Saturday, September 16, 2017

Why the nineteenth was not in the original

On Pew's most recent news IQ quiz, the tendency for men to be better informed was confirmed for the umpteenth time. Men outscored women by double-digit percentages on all but two of the ten questions. Take the quick quiz here to see the questions and to remind yourself that, as someone reading this blog, you're far more informed than the average person is. I suspect most American readers will ace it easily.


The two where women held their own with men were predictably health-related--one on the water supply issue in Flint, Michigan and the other on the Zika virus.

Women are naturally focused on the hearth rather than on political maneuverings taking place on the other side of the world. As such, they're susceptible to demographically drowning their unborn grandchildren on account of seeing pictures of someone else's kid washed up on the beach. Modern technology allows our nurturing circuitry to be hacked. The Cloud People know this and exploit it relentlessly.

The question with the lowest rate of correct answers given is the one on the federal government's unemployment rate. It's the only quantitative question of the bunch. People think in terms of narratives, emotions, and relationships, not in terms of numbers.

Pew doesn't break out the results by race for obvious reasons. It's surprising they continue to be broken out by sex since doing so reliably reflects 'poorly' on women. The sex breakdown doesn't even appear in the body of the report Pew released, it has to be discovered by actually taking the test as a user. I suspect at some point educational attainment will be the only reported on demographic characteristic of the test takers.

30 comments:

Random Dude on the Internet said...

There's a reason why there has been such a push for "facts are racist and sexist" in the past several years.

Anonymous said...

They are sexist. What more evidence do you need?

Dan said...

Only question was, would I be able to ace the quiz without having to engage mentally. Answer, yes.

I went to the DC Moar (pro Trump) rally today. THE WALL was the only coherent policy point. Everything else was vague patriotism. Talked to an Alabama lady who was certain of Roy Moore win.

Jokah Macpherson said...

The disappearance of the sex gap on the health questions blows my mind. I mean, I knew about it from posts on similar prior surveys, but it's remarkable how consistent it is. It really is a nurture instinct hack 'cause it's not like these stories are more relevant or useful than the political ones if you don't live in Flint or South America.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Dan, my mom is a poll worker in Alabama and she's been saying the same thing for a while (she doesn't like Moore at all).

Dan said...

Dangit, Trump said he is going out to campaign for Strange in Alabama.

This isn't going to be easy if he keeps promoting people who don't stand for his agenda.

How does he show that he's serious about MAGA?

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Reality is all of these -isms.

Dan,

Was the turnout as modest as it's being presented by the usual suspects? I haven't heard anything about Antifa type protests. I haven't really heard much at all.

Jokah,

Moore outperformed initial primary polling and he is kicking the crap out of Strange in the two-way.

With Sessions acting as the sober voice of reason on DACA, this is hardly an opportune time for a punchdrunk-with-love-for-the-little-DACA-kiddies to be throwing his weight behind the establishment cuck.

Personal--and public--loyalty seems to be given an especially high premium for Trump. It's not as though he is now just automatically backing the cuck establishment candidates. He's not doing that in Arizona, he's doing the opposite.

I have an aunt and uncle who live in Alabama who are relatives of mine I have the most in common politically. Just urged them to vote for Moore.

Susumu said...

I don't fully buy the argument that women in general are as intelligent as men.

But even if we do buy the data that claims that -- The reality is that women's cognition is significantly more emotion-driven, people-driven, me-and-my-theoretical-babies-driven, than men's cognition. It isn't the same, and can't be relied upon in the same way.

Jim Bowery said...

And then there are those who don't "emotionally" get exponentials.

The Exponential Death of the US From Family Reunification -- An Interactive Graph

Interactive sliders adjust these parameters of the model:

a = Amnestied citizens in millions to start
g = Years an immigrant relative must wait for a green card
c = Years a green card holder must wait for citizenship
n = Average number of relatives an immigrant citizen will invite

The maximum value of the graph is 7 billion -- the population of the Earth.

Glen Filthie said...

even WITH the right info women still make poor decisions. They make decisions based on their feelings and will dispense with the facs .

Anonymous said...

Pew doesn't break it down by race because BOTH sides of the political spectrum would have brain aneurysms.

Don't kid yourself that white Protestant men would do better than Ashkenazi Jewish men or Asian secular men.

