions for this exam, if this is how hard exam questions were when they were in College then i dont think they will be where they are right now.

You need to pity us students who have been revising all year just for Edexcel to set some bullshit exam. The fact that people are signing my petition just proves how difficult it was.

don draper crying baby wah wah wah

When I was at school, this was the material we studied at 11-12 years old, and we were average to bright level, and the GCSE is intended for 16 year olds to sit. They shouldn’t be allowed to sit the tests in the first place, can we please bring in IQ now to qualify??? Reminds me of –


Can’t do quadratics or fill in n in the example to test it? [good practice] Thank a teacher.
This is quantifiable evidence of the decline.

crying weeping sobbing belle disney

Worst of all? This was apparently near the end (harder) of the Higher Tier (hardest) paper.

Lestat laughter lol lmao haha IWTV film

And n=10.

toasting raising glass cheers leonardo da vinci congrats well done demons

p.s. I am reliably informed the next section of the question asked to solve for n, so my brain just skipped over the first section of the question when I initially solved it in about two minutes, triple-checked in my head. That easy. I am not even good at maths.
I’ll just leave this here without comment:

Video: The ONE anti-immigration video to show everyone crying over Africa

no do not want go away displeased

Every r-type you will ever meet upon seeing this video;

shock horror wtf omg no denial signs

Take your bleeding heart to the emergency room.

FYI, they don’t want us there. “For God’s sake, please stop the aid!”

The Smart Fraction theory of IQ and the wealth of nations

I was hoping that we could continue our discussion of human biodiversity. I brought some fascinating data from the Summer 2001 Mankind Quarterly. In the article, National IQ and Economic Development: A study of Eighty-One Developing Nations, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen expose a relationship between national wealth and IQ. I brought a table of their data, but you can see the relationship best in a graph (Figure 1).

It has sexy graphs.

Dat mass.

Notice how GDP is positively correlated to average IQ. The correlation coefficient is 0.733, IQ explaining 54 percent of the GDP variance. Values this large are rare in social science. ….

Prodigy.  That’s because the relationship between per capita GDP and mean IQ is not linear. The fit is the best that can be obtained with a line.

Estraneo.  Is nonlinearity important?

Prodigy.  Correlation indicates the degree of linear association between variables. Because, the relationship is nonlinear, the value 0.73 actually underestimates the strength of the relationship. …

Thus, for a technologically sophisticated society, SFT asserts that a nation’s per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is 108, a bit less than the minimum required for what used to be a bachelor’s degree. Figure 3 illustrates the fit of (3) to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.

Saturation is probable, dwindling marginal utility of sorts.

World IQs have been increasing at the rate of 3 IQ points per decade (the Flynn effect). If that trend continues [DS: and is valid], countries now in the mean-IQ neighborhood of 100, will near smart fraction saturation in about a century.

Directionality is considered.

Estraneo.  There has been something gnawing at me for a while now. Just because national wealth and IQ correlate across different countries, we cannot infer which causes what. Smart Fraction Theory would fit the data just as well if national wealth led to high IQ rather than the other way round.

Prodigy.  You are correct, Estraneo. We need to look elsewhere for evidence that fixes the direction of causation. Independent studies of monozygotic twins reared apart provide some help. At least four major studies have been conducted with remarkably consistent results. They find about 70% of the variance in IQ is associated with genetic variation. Bouchard et al, Science, Oct 12, 1990, present an excellent review of these studies. Closer to the present context, we can look to the clever experiment of Charles Murray (Income Inequality and IQ, AEI Press, 1998). Murray studied biological sibling pairs selected such that the siblings in each pair differed significantly in IQ, but were reared in the same home by the same parents. Controlling thus for environmental factors, Murray found earnings stratified conspicuously by IQ.

There is much more, Estraneo, but two nails are sufficient to fix the direction of a one-way sign. The arrow of cause points mostly from IQ to income, and not the other way round.