I'm wondering if your finding that the MRI model for predicting IQ is better across races than within races because it's figuring out how to predict race from the MRI isn't evidence for a bit of social constructionist Nurture Effect. E.g., if you look at just the structure of the brain within each racial group, the model would predict this kid's IQ would be 85. But when the model looks across races and hence it figures out this kid is likely black, then it lowers his prediction to 80. Or whatever.
It's kind of like if you were making an AI model to find the best basketball player based on physical traits and you find a black kid with fairly white physical traits (e.g., arms aren't that long, torso is long relative to legs, can't jump that high), but then it turns out that if you let the model know the kid is black, then it raises its prediction, perhaps because there are other physical advantages blacks have at basketball that the model doesn't know about. Or perhaps because African-Americans tend to have more experience playing basketball because they don't waste their time growing up playing baseball or golf or tennis or swimming. They love basketball. So, contemporary African-Americans tend to be smart about basketball due to their huge time investment in the game.
Conversely, if the IQ model figures out the kid is black, well, he's probably playing more basketball than reading books and doing other things that might have a modest positive effect on IQ.
This explains crime rates, and who to hire and not hire.
It also shows the obvious, hard living results in higher intelligence, and easy living is very easy for anyone.
When food is everywhere as in warmer climates, survival is simple enough for even the low IQ.
When food is scarce as in cold climates, only smart thinking permits survival.
I'm calling for increase in global warming taxes so we can get these smarter people out of their polluting cars, and back into the bushes were they belong.
And lets Vaccinate the high IQs so we can depopulate them, for the good of everyone.
Inuit's low IQ is odd with largest brain and coldest climate.
《Boucher et al. (2009, Table 1) measured the IQ of a group of
Inuit people with a mean age of 34.75y from Nunavik. A mean SPM-raw score of 35.25 was calculated which had to be converted to a mean APM-raw score of 5.73, which is at the 2.03rd GBR-P
and equivalent to an uncor. IQ of 69.30 and a cor. IQ of 68.46 after
How do you know that your sample of whites is higher class, and blacks "lower" class? Isn't that extending personal bias into it. Why not just let the results stand as they are. Did you shop for more intelligent whites and less intelligent blacks? No? You simply took a sampling. A sampling is just that a sampling! Why is further explanation called for? The comment on the sample of blacks being a higher percentage of "lower class" I find annoying, or should I say excuse giving. If results had been reversed would you have referred to the white figure as "a sampling"! If we are going to have equity, then let's have actual equity for a change, an let the chips fall where they may.
Thanks. Most impressive.
I'm wondering if your finding that the MRI model for predicting IQ is better across races than within races because it's figuring out how to predict race from the MRI isn't evidence for a bit of social constructionist Nurture Effect. E.g., if you look at just the structure of the brain within each racial group, the model would predict this kid's IQ would be 85. But when the model looks across races and hence it figures out this kid is likely black, then it lowers his prediction to 80. Or whatever.
It's kind of like if you were making an AI model to find the best basketball player based on physical traits and you find a black kid with fairly white physical traits (e.g., arms aren't that long, torso is long relative to legs, can't jump that high), but then it turns out that if you let the model know the kid is black, then it raises its prediction, perhaps because there are other physical advantages blacks have at basketball that the model doesn't know about. Or perhaps because African-Americans tend to have more experience playing basketball because they don't waste their time growing up playing baseball or golf or tennis or swimming. They love basketball. So, contemporary African-Americans tend to be smart about basketball due to their huge time investment in the game.
Conversely, if the IQ model figures out the kid is black, well, he's probably playing more basketball than reading books and doing other things that might have a modest positive effect on IQ.
What do you think?
This explains crime rates, and who to hire and not hire.
It also shows the obvious, hard living results in higher intelligence, and easy living is very easy for anyone.
When food is everywhere as in warmer climates, survival is simple enough for even the low IQ.
When food is scarce as in cold climates, only smart thinking permits survival.
I'm calling for increase in global warming taxes so we can get these smarter people out of their polluting cars, and back into the bushes were they belong.
And lets Vaccinate the high IQs so we can depopulate them, for the good of everyone.
#Vax whitey
Genuinely curious what any reasonable (non-moral) objections to this research could be. Extremely good stuff!
Live and get along with what you have, and don't take advantage of others. Easier said than done.
You should really be marketing an offshoot of this to hospitals for use in rehab'ing stroke victims.
Inuit's low IQ is odd with largest brain and coldest climate.
《Boucher et al. (2009, Table 1) measured the IQ of a group of
Inuit people with a mean age of 34.75y from Nunavik. A mean SPM-raw score of 35.25 was calculated which had to be converted to a mean APM-raw score of 5.73, which is at the 2.03rd GBR-P
and equivalent to an uncor. IQ of 69.30 and a cor. IQ of 68.46 after
reduced by 0.84 for FE-correction.》
I don't believe the hispanic numbers are that high...
How do you know that your sample of whites is higher class, and blacks "lower" class? Isn't that extending personal bias into it. Why not just let the results stand as they are. Did you shop for more intelligent whites and less intelligent blacks? No? You simply took a sampling. A sampling is just that a sampling! Why is further explanation called for? The comment on the sample of blacks being a higher percentage of "lower class" I find annoying, or should I say excuse giving. If results had been reversed would you have referred to the white figure as "a sampling"! If we are going to have equity, then let's have actual equity for a change, an let the chips fall where they may.