I love talking about differences in race and gender. There's just so much material to make both liberals and stormfronters apoplectic.

James said...

"The reality is that women's cognition is significantly more emotion-driven, people-driven, me-and-my-theoretical-babies-driven, than men's cognition. It isn't the same, and can't be relied upon in the same way."

"even WITH the right info women still make poor decisions. They make decisions based on their feelings and will dispense with the facs."

And this is why more "enlightened" men denied women the right to vote. If men had humiliated suffragettes in public, if the bobbies and cops had put more of them in jail, and if "respectable" men had not allowed the media to get away with promoting women's rights, the fiction that women are just men with vaginas could not have taken hold. However, given how the adversary will continue to push lies with glacier like speed and force and as long as men prefer peace and quiet to a constant war, we will always arrive back at the same point. Every. Single. Time.

James said...

"I love talking about differences in race and gender. There's just so much material to make both liberals and stormfronters apoplectic."

There is a difference, though. Stormfronters love talking about race and gender, too, while libtards avoid it at all costs. The lib narrative of race and gender consists entirely of men bad, women good, Whites bad, every other race good. You may hate the Stormfronters' opinions but they have at least examine the data. Unlike those that "love science".

Anonymous said...

@james

The stormfronters don't examine data any more than the liberals do. Every time I point to anything that suggests that people of Ashkenazi ethnicity or East Asian ethnicities do anything even slightly better than Northern Europeans, they love to close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and scream like banshees. Same in situations when Northern European women do something better than Northern European men. Even the time when I pointed out that black people do NOT have the highest rate of drunk driving or domestic violence they screamed like banshees.

The stormfronter narrative (and hence, the entire alt-right/alt-lite/wn narrative) is women bad, men good, all colored races bad, whites good. It's just as BS as the liberal narrative.

James said...

So, you do this online or in real-life?

Audacious Epigone said...

Susumu/Glen,

Rushton famously believed the same thing. But even if the mean difference is a couple of points, that's doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

We're not equipped to make decisions by proxy for hundreds of millions of people, women even less so than men.

Jim,

At the point in time the US becomes unlivable, aspirational invasion will slow down. A silver lining!

Anon,

I do not doubt that Ashkenazis would do better than WASPs. No one in the HBD-sphere would. It's sloppy to equate race realists with white supremacists. That characterization of the Alt Right is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Most whites would be *far* more uncomfortable talking about the fact that blacks and Hispanics do worse than would be uncomfortable talking about the fact that Jews do better. I'm ambiguous on Asians in this particular context since it's so heavily weighted towards the political since Asians in the US really don't pay as much attention to politics as we'd expect based on their IQ/educational attainment/income alone.

James,

Or in his mind for the purposes of commenting in bad faith?

Sid said...

"Most whites would be *far* more uncomfortable talking about the fact that blacks and Hispanics do worse than would be uncomfortable talking about the fact that Jews do better."

One reason why blank slatism is so seductive when it comes to blacks/Hispanics is that it means the current economic and social disparities we see will go away in time. Granted, it's been decades since Brown vs Board of Education, but one day now we should be seeing black scores on the SAT inching ever closer to white ones. Someday soon!

In contrast, being a race realist means acknowledging that we're going to be stuck with black dysfunction and Hispanic (mestizo) mediocrity indefinitely. If we launch a massive genetic engineering program in the future, sure, conceivably everyone will be born with the same IQ and conscientiousness, but until then we're going to have institute harsh, austere policies to keep black crime rates down.

I could only watch a few episodes of The Wire before turning it off for good, but the reason why SWPLs loved it so much was that it showed how horrible life in the ghetto is, but declared blacks would be just like SWPLs if only they didn't face systemic racism and corporate apathy. Of course, that's not true at all: Baltimore is hell when Draconian legalistic policies aren't in place, and not much better than hell even when they are.

"I'm ambiguous on Asians in this particular context since it's so heavily weighted towards the political since Asians in the US really don't pay as much attention to politics as we'd expect based on their IQ/educational attainment/income alone."

The Asian edge in IQ is more worrisome than it is in Jews, for patriotic white Americans. Granted, most whites don't feel much antipathy to Asian-Americans, but the high Asian IQ means Japan and Korea are going to be fierce economic rivals, and it means China is proving to be one hell of a political rival.

