A Proper Gander At Propaganda

Truth Transcends Community

"Propaganda in the United States is spread by both government and media entities. Propaganda is information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to influence opinions. It's used in advertising, radio, newspaper, posters, books, television, and other media."  -  Propaganda in the United States - Wikipedia

"A man without a government is like a fish without a bicycle.” Alvaro Koplovich

Article index

University Promoted Scientific Racism Exposed & Explored

"QUICK IQ TEST: HOW SMART ARE YOU?"

Chimp Beats Human: Intelligence Test  source: apeswillrise

Monkey See Monkey Do:

Grade The Monkey With "A" Low Hanging Piece of Fruit

Care to get mentally entrained to take the standardized test that will determine your future in the "Brave New World" that is forever "coming soon"?

(Don't tell anyone, but the "Brave New World" of Scientism is already here!)

Please excuse the inevitable typo.

 

Preface: John le Bon Asks A Thought Provoking Question That Got Me Thinking That I Am Not Very Smart

I like what John does. I really do. John recently posted a YouTube video about I.Q. Testing, asking the question, "How smart are you?" I had an exchange with him, (posted at the end of this article) that inspired this particular blog post. As you can read for yourselves, if you choose to, my response is not truly appropriate for a comment box as it has grown into this lengthy and "off topic", tangent ridden, article. I might have even misunderstood the reason why he posted the video. That is not the point of this article. The study he linked to is what really inspired this blog post and this study is really what I am responding to.

The I.Q. Test:  A Tool For Social Management (Washington Divide & Conquer Style™)

I am of the opinion that the history of the Social Darwinian influenced I.Q. Test supports the idea that this is not a true tool for any kind of real scientific measure and is instead a tool for the social engineer. One has to justify one's place in the artificial scheme of things, no? Those who are not as "gifted" need to be managed by those who are their mental superiors. It just makes "Naturally Selective" sense, does it not?

I.Q. Tests become a justification for one class or caste of humanity's control over the rest of us, lower down the social pyramid. In the age of "Democracy", rule is not by Blue Blood; laws are made and enforced with the consent of the governed. Most people accept the authority of the official sanctioned scientist teams. Most accept the resulting laws and social policies that are highly influenced by the think tank thought police. Scientism seems to be a real religion that inflicts many minds, and many of these minds would seem to be in positions of influence and power.

 

We human beings like to blame one group or another for our collective problems.

 

Perhaps we might want to consider that we do it all to ourselves.

We take advantage of each other and this seems to be basic human nature. We can blame the Royal Blue Bloods and their upper level University trained, elite servants all we want. The reality is we can really only look in the mirror, as we need to change our immediate environments, if we really want to change the world. If we focus on our local family and communities we can slowly begin to take some small steps towards humanizing this very inhuman system of governance we are all subjected to, in one way or another. In some ways, the Royals and their elite minions are as much slaves to this inhuman system as we all are. If we want to change the world for the better, we might seek to put aside the differences that create all the various social divides. We might want to reach out to those we disagree with and try to keep open minds.

Communication Is Key

When we communicate with those in our real and local lives, we might want to put aside subjects like NASA and war and media news fakery, 9/11 and Flat Earth lies. We might desire to seek to communicate effectively with those that do not understand how the world is really run. Most of us do not know that the News is state controlled from the top. Most do not realize how Hollywood is the propaganda arm of the United States Governmental Enterprise™. Most believe the modern News journalist and hang on every word like they would at a Sunday sermon. If we want to change the world, we might want to look it into communicating effectively with those we do not agree with, with those who do not see the world as we do. We do not do that by claiming the Earth is flat or that World War Two was fake. We could just focus on the more obvious and demonstrable fact that governments do not serve any of us. We could focus on how the international banking industry demonstrably buys political influence and we can show how governmental legislature usually always favors big business over the little guy or gal. The mom and pop store gets screwed into the ground by big banking Home Despots. We can show how government promoted Drug Wars and other schemes are examples of profit motivated governmental overreach. Perhaps we can get more of us to question governmental authority and the need for government in the first place. We actually only need locally controlled, simple bureaucracy based management over our individual lives. We need a lot less fees, fines and jail time. We should not be footing the bill for jail stays for people who have done nothing to anyone but themselves. The very Criminal Justice system is a criminally contrived commercial scheme.

 

Underlying Assumptions Shape Perceptions & Conclusions. Underlying Assumptions Filter Reality.

The truth is that I do not think much of the famous I.Q. Test, so that's my personal bias right out in the open. This editorial is an attempt to explain why I think what I do. By the way, I don't feel the need to comment on John's YouTube video any further as I am coming to the conclusion that the online comment box is not really meant for thoughtful responses as much as it is designed for the quick and simple praise or troll like snide comment. I am going to try to avoid the comment box response and instead will attempt to focus whatever thoughts I have here on this website where I have the proper format to do so. This is not some kind of debate or gotcha game. This blog post is just a collection of my thoughts and a look at the subject of the IQ test and what I think it may or may not mean. I am not claiming anyone is right or wrong, at least I am not claiming Mr. le Bon is wrong or anything like that. I am trying to take this subject apart to see how it works and to explain what I think is valid and what is not. Besides I am wise enough to know not to debate someone who would probably kick my ass in, ;). I only half jest. I think Mr. le Bon is a smart dude and I would rather avoid a confrontation with such a formidable mental "gunslinger". I also don't  personally find debating to be very useful or rewarding, as it seems too much like a contest to me. If debating works for you, more power to you.  I don't care if I end up realizing my opinion was incorrect. My beliefs do not define me. An opinion is just a belief and that belief may or may not be as valid and as based in demonstrable reality as I might believe it is. That's another reason why I enjoy having my belief system challenged, it helps me to let any emotional attachment I have to the ideas I think about, go. The more I do it the easier it seems to get. 

 

As it turns out, I had researched the subject of scientific racism some months back and had come across one Christoph Meiners. I was also already familiar with both the "Bell Curve" and the subject of I.Q. Tests, before watching Mr. le Bon's video.

 

Christoph Meiners was a very early practitioner of scientific racism. This seems to be more about defining social hierarchy than science.

Does this sound right in light of the long history of Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman style, orgiastic, sexual practices?

"In Meiners large work entitled Researches on the variations in human nature (1815), he studied the sexology of each race and claimed that the African Negroids have unduly strong and perverted sex drives whilst only the White Europeans have it just right."

"Meiners was a polygenist: he believed that each race had a separate origin. He was a very early practitioner of scientific racism. Meiners studied the physical, mental and moral characteristics of each race, and built a race hierarchy based on the evidence that was considered common in scientific and anthropological circles at the time. Meiners split mankind into two divisions which he labeled the "beautiful White race" and the "ugly Black race".  In Meiners book The Outline of History of Mankind he claimed that a main characteristic of race is either beauty or ugliness. He viewed only the white race as beautiful. He considered ugly races as inferior, immoral and animal like. He claimed that the black ugly peoples are distinct from the white beautiful peoples by their sad lack of virtue and their terrible vices."

"Meiners claimed the Negro felt less pain than any other race and lacked in emotions. Meiners wrote that the Negro had thick nerves and thus was not sensitive like the other races, he went as far to say that the Negro has “no human, barely any animal feeling” he described a story where a Negro was condemned to death by being burned alive, half way through the burning the Negro asked to smoke a pipe and smoked it like nothing was happening while he continued to be burned alive. Meiners studied the anatomy of the Negro and came to the conclusion that the Negro have bigger teeth and jaws than any other race, as the Negro are all carnivores. Meiners claimed the skull of the Negro was larger but the brain of the Negro was smaller than any other race. Meiners claimed the Negro was the most unhealthy race on earth because of the Negro's poor diet, mode of living and lack of morals." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Meiners

The Outline of History of Mankind

"Meiners claimed the Negro felt less pain than any other race and lacked in emotions"

This reads just like the justification for all sorts of slavery and other forms of social wage based division. Got to love how the social sausage is made. Dom't tell anyone, but the secret ingredient is human blood, sweat and tears. It's been this way for centuries, has it not?

I guess Meiners never heard anyone really sing the blues.

I'll get into more about Christoph Meiners in a proverbial "minute".

 

In My Opinion It Is Very Important To Engage With Those You Might Not Agree With: You Learn A Lot In This Manner

Your thoughts and ideas are for you to explore and to share if you want. I recommend heading over to John's website and exploring what he thinks and why. I personally find his work to be very thought provoking, at times humorous and generally worth looking into. His work on dinosaurs is both funny and insightful. His "I.Q. Test" video inspired this post which would be too long for a comment box anyway. I'm slowly learning that I really shouldn't even bother ever posting a comment since more often than not, the simple comment grows into a long "winded" essay. For example, John's video used to be up here at the top of this blog post, now it is "Lost In Space" somewhere down below around the middle of this "monster" that seems to seek to keep me both typing away and fixing incorrectly, autocorrected typos.

http://www.johnlebon.com

 

And so I typed: "IQ Tests are somewhat meaningless exercises."

I.Q. Tests, Scientific Racism & Darwinian Eugenics Examined

The I.Q. Test Can Measure Only A Narrow Range of Human Intellectual Capacity

The I.Q. Test is a pattern recognition test, It does not really define a human being's intellectual capacity as much as it is an exercise in brain teasing puzzle solving which has some limited use, but should not ever be confused with any kind of true measure of so-called "intelligence".

Do you equate intellectual capacity with one's ability to answer Jeopardy questions or to solve a cross world puzzle? Do grades really measure one's intellectual capacity or do scholastic grades really measure a combination of human traits? Does your score on the all important SAT tests really measure your intellect? Some subjects we excel in because we are naturally inclined to, some we excel in because we are obsessed with them. Some subjects we fail at because we don't understand them and give up trying to. Human beings are complex social creatures and one pattern recognition test cannot measure the true intellectual and creative capacity of a human being. Tests do not truly measure intelligence as much as they measure a combination of things like commitment and interest, natural capacity and natural drives and ambitions and all the rest.

I think it wise to question the validity of all the standardized testing that supports the educational system as it is today. I do not believe the curriculum is designed to truly educate young minds. I believe that modern education is more about indoctrination than true education.

I.Q.Tests are artifacts and tools of the system of social control. These kinds of tests represent narrow pattern recognition problem solving abilities and nothing more. These tests are more subjective than most think they are. The I.Q. Test based and similar studies seem to be conducted and published with social engineering intent in mind. Keep reading to see why I state what I do.

 

I.Q. Tests As The Social Engineering Tools of The Scientism High Priest Class

The I.Q. Test reinforces Social Darwinian memes and ideas. Metaphysics and cosmology have long been used to justify an ever changing Babel-like ferris wheel of new ideas to base the organization and social structures of civilization on. Institutionalized religions and social structures of all sorts rely on various dogmatically enforced cosmologies and dinosaurs and Darwinism are just more recent artifacts of the same old school style, ole timey religion. Popes and emperors and kings, have long been interested in calendars, time, and banking rings; the Royally minted minds have long been enamored with the socially and artfully reinforced order of things.

I.Q. Tests As Scientific Racism Would Seem To Seek To "Scientifically" Enforce Some Kind of Feudal Social Pyramid Scheme

Nothing like the "Good Times" of playing the old racist card game. Nothing like dividing and conquering the working class public into more easily managed cartoonish social divides.

Do You Believe The Modern Educational System Teaches Students How To Critically Think For Themselves?

Do You Think This Would Be A Good Idea If You Believe They Do Not?

What is more important to you, being able to regurgitate a peer reviewed educational catechism or being able to critically analyze information and to question underlying assumptions in order to understand how things really work? Is it better to cling to unexamined scholastically authoritative presumption or to take the harder and longer road of self education? Are questions about humanity so easily answered and sorted by things like I.Q. Tests? 

This editorial simply represents what I think and why. I have my own personal prejudices and am as human as everyone else. None of us can claim to be perfect and I know I have made more mistakes than I care to think about. I have made so many I no longer fear admitting when I am wrong and I really do try to keep as open a mind as I can. The thing is I also believe we are shaped by conscious and unconscious forces and we cannot always adequately explain or communicate what we think and why. In other words, a person might be 100% correct and they might not be able to either communicate this understanding to others or even themselves in any kind of conscious way. Our individual behavior would seem to be a very complex interaction between the individual and the greater social structures and this would appear to be the basis for how our individual personalities are shaped. This is why I think the I.Q. Test is a lot less valid than its proponents claim it is. Real human intellectual capacity and creativity is not so easily measured and is more subjective than most people seem to realize. This is my opinion of course. Your individual ideas and experiences might just vary.