In contrast, most American whites are fine with Jews being smart, as long as they're integrated and loyal to our society. That's my stance - WWII was a lot easier for us when all of Europe's best physicists feared for their lives and came to America to design the atomic bomb for us. What's frustrating is when American Jews take the "goodwhite" attitudes up to 11 and believe they're victims of American society.

Anonymous said...

@audacious @james

There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who claim to be "race realist" and then vigorously deny it if I say something like "people of Ashkenazi ethnicity have a higher average IQ than people of European descent". It's mostly online since these incels don't come out of their mothers' basements very often. On stormfront and especially on amren. I'd say most of the banshees I encounter are on amren, a few on stormfront, a few on blogs like yours, Steve Sailer's, Heartiste's, etc.

As for the liberals and feminists, online and in real life. I've had a whole bunch of hypocritical "feminists" verbally berate me in a real life social venue for not being a feminist...even though I hate the anti-feminists just as much as I hate the pro-feminists.

@sid

When alt-right/wns/"race realists" say "Jews" they really mean "people of Ashkenazi ethnicity". You're not talking about Sephardic, Mizrahi, or Ethiopian people. You ARE talking about people of Ashkenazi ethnicity, even the ones who have converted to atheism or Christianity.

As for Asians, I think that this is a case when many white people are UNDERestimating the differences between Asians and Europeans. Stop projecting your own ways of thinking and being onto them. Just because they are capable of doing something doesn't mean they want to do it. I'll use the "gun analogy" to explain: If European men invented guns, then they would have used them to go around the world killing people (this actually happened in history). If Middle Easterners or Africans had invented guns, then they would also have used them to go around the world killing people (however, they did not have the capacity to invent guns). If Asians or European women had invented guns, they would NOT have used them to go around the world killing people (have the capacity, but not the desire). If Inuits and indigenous people of North and South America had invented guns, they would NOT have used them to go around the world killing people (have neither the capacity nor the desire). Thus, you don't have to worry about China. They don't want to do any of the things that imperial Britain/France/Spain, or 1930's Germany wanted to do.

James said...

"There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who claim to be "race realist" and then vigorously deny it if I say something like "people of Ashkenazi ethnicity have a higher average IQ than people of European descent"."

Well, anecdotal evidence is like an opinion. Which is like an asshole. Everybody has one and they think the other person's stinks. I doubt very seriously that you have hundreds, much less THOUSANDS of anecdotes about "race realists" that deny that Ashkenazis have a higher average IQ than people of European descent anymore than they believe Sephardics have higher IQ's. They are aware of the few studies that exist and what they show. They may not agree with them, but they are aware of them. Maybe you could post just 99 of them so we could get a feel for your "truthfulness"? And, as pertains to my original point, how many libtards are even aware of such studies?

TWS said...

Well anon you've managed to really misunderstand the Indians and the orientals good job. Given gunpowder both groups joyfully killed their neighbors and took their land.

James said...

"If Asians or European women had invented guns, they would NOT have used them to go around the world killing people (have the capacity, but not the desire). If Inuits and indigenous people of North and South America had invented guns, they would NOT have used them to go around the world killing people (have neither the capacity nor the desire). Thus, you don't have to worry about China. They don't want to do any of the things that imperial Britain/France/Spain, or 1930's Germany wanted to do."

Thanks, TWS. I didn't even read this. It shows how someone can make baseless claims and yet state them emphatically. Anonymous believes that what he wants to believe is true. He doesn't even realize that claiming absolutes based on the "evidence" of "no evidence" is like being an atheist. They are offended that other individuals have beliefs in things without proof and then claim their belief is superior because he has beliefs in things without proof. What are some words that describe that position? Cognitive dissonance? Hypocrisy? Self-conceit?

Sid said...

"When alt-right/wns/"race realists" say "Jews" they really mean "people of Ashkenazi ethnicity". You're not talking about Sephardic, Mizrahi, or Ethiopian people. You ARE talking about people of Ashkenazi ethnicity, even the ones who have converted to atheism or Christianity."

That's what most everyone does in the West. "Jew" almost always refers to Ashkenazis, unless you specify it's another branch.

"If Asians or European women had invented guns, they would NOT have used them to go around the world killing people (have the capacity, but not the desire)."