I simply believe that we are more complex and that the brain is more plastic than most people might realize. Learning never really stops, one can always tend to their own "mind gardens" and grow a more complex network of neural connections. Personal interests and all sorts of conscious and unctuousness behaviors and ideas shape our resulting performances on standardized tests. These individual differences also shape whether or not we actually have interest in a subject in the first place. Complex social interactions shape our behavior in more ways than a lot of us might realize or usually consider. The I.Q. Test cannot replace a through robust, anthropological, mass psychological, sociological, biological and all the other "logicals", study. In other words it is unwise to conclude much of anything based on the famous I.Q. Test.

The I.Q. Test Would Seem To Be A Great Propaganda Tool For The Social Enginneers

Nothing like reinforcing social divides to keep the mass of humanity properly sorted into the various layers of wage slavery and prison based commercial projects. "Dark skinned" people always worked outside. The light skinned stayed behind their castle walls hidden beneath layers of Royal blue blooded garb. The British Royals and their continental cousins sure seem to love funding all sorts of Nazi and opposing shadow puppet controlled, Zionist like movements that do more to create even more social divides than they do to teach real human compassion, empathy and tolerance. Everything from America Revolts to French Wars to Israel building holocausts are more the result of scripted British Royal sponsored social engineering, commercial enterprises, than real examples of war and destruction. History is more myth than most seem to like to admit.

Real revolutions do not seem to ever really occur. They seem to become managed affairs that only lead to more needless layers of propaganda promoting and (fake) war profiteering government. If the American Revolt were real, the United States would not exist. Neither would individual states. Things like Governors and Counties would be gone. In their place would be local bureaucracies that actually served humanity. Most of us seem more than happy to ask for even more layers of external governance and control over our lives in an attempt to save the "world", which always seems to need saving. It's a shame "they' can never figure it all out, and save the world for once and for all, despite all those Asian dudes with high IQs, hanging about. (see below for more)

 

Side Show Snake Oil Salesman Charlie Darwin's Monkey's Uncle's Son Wants To Know: Hey What's Your IQ?

Step right up, step right up. Get in line. "Blacks" on the left and "Whites" on the right. Sort yourselves into easily managed groups, please, we do not have all night. Got some time to take a test? Just give it your best guess.

The Sun Never Set's On The British Holy Roaming Enterprise & Criminal Racket-Mafia Empire

 

Darwin's Cousin Creates A Natural Selection Process To Justify The Subjugation of The Naturally Occurring Indigenous Human Population Around The Globe:

Eugenically Yours, with love, cousin Francis Galton

 

An I.Q. Culturally Communicated Bias is Born

"While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.

The expansion of the British Empire fitted in with the broader notion of social Darwinism used from the 1870s onwards to account for the remarkable and universal phenomenon of "the Anglo-Saxon overflowing his boundaries ", as phrased by the late-Victorian sociologist Benjamin Kidd in Social Evolution, published in 1894". The concept also proved useful to justify what was seen by some as the inevitable extermination of "the weaker races who disappear before the stronger" not so much "through the effects of … our vices upon them" as "what may be called the virtues of our civilization."  "

"Another of these social interpretations of Darwin's biological views, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, the same could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social morals needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision in order to avoid both the over-breeding by less fit members of society and the under-breeding of the more fit ones."

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

 

Have To Manage The Royally Funded International Banker Managed House of Cartoon Tarot Cards, Pyramid Scheme 101:

Tarzan the Apeman was crucified "just in the Nick of Time", on an African jungle vine. He was all hung up for three days and he hanged for three days more. And three days later, eleven maidens showed up knocking' at Death's Heavenly Hidden Secret, Speak-Easy Door.

The "Science Council" of Legendary Krypton Thought They Knew Better Too: We Know How That Myth Turns Out

There is very real modern belief and faith in peer reviewed science to "Save The World!" Many people seem to really trust peer revered science. Some peer reviewed science makes sense when examined and some does not. I would say the I.Q. Test fails to live up to its reputation. You might think different. Me, I see a limited test that can measure a certain trait of the human intellect. I think this test has limits that have to do with social conditioning. and communication. I think the I.Q. test is somewhat subjective and culturally and sub culturally relative in terms of presentation and design and this severely limits any assumptions derived from studies that use I.Q. tests as their source. Do we really want some kind of science council essentially crafting laws and policy that well effect every single human being on this planet? Do we really want our lives run by external authority? Would we not rather have the so-called scientific experts and authorities simply make their ideas and studies available for the individual to consider for themselves? Do we need to use things like I.Q. Tests to justify more governmental control over individual human life and choice?

 

Do you not see how the I.Q. Test is more of a propaganda tool than real science?

Can you not at least understand why people would be critical of any assumptions derived from such standardized testing?

 

Do you think it a good idea to have a bunch of governmental backed, self proclaimed &  peer reviewed scientists decide your fate for you?

 

The Origins of Specious 1984 "Brave New World" Thinking: Crafting The Illusion of The "Superior" Intelligence

Do I.Q Tests promote a sense of superiority among those who have scored well solving pattern recognition puzzles? Don't get me wrong, I do think there is something to recognizing patterns, I just think that there are to many unaccounted variables to take any conclusion anyone comes to based on I.Q. seriously. An otherwise brilliant patter recognizer might not score as well as they could even on a visual based I.Q. Test for a myriad of reasons that would lead one to associate a certain set of patterns with another in what might very well be a subject manner that is still demonstrably sound. Some I.Q. Test problems might arguably have more than one logical solution. Yes "Virginia-Slim", logic can be subjective and at times, somewhat arbitrary too.

 

"Galton argued that social morals needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision in order to avoid both the over-breeding by less fit members of society and the under-breeding of the more fit ones."

Does this seem like a good idea to you? Do we want the impersonal power of zombie like adherence to a peer revered and reviewed, peer parroted, system define your existence for you? Do you think it a good idea to have some kind of official definition of intelligence? Do you really trust peer reviewed group think with your life? Do you think the Golden Rule wise or not, and why?

The famous I.Q. Test would seem to be a great tool for social control. No vast conspiracy needed to explain humanity's all too real and seemingly instinctual need to fracture ourselves into divided and conquered and more easily managed, global, socially controlled human resource based communes. The vast global enterprise we call call home relies on reinforcing seemingly naturally occurring all too human social divides. Italian Americans would divide themselves based up on the region of Italy they were from. Italian Roman Catholics would divide themselves from Irish Roman Catholics, and on and on. The story remains the same. Human nature is what it is. Someone can always seem to find some kind of problem with someone else and there always seems to be some kind of secondary and unimportant characteristic or interest that we ourselves can use to leverage ourselves and each other into a more socially divisive world instead of the more harmonious one most of us would seem to actually want.