This might be the silliest claim argued at me in a long, long time.

The Chinese invented gunpowder around the 11th century or so. The Mongols may have used their gunpowder to help with their conquests (though of course they primarily relied on cavalry tactics).

Europeans received gunpowder around the 13th century and developed it to the point where cannons could break through city walls. Around this time, they mastered sea navigation and sold their superior ordinance to Asians.

So of course, the Asians who bought those guns used them to slaughter their neighbors. In fact, the Qing Dynasty carved out a massive empire. Read about the Dzungar Genocide if you think the Qing were nice guys.

Read about Oda Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa if you want more stories of Asians using guns to slaughter their rivals and then try to conquer their neighbors. (The Japanese at the end of the 16th century sought to conquer Ming China and rule over their domains, but were bogged down and stopped by Koreans who used turtle ships with cannons.)

Northeast Asians are different from Northern Europeans, but they both do similar things when given guns.

Anonymous said...

@sid

You still overestimate their desire for total world domination and underestimate their innate desire for peacefulness and things just staying the same.

1930's Germany wanted to have total world domination. Obviously, not all wns/stormfronters/alt-right want this scenario today but I once saw an interview of a self-proclaimed "neo-nazi" who does want this scenario: he wants Northern Europeans to genocide all other peoples and then settle across all of the continents. This is a sentiment you sometimes see amongst men of European ancestry, but not in women of European ancestry or people of other races.

Whereas non-Japanese Asians are concerned: they just want to build up their own societies, be free from domination by other societies, and generally mind their own business. If they are conducting politics or business with other countries, they are doing so to enrich themselves. They do not intend to politically or militarily dominate other societies for the sake of domination.

Whereas the Japanese are concerned: they are a little bit more like Europeans, but differences remain. The most extreme Japanese men (but not Japanese women) want political and military domination of all of East Asia. They may want to enslave, genocide, or have a Jim-Crow style society with the rest of East Asia, but they try to be as apathetic as possible towards Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Oceania, North America, and South America. The average Japanese person hardly ever thinks about whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. The most extreme Japanese men just want minimal contact with the world outside of East Asia. They only want dominion within East Asia.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

It's been awhile since I've read up on the events preceding to and eventually leading to the Meiji Restoration. Like a lot of jock/nerd hybrids, I always had a fascination with feudal Japan growing up.

Anon,

The average Japanese person hardly ever thinks about whites, blacks, hispanics, etc.

There's a lesson somewhere in there for contemporary Westerners, I think. A similar lesson can be found in the observation that Poles don't think too much about Islamic terrorism.

Sid said...

Anonymous,

The Mongols amassed the largest land empire in history, using some of the most devastating war strategies of all time. Ask the Koreans, the Vietnamese, Uyghurs, and Tibetans if the Chinese just want to mind their own business. The Manchus conquered not just China, but huge swathes of Central Eurasia as well.

Hitler's aim in his lifetime was to conquer all of Europe, including Russia up to the Urals. The Nazis imagined that they would, over the following two centuries, eventually conquer the whole world. That's not fundamentally different from what we've gathered about the Mongols.

There certainly are East Asian nationalities that want to be left to themselves, but the same can be said about the Basques and the Czechs.

AE,

Histories of feudal Japan, at least in English, have always seemed to be sparser than the interest in them. I've found general overviews of feudal Japan, but nothing much more specific than that.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

Here's the lesson (although it's not the one you were looking for): Being nosy and poking into everybody's business will result in everybody poking into your business. This is what England/France/Spain/Portugal (and to a lesser extent, Italy/Germany/Netherlands) are learning today.

Poland never had far-flung empires. Japan had an empire but it never expanded to Africa/Europe/India/Middle East/North America/South America.

If you stick your nose too far out, you'll end up like the UK/France/Spain/Portugal/Italy/Germany Netherlands. If you stick your head too far into the sand, you will end up like late Ming China, Edo Japan, or North Korea today.

I think everyone on all major sides are wrong. The white supremacists are wrong, the self-hating whites are also wrong. The white separatists are wrong; the neoliberals are also wrong. The far right are wrong; the left are also wrong. The MRAs are wrong, the feminists are also wrong. Trump and his alt-right cronies are wrong, the #resist faction is also wrong. If I have learned anything from observing every socio-political faction, it is that everybody is wrong and that almost everyone veers too far into their own ideology.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The lesson is no invading the world, no inviting the world, no becoming indebted to the world. The most important part of that lesson is the second part, and it's the one the Japanese know best.

Feryl said...

Wandering into moral evaluations of nationalities/empires and playing favorites is pointless and subjective.

It makes more sense to look at the political/artistic/spiritual viability of a given nation at a given time. Which, btw, can be hard to see objectively when as we all know, it's human nature to detest what's different or unpopular.

Mohammedans hate America because it's never been remotely a Muslim country. And they hate nationalities/ethnic groups in general which are perceived to be insufficiently Islamic. Of course, ultimately all tribes conjure up reasons to hate/fear/envy/exploit other tribes. Us paleos understand that it's in everyone's best interest to cede a given patch of territory to every extant tribe, let each and every tribe be, and accept the loss of certain freedoms and minority pandering. We know, being realists, that it's more painful in the long run to fight our nature than it is to accept it. It's better that America be 90% white and 10% other, than it is to subsidize the birth rate of non-white American natives while giving more magic dirt to people who weren't even born here. Perhaps we could welcome White S. Africans and Christian Slavs to try and shore up our historical culture, but certainly, no more Muslims or blacks, please. Pretty please.

Being realists also means understanding that occasionally, charismatic and ambitious rulers, and greed, and lebensraum, means that from time to time a nation will lose it's way. At peril to other nations, but also to the nation(s) which started the BS.

What really shouldn't be disputed, at this point, is that certain tribes do indeed tend to be over-represented as "market-dominant" minorities (leeches) who stir resentment among rational and talented people. As Agnostic has pointed out, Jews and Han Chinese have proven time and time again that they're willing to to sell other people out, often without bothering to establish any kind of reasonable give and take with the dominant/host population. Now, granted, not being stupid hot-heads they aren't interested in literally blowing up host societies, so yes, at the end of the day, they're preferable to Mohammedans and blacks. As usual, the less diversity, the better. It really doesn't matter how greedy or violent an ethnic groups is, if they just stick to themselves. I don't give a damn who's getting ripped off or blown-up as long as it's not happening to my people.

The great part about homogeneity is that, whatever your pluses and minuses, they're shared by everyone else. So you can't play the blame game, or pit different ethnic groups against each other, or worry about one group gaining or losing compared to another. The thing about racialists/realists/paleos is that we don't concern ourselves with rolling the ethnic dice in a cultural and geo-political RPG. We just want every tribe to stay itself and keep to itself. The folly of idealists and race deniers is obvious from the farcial effort to simultaneously welcome Muslims into historically Christian (and Odonist, and Celtic pantheist, and Greco-Roman idolatry) lands while claiming to be fighting terrorism (e.g., Islam). Regions which renounced pagan warlord bloodshed hundreds of years ago are letting ethnic groups defined by belligerence within their borders.

Feryl said...

"Anon,

The lesson is no invading the world, no inviting the world, no becoming indebted to the world. The most important part of that lesson is the second part, and it's the one the Japanese know best."

Yes, Japan is the most homogeneous large tribe/nation to ever exist, though north and East Asians in general tend to be homogeneous. The funny thing about the libertarian cucks is how they whine about economic issues, acting like Japan is hurting itself so much. Never do they acknowledge every bad thing the Japanese avoid (resentemnt and unhealthy competition between ethnic groups, lower trust levels, greater complexity to politics, culture, and social interactions). In Japan, everyone and thus every thing is Japanese. Nobody feels that they can't get a job (or that some one else got a job) because the employer belonged to another tribe. Nobody stews that another ethnic group within their nation once mistreated their own. What makes white Western nations so retarded was that they could have continued to enjoy these perks to some degree had they not insisted on over-farming their magic dirt and then paving it over.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Yeah, the criticisms of Japan elicit a "so what?" response from me. Purchasing power parity is a little more useful than GDP, but not much, especially in close ranges. Far less violence, more orderly societies, virtually no ethnic or racial tensions, low employment turnover rates, great health outcomes, no stupid military interventionism, etc. Sounds like the world's best kept secret rather than a country still reeling from its 'lost decade'.