Look at all the online community building effort. This seems to me to be what humanity will naturally and instinctually seek to do. I don't think we need to resort to any great conspiracy theory to explain basic human nature. Online we do not see skin color. Online we do not see gender. Online we can pretend to be whoever and even maybe whatever we want. Some of us seek to bring this kind of virtual roleplaying into the real world. This is nothing new as most of us play roles in the artificial world we call home. Some play doctor and some lawyer an yes, a few still even get to play the mythical "Indian Chief", at Casinos across the land.

The college campus and mainstream multimedia promoted rainbow offering of gender choices is a generational and Babel-like, divide and conquer strategy disguised as some kind of expression of true freedom and true tolerance. Self identifying as one's personal (adult) behavior choices seems unwise to me, but hey, people will do what they want. By the way, this self identifying as one's personal adult sexual behavior choices further encourages a breaking down of one's own individual privacy in favor of telling everyone everything about oneself in the internet maintained world of digitally reinforced soap operatic social media soup. Post about your personal choices online and self identify as them to your friends and family as well.

Skin color has long been an easy go to for those of us who insist on looking for a divisive rationale for justifying all sorts of behavior and beliefs. Elite plantation owning slave masters and mistresses probably had an easier time owning their fellow human beings who simply looked different from them. It's a good thing that God had been so considerate as to color and brand the African human resource the right "color" for slavery. It's also a good thing God was so kind as to create a servant race below that of the European peasant. Now the Feudal serf could have someone they could feel superior to. 

The legendary I.Q. Test seems like a bad way to go about measuring something that seems to be nonsensical in the first place. Is pattern recognition really a true measure of intelligence? Are I.Q. Tests even valid in the first place? I do not think they are and will attempt to communicate why as clearly as I possibly can. I simply do not agree that the I.Q. Test is really a valid way to truly measure one's intellectual and creative capacity and I think human beings are more complicated than these studies seem to suggest we are. I think criticism of standardized testing has a lot of merit to it and I think the I.Q. Test and the study John le Bon linked to, (see below) are the tip of a kindergarten educational iceberg that we shall now "explore". 

Is Our Children Learning? Are The Scientists Biased?

Compare the idea that America I.Q. is increasing (based upon statistics and standard test scores) with the idea that American students are lagging behind their own prior year scores and the rest of the world in terms of educational knowledge, (based upon statistics and standard test scores). Does the I.Q. Test mean much of anything at all other than a pattern recognition puzzle game? It is more like a series of brain teasers than a real test. Does an increase in IQ mean as much as advertised? Those who make a living in the field of I.Q. Tests would seem to have conscious and unconscious motivation to filter reality to suit their own expectations, no?

"Over the past 100 years, Americans' mean IQ has been on a slow but steady climb. Between 1900 and 2012, it rose nearly 30 points, which means that the average person of 2012 had a higher IQ than 95 percent of the population had in 1900.

Political scientist James Flynn, PhD, of the University of Otago in New Zealand, first discovered those astonishing IQ gains nearly 30 years ago. Since then, the steady rise in IQ scores in the United States and throughout the developed world has been dubbed the "Flynn effect." "

Smarter than ever? - American Psychological Association

VS

"Fourth-graders and eighth-graders across the United States lost ground on national mathematics tests this year, the first declines in scores since the federal government began administering the exams in 1990.

Reading performance also was sobering: Eighth-grade scores dropped, according to results released Wednesday, while fourth-grade performance was stagnant compared with 2013, the last time students took the test."

U.S. student performance slips on national test - The Washington Post

"Internationally, U.S. Students Are Falling: The latest global snapshot of student performance shows declining math scores in the U.S. and stagnant performance in science and reading."

U.S. Students Falling Flat on Math, Science and Reading Scores | U.S. ...

An Excerpt From "Performance on Raven's Matrices by African and White University Students in South Africa": 

Whether or not such research is racist or not in intent, the answer is more standardized tests and more governmental involvement in the individual's life. The peer reviewed consensus reality generating scientist knows best, after all. Below is the conclusion the authors of a study that a recent John le Bon video made reference to:

"Rather than abandoning standardized testing in South Africa as ``racist,'' research should be conducted even more intensively. A useful first step is developing educational programs to identify, nurture, and recognize more of the talents of more of the pupils. This requires obtaining normalized distributions for the African population on existing tests and developing new tests, including those of social intelligence. Experimental treatments such as teaching problem-solving techniques and assessing the effectiveness of mediation (e.g., as defined by Feuerstein, 1980), as well as providing vitamin and mineral supplements to enhance cognitive functioning, should be examined. (There is evidence that vitamin± mineral supplements can add necessary trace elements to the brain in those who may have been deprived of them and so improve test scores; Eysenck & Schoenthaler, 1997.) Examining these questions will tell us a lot, not just about group differences, but about the nature and nurture of intelligence as well. "

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

Are I.Q. Tests anything but brainteasing, pattern recognition puzzles? They do not seem to be as important as proponents claim.

 

Do You Think This Is True?

Are taller people with bigger heads smarter than the rest of us? Does "size" really matter when it comes to grey matter?

"East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans"

One of the authors of "Performance on Raven's Matrices by African and White University Students in South Africa" and apparently the primary one, is J. Philippe Rushton. This guy is known for some provocative ideas regarding the importance of IQ and I.Q. Testing:

"Rushton was a proponent of that idea that racial differences in IQ are partially related to genetic inheritance. Research areas includes brain size, effects of inbreeding depression on IQ, and effects of admixture."

"He first published this theory in 1984. Rushton argues that East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Race_and_intelligence

 

Compare To The Royal European Work of This Goldie Locks Might is Right-Euro-White-Science Guy:

We will explore more of this guy's crazy ideas later on. Let's keep in mind that the European Culture that dominates the globe and that has done so for centuries is a white male dominated endeavor. All of our understanding of culture is filtered through this reality. For those of us raised with a full on western traditional style culture, we more than likely take many things for granted that other people would not. What we consider to be "intelligence" might be more subjective and complex than we might be inclined to realize.  What we consider to be a clearly communicated visual problem might not be so clearly communicated to someone with a different cultural or even subcultural background. There are all sorts of belief based and unscientifically sound biases that can cloud human judgement. Conclusions drawn from studies are not as objective as those who sell such studies suggest.  The authors of some of these studies would seem to have professionally motivated biases to filter out other ideas and to focus only on the theories and ideas they are known for. These researchers are human too and are subject to the same social reward conditioning all of us are subject to. This is another reason why we need less governmental regulation over our individual lives. We need to end things like the Drug War, we need to end laws that punish us for adult personal behavior choices. We need more of the Golden Rule and less of the endless litany of eternally generated human commandments. We need to say No to government, not ask and beg for more of it.

"In Meiners large work entitled Researches on the variations in human nature (1815), he studied the sexology of each race and claimed that the African Negroids have unduly strong and perverted sex drives whilst only the White Europeans have it just right."

"Meiners was a polygenist: he believed that each race had a separate origin. He was a very early practitioner of scientific racism. Meiners studied the physical, mental and moral characteristics of each race, and built a race hierarchy based on the evidence that was considered common in scientific and anthropological circles at the time. Meiners split mankind into two divisions which he labeled the "beautiful White race" and the "ugly Black race".  In Meiners book The Outline of History of Mankind he claimed that a main characteristic of race is either beauty or ugliness. He viewed only the white race as beautiful. He considered ugly races as inferior, immoral and animal like. He claimed that the black ugly peoples are distinct from the white beautiful peoples by their sad lack of virtue and their terrible vices."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Meiners

So much for privacy. How seriously should we take this elitist's perverted and busy body ideas?

 

Problem, Reaction, Solution Interactions:

Bill Gates, Vaccines, The U.N. Agenda, Africa & I.Q. Tests

I.Q. Tests are examples of standardized tests, These authors of course claim the solution to the problem they themselves propose, is more standardized testing and some Big Pharma promoted vitamin and mineral supplements. I wonder who will pay to fund all of this? This sounds a lot like the typical interventionist UN style "We" need to help the "poor victim" who cannot help themselves. We will help them with more standardized tests and more layers of external guidance and governance. Perhaps a better idea would have been to have left the indigenous inhabitants of the world to their own devices. The commercially obsessed enterprising European minds would seem to have had (ands still do) other ideas. How high an I.Q. does one need to hunt and farm? How high an I.Q. do you need to raise livestock and build a dwelling of some kind? How high of an I.Q. do you need to know the power we all have when we work together as a collective with one united purpose in mind? Can you see why the international bankers and the royalty have long used war to keep us all turning the wheel of industry for seemingly all time? War and fear of war keeps most f us united as a workforce. There are reasons why social engineers exists and why artist are employed to craft the constructs of culture. It all has to do with the management of the global human resource. Someone usually commissions studies like these, by the way. And those "someones" are usually elite royal foundations of one kind or another.

"Performance on Raven's Matrices by African and White University Students in South Africa": 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Do I.Q. Tests Measure Anything But A Skill At Brainteaser Pattern Recognition Puzzle Solving?

Are there not more factor that go into what we term "intelligence", and isn't some of this relative to the culture and sub culture? Isn't some of this a matter of true interest and commutation? Are the questions all really communicated as clearly as possible? Aren't there many factors the I.Q. Test ignores? Are standardized tests real measures of anything? Is the modern school educational curriculum really that valuable in the first place? Are students really taught how to think for themselves in a critical manner or are they really taught and rewarded for clever choral like parrot responses and recitals of officially sanctioned dogma, whether that dogma is demonstrably valid or not? Do studies and statistical analysis based on narrow tests like I.Q. Tests really mean much of anything and can we even trust underlying assumptions or should we critically address the subject manner?

Quick I.Q. Test: How Smart Is I?

Quick I.Q. Test - How Smart Are You? source: John le Bon

The I.Q. Test, The Test Where The Problems Become Progressively More Difficult:

Why not show the more difficult problems?

An Excerpt From "Performance on Raven's Matrices by African and White University Students in South Africa": 

"The SPM is usually regarded as a good measure of the non-verbal component of general intelligence not bound by culturally specific information. It was designed to measure Spearman's (1927) g, the general factor of intelligence, or at least the non-verbal component thereof. It is also described as a measure of ``the ability to identify relation- ships,'' ``analogical thinking,'' and the ability to ``think clearly'' (Raven et al., 1996, SPM 1). It consists of 60 diagrammatic puzzles, each with a missing part that the test taker attempts to identify from eight options. The 60 puzzles are divided into five sets (A, B, C, D, and E) of 12 items each. In each set, the first problem is as nearly self-evident as possible. The problems which follow build on the same reasoning as those that have gone before and provide opportunities to grasp the method of thought required to solve the problems, which become progressively more difficult. To ensure sustained interest and freedom from fatigue, each problem is boldly presented, accurately drawn, and, as far as possible, pleasing to look at. No time limit is set and all testees are allowed to complete the test." 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

One of the authors of the study in question was J. Philippe Rushton Who Believed Asians Were The Smartest "Race":

"Rushton was a proponent of that idea that racial differences in IQ are partially related to genetic inheritance. Research areas includes brain size, effects of inbreeding depression on IQ, and effects of admixture."

"He first published this theory in 1984. Rushton argues that East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Race_and_intelligence

Rushton's Race Of Platonic Level World Leaders Revealed: It's The Communist Chinese & The North Koreans!

J. Philippe Rushton would seem to then think that the world was in fact mismanaged as white European elite influenced minds of all kinds seem more than happy to maintain the European inspired commercial enterprise we call home. Maybe we should only elect men of the "Asian Race" to offices of political and commercial power. That's where Rushton's logic would seem to lead. Who are the legendary technological minds of history? Did they take I.Q. tests? I don't think Edison took an I.Q. test, nor did any of all the original engineering pioneers who brought the electronic age to life. Are I.Q. Tests really that relevant? Should they be be a basis for anything at all? Should we not want many other forms of data and other sources of information before coming to any kind of conclusion? Is that unreasonable?

Be Afraid Of "Alien" Mind Control: Respect The External Authority of The University Approved Author

In my opinion this author has a preconceived bias that might blind him to alternative interpretations of the supposed data. People with strong opinions tend to shut out ideas they deem alien, much in the same manner people do tend to empathize more with those they think they have something in common with. Skin color and hair type is but one set of attributes. Shared interests is an obvious other one as any self proclaimed "Flat Earther For 9/11 Truth and Exposing NASA lies", will tell you. The author seems to cherry pick ideas that support his position in an illogical and fallacious manner. But that's my opinion, your results might vary. I will continue to elaborate.

J. Philippe Rushton Believes Asians Are The Most Intelligent "Race"

And He Believes in a "Race" That Caucasian Europeans Are Incapable of "Winning"

"Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995) uses r/K selection theory to explain how East Asians consistently average high, blacks low, and whites in the middle on an evolutionary scale of characteristics indicative of nurturing behavior. He first published this theory in 1984. Rushton argues that East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants. He theorizes that r/K selection theory explains these differences."

 

A RACIST INTERLUDE:

Getting History "White"

"The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785).  Meiners' term was given wider circulation in the 1790s by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German professor of medicine and member of the British Royal Society, who is considered one of the founders of the discipline of anthropology."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Meiners

SCIENTIFIC RACISM IS ALL THE RAGE!

"Meiners was a polygenist: he believed that each race had a separate origin. He was a very early practitioner of scientific racism. Meiners studied the physical, mental and moral characteristics of each race, and built a race hierarchy based on the evidence that was considered common in scientific and anthropological circles at the time. Meiners split mankind into two divisions which he labeled the "beautiful White race" and the "ugly Black race".  In Meiners book The Outline of History of Mankind he claimed that a main characteristic of race is either beauty or ugliness.  He viewed only the white race as beautiful. He considered ugly races as inferior, immoral and animal like. He claimed that the black ugly peoples are distinct from the white beautiful peoples by their sad lack of virtue and their terrible vices."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Meiners

According to Meiners:

"The more intelligent and noble people are by nature, the more adaptable, sensitive, delicate, and soft is their body; on the other hand, the less they possess the capacity and disposition towards virtue, the more they lack adaptability; and not only that, but the less sensitive are their bodies, the more can they tolerate extreme pain or the rapid alteration of heat and cold; when they are exposed to illnesses, the more rapid their recovery from wounds that would be fatal for more sensitive peoples, and the more they can partake of the worst and most indigestible foods ... without noticeable ill effects. 

Meiners claimed the Negro felt less pain than any other race and lacked in emotions. Meiners wrote that the Negro had thick nerves and thus was not sensitive like the other races, he went as far to say that the Negro has “no human, barely any animal feeling” he described a story where a Negro was condemned to death by being burned alive, half way through the burning the Negro asked to smoke a pipe and smoked it like nothing was happening while he continued to be burned alive. Meiners studied the anatomy of the Negro and came to the conclusion that the Negro have bigger teeth and jaws than any other race, as the Negro are all carnivores. Meiners claimed the skull of the Negro was larger but the brain of the Negro was smaller than any other race. Meiners claimed the Negro was the most unhealthy race on earth because of the Negro's poor diet, mode of living and lack of morals. 

Meiners also claimed Native Americans were an inferior stock of people. He claimed that Indians cannot adapt to different climates, different types of food or modes of life and that when they are exposed to these new conditions they lapse into a “deadly melancholy”. Meiners studied the diet of the Indians and said that they can feed off any kind of “foul offal” and that they consume huge amounts of alcohol. According to Meiners the Indians are extremely thick as the Spanish conquerors found out when their blades shattered on them. Meiners also claimed the skin of a Native American is thicker than an ox. 

Meiners wrote that the noblest race was the Celts, and they were able to conquer various parts of the world, were more sensitive to heat and cold and their delicacy is shown by the way they are selective about what they eat. Meiners claimed Slavs are an inferior race, "less sensitive and content with eating rough food”, he described stories of Slavs eating poisonous fungi without coming to any harm. He claimed that their medical techniques were also backwards such as the Slavs baking sick people in ovens then making them roll in the snow.[4]

Below the slavs are the peoples of the Middle East and Asia, all limited in intelligence and of an evil disposition, which goes together with lack of adaptability and insensitivity. 

In Meiners large work entitled Researches on the variations in human nature (1815), he studied the sexology of each race and claimed that the African Negroids have unduly strong and perverted sex drives whilst only the White Europeans have it just right."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Meiners

 

Nature vs Nurture & The Validity of The IQ Test Explored

What does the IQ Test measure? Have you ever taken one? The seem to measure a person's pattern recognition ability., I believe there are verbal ones and visual ones and online ones you can go and take now. You can take them over and over and begin to get good at taking them. There are many online weskits that offer these tests. I have taken them many times and can tell you that the answers you might think are logically correct do not always turn out to be. Your results will likely wary so I recommend you go and take a few of the free ones online, if they still exist. Many charge for the results after you have spent the time taking them.

 

HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN AN I.Q. TEST?

One should not assume they aced this test. It is important to get the official score after taking the I.Q. Test otherwise the exercise is pointless. When we allow ourselves to be tested we are end up trying to measure up to someone else's idea of right and wrong. We do not get to grade out own educational tests do we? When it comes to pattern recognition tests, the answers might end up being more subjective the more complex the question.

One has to take the test for themselves to understand what I mean.

 

The SPM I.Q. Test seems to be a measure of a person's ability to understand visual based, brain teasing, communication systems.

"An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence. The abbreviation "IQ" was coined by the psychologist William Stern for the German term Intelligenzquotient, his term for a scoring method for intelligence tests at University of Wrocław he advocated in a 1912 book."

"Historically, IQ is a score obtained by dividing a person’s mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the person’s chronological age, both expressed in terms of years and months. The resulting fraction is multiplied by 100 to obtain the IQ score." 

"When current IQ tests were developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less, although this was not always so historically. By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores are between IQ 85 and IQ 115. About 5 percent of the population scores above 125, and 5 percent below 75. 

"Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence because concrete measurements (e.g. distance, mass) cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of "intelligence". " 

"IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality, parental social status,  and, to a substantial degree, biological parental IQ."

"While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates and the mechanisms of inheritance." 

"IQ scores are used for educational placement, assessment of intellectual disability, and evaluating job applicants. Even when students improve their scores on standardized tests, they do not always improve their cognitive abilities, such as memory, attention and speed. In research contexts they have been studied as predictors of job performance, and income. They are also used to study distributions of psychometric intelligence in populations and the correlations between it and other variables. Raw scores on IQ tests for many populations have been rising at an average rate that scales to three IQ points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. Investigation of different patterns of increases in subtest scores can also inform current research on human intelligence."

Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia

 

Pavlov's Dog Loves To Earn Credit Card & Hotel Stay, Airline Flight Reward Miles

What does the I.Q. Test really measure? Does one's performance depend on a willingness to engage in the activity itself? What motivates a person's desire to focus all of their attention for some sixty or so questions that are visual puzzles? Is this really a valid measure of intelligence or does this actually demonstrate a combination of pattern recognition and  persistence? What is the incentive for doing well on an IQ test? Is it to feel superior because one has a legendary high I.Q.? Could cultural differences explain the results? Specifically could the results of IQ tests have more to do with a cultural sense of social duty and a respect for external authority in the first place? I would argue that when we see people claim Asians are the most intelligent, Africans, the least and White Europeans in the Golden Locked "center", we are seeing the result of c culturally conditioned need to appease external authority. I'd argue that Asian culture tends to condition its citizenry to respect external authority more than Euroopean culture. I'd wager that the African cultural influence would mean that this students would care even less about impressing external authority with their obedience. I think one can argue that there is less socially conditioned reasoning to provide impetus for the behavior required to do well on the I.Q. test, and this might better explain the results.

The Science of The Social Divide & Conquer Strategy: Tell The Reader What To Think

Below are excepts from the linked study. It seems clear to me that the authors have a bias. Your results may vary of course and your thoughts are your own to both mind and mine. These authors seem to dismiss other explanations and ideas in favor of their own preconceived notions. The authors admit the test itself is subjective. "To ensure sustained interest and freedom from fatigue, each problem is boldly presented, accurately drawn, and, as far as possible, pleasing to look at. No time limit is set and all testees are allowed to complete the test." This is a quote from the article. If you looked at the test would you agree with these subjective aesthetic statements? Do you think marketers, graphic designers and advertisers have it easy? Do you think communication is simple? Do you think trying to effectively communicate a pattern recognition system labeled as the I.Q. Test, easy or a difficult task? Do you think we can disagree over whether or not something is communicated as effectively as it could be or not? Do you think there is an absolute truth to be found in the quoted statement? The I.Q. test has to use language of either the typographical or visual or mathematical kind. This then becomes a subject that includes the art of communication and we cannot merely ignore the very real possibility of obvious culturally influenced biases.

I.Q. Tests = Human Pattern Recognition Tests

This quote shows us that these scientists are not actually engaging in science. This statement is an obvious subjective one that can do nothing but act to bias the opinions of those reading this study. Everyone has different subjective responses to all sorts of empirical based observations. A manufactured and contrived set of some sixty abstract questions visually presented is art not science. It is graphic design and the question becomes one of whether or not such communication is appropriate for the audience in question. This seems to be a marketing and demographics problem as much it represents any kind of accurate measure of human pattern recognition.

Heres' the Solution Proposed By The Authors;

MORE STANDARDIZED TESTS, IMAGINE THAT!

This reads a lot like the Bill Gates, UN style social manipulative agenda that Africa and the rest of the world has been subject to for centuries.

"Rather than abandoning standardized testing in South Africa as ``racist,'' research should be conducted even more intensively. A useful first step is developing educational programs to identify, nurture, and recognize more of the talents of more of the pupils. This requires obtaining normalized distributions for the African population on existing tests and developing new tests, including those of social intelligence. Experimental treatments such as teaching problem-solving techniques and assessing the effectiveness of mediation (e.g., as defined by Feuerstein, 1980), as well as providing vitamin and mineral supplements to enhance cognitive functioning, should be examined. (There is evidence that vitamin± mineral supplements can add necessary trace elements to the brain in those who may have been deprived of them and so improve test scores; Eysenck & Schoenthaler, 1997.) Examining these questions will tell us a lot, not just about group differences, but about the nature and nurture of intelligence as well. "

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"Performance on Raven's Matrices by African and White University Students in South Africa "

J. Philippe Rushton

University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Mervyn Skuy

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

"Untimed Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) were administered to 309 17- to 23-year-old students at the University of the Witwatersrand and the Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg, South Africa (173 Africans, 136 Whites; 205 women, 104 men). African students solved an average of 44 of the 60 problems whereas White students solved an average of 54 of the problems (p<0.001). By the standards of the 1993 US normative sample, the African university students scored at the 14th percentile and the White university students scored at the 61st percentile (IQ equivalents of 84 and 104, respectively). The African ± White differences were found to be greater on those items of the SPM with the highest item ± total correlations, indicating a difference in g, or the general factor of intelligence. A small sex difference favoring males was found in both the African and the White samples, but unrelated to g."

"An exception to the pattern of low African test scores is a study by Crawford-Nutt (1976) who found that 228 African high school students from Johannesburg had a mean score equal to that for Whites. Crawford-Nutt (1976) used a special demonstration apparatus to administer the SPM to ensure complete understanding of the test requirements. The mean score for the African pupils was the same as the mean for the Raven's normative group."

"The author concluded that ``[T]he frequently encountered poor performance of Blacks on tests of ability could be simply an artifact of the method of administering the test'' (p. 205)." 

"Unfortunately, the author did not use a control group, which did not receive the special instructions. Whether the performance of Crawford-Nutt's testees is attributable to the special test instructions or to the fact that this particular high school attracts only the top students from feeder schools is not clear." 

"To ensure sustained interest and freedom from fatigue, each problem is boldly presented, accurately drawn, and, as far as possible, pleasing to look at. No time limit is set and all testees are allowed to complete the test."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Only 309 Students

Where's the control group of this statistical "scientific" study? The authors of this study criticize the authors of a study that concluded "`The frequently encountered poor performance of Blacks on tests of ability could be simply an artifact of the method of administering the test.'' for not having a control group and yet I have to wonder what was the control group they used? I agree that the Crawford-Nutt study could have used a control group, that makes sense. But then why didn't it occur to the author's of this study to repeat the Crawford-Nutt experiment themselves with a control group? Aren't scientists supposed to repeat experiments? This does also bring up a good question, what control group did J. Philippe Rushton use? Is a control group really applicable when one is conducting such speculative "studies" in the first place? The I.Q. Test does not seem like a valid tool to use to measure anything scientifically. It appears to be little more than some kind of neo-social Darwinism tool.

Where's Their Control Group?

"Untimed Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) were administered to 309 17- to 23-year-old students at the University of the Witwatersrand and the Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg, South Africa (173 Africans, 136 Whites; 205 women, 104 men). African students solved an average of 44 of the 60 problems whereas White students solved an average of 54 of the problems (p<0.001). By the standards of the 1993 US normative sample, the African university students scored at the 14th percentile and the White university students scored at the 61st percentile (IQ equivalents of 84 and 104, respectively). The African ± White differences were found to be greater on those items of the SPM with the highest item ± total correlations, indicating a difference in g, or the general factor of intelligence. A small sex difference favoring males was found in both the African and the White samples, but unrelated to g."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Procedure

"Testing was conducted by both of the authors and five MA research assistants, two of whom were African, in large examination halls with desks spaced well apart to prevent copying from others. To ensure the diligence with which participants approached their tasks, the instructions requested students to wait quietly at their desks if they finished before 30 min. After 30 min, however, they could come to the front of the room, hand in their answer sheets and test booklets, and receive payment. A handful of students (all African) took the full time available. The SPM was administered without any time limits (up to 1.5 h), but was typically completed within 30 min."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

How Do You Define Intelligence?

Do you associate high intelligence with performing well on brainteasing standardized tests or do you associate it with the overall intellectual performance of a human being? Do you think one needs to score high on an I.Q. Test in order to be able to understand how to construct a home? Do you think you need a high I.Q. score to be able to learn to be an electrician, a plumber, a mason? Do you fix your own toilet when it breaks? Do you do your own electrical wiring, do you fix your own automobile engine? How do you define intelligence? Can you survive alone in the wild with no technology at your disposal? Is the world of highly artificial reality really a sign of high intelligence? Does an I.Q. Test really measure anything really relevant to survival in a way that is truly human and Natural, or are I.Q. Tests the artifacts of culture and the tools of the social engineer?

 

Do you think it wise to allow social engineers to define the bounds of reason and imagination for you?

 

The Global Coca Cola Cult IQ Test: ThIs The Edited Version of My YouTube Comment

(Below the video is the full exchange.)

I obviously think John's work is very thought provoking and well worth exploring. I highly recommend it.

IQ Tests are somewhat meaningless exercises. A better study would be one that compared the actual grades of graduating students and things like that. A true study that was attempting to live up to the meaning of the word "scientific" would have a whole lot more information and would not make use of the IQ test, which is not that relevant at all. Do students need to pass an IQ test to graduate, or to even enter into college or school at all? A better approach would include social and economical data and arrays of all sorts of information so we the curious researcher, could come to our own conclusions. This kind of limited approach comes across like some kind of crazed racist University promoted propaganda. It's funny how "WE" the "people", get blamed for racism and other forms of social prejudice, when it sure seems that the mainstream media and the university system spend an awful lot of time promoting various socially divisive memes.

Perhaps the "white" students are simply more eager to please and serve their University masters than the "African" students. Perhaps the lighter skinned versions of humanity are simply more inclined to pay more attention to what seems to be an irrelevant task. Maybe someone should do an IQ test and subsequent analysis that sorts humanity by hand size or hair color. Maybe eye color is the way to go. Last time I checked we were all part of the human race, but hey maybe some scientist has done some kind of statistical analysis to some kind of study and has "discovered" some new fact of nature. When you actually get into what passes for "scientific research", you might find it is more like snake oils salesmanship than you were led to believe. Mainstream science is filled with examples of various con jobs and the famous IQ test would seem to test pattern recognition and patience and not much else. Some people might be naturally inclined to realize the test itself is not worth spending any real mental effort on. Does this IQ study get into the possibility that those that perform lower on the test might just not be very interested in taking it in the first place, whether they are conscious of this fact or not? Are unconscious factors ever considered? Is this a real subject of serious study or a limited "hang out" of divisive sounding information?

The University trained and indoctrinated mind often confuses statistics with actual science. Assumptions derived from statistics is not science, but hey, the peer reviewed process can turn down into up. IQ tests are not any real way to measure anything at all. In fact I would go even further and say that a straight "A" college student, who graduated with all the honors in the world, might not be as smart nor as wise as advertised.

Do Africans Really Have an IQ of 70? source:  American Born Republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.9118&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

'IQ tests are somewhat meaningless exercise' Does not mean they are completely meaningless, does it?

A look at some comments: (I like what Mr. leBon does, by the way, so this is not meant as criticism.) This is what inspired this blog entry. I did manage to use a qualifier, but I think that playing word police is kind of silly. If I wanted to state that I thought there was a lot of merit to the IQ test I would have. The tone I took was dismissive and the truth is I do not think much of IQ tests and this article hopefully explained why. Of course I had to go back and edit a seemingly endless stream of typos.
 

"AA ProperGander Morris1 hour ago (edited)
IQ Tests are somewhat meaningless exercises. A better study would be one that compared the actual grades of graduating students and things like that. A true study that was attempting to live up to the meaning of the word "scientific" would have a whole lot more information and would not make use of the IQ test, which is not that relevant at all. Do students need to pass an IQ test to graduate, or to even enter into college or school at all? A better approach would include social and economical data and arrays of all sorts of information so we the curious researcher, could come to our own conclusions. This kind of limited approach comes across like some kind of crazed racist University promoted propaganda. It's funny how "WE The People" get blamed for racismand other forms of social prejudice, when it sure seems that the mainstream media and the university system spend an awful lot of time promoting various socially divisive memes.

Perhaps the "white" students are simply more eager to please and serve their University masters than the "African" students. Perhaps the lighter skinned versions of humanity are simply more inclined to pay more attention to what seems to be an irrelevant task. Maybe someone should do an IQ test and subsequent analysis that sorts humanity by hand size or hair color. Maybe eye color is the way to go. Last time I checked we were all part of the human race, but hey maybe some scientist has done some kind of statistical analysis to some kind of study and has "discovered" some new fact of nature. When you actually get into what passes for "scientific research", you might find it is more like snake oils salesmanship than you were led to believe. Mainstream science is filled with examples of various con jobs and the famous IQ test would seem to test pattern recognition and patience and not much else. Some people might be naturally inclined to realize the test itself is not worth spending any real mental effort on. Does this IQ study get into the possibility that those that perform lower on the test might just not be very interested in taking it in the first place? Are unconscious factors ever considered? Is this a real subject of serious study or a limited "hang out" of divisive sounding information?

The University trained and indoctrinated mind often confuses statistics with actual science. Assumptions derived from statistics is not science, but hey, the peer reviewed process can turn down into up. IQ tests are not any real way to measure anything at all. In fact I would go even further and say that a straight "A" college student, who graduated with all the honors in the world, might not be as smart nor as wise as advertised.
Show less
Reply
John le Bon
John le Bon1 hour ago
Did you take the time to read the study in question, linked to in the infobox underneath the video, before claiming that 'IQ tests are somewhat meaningless exercise'? I am willing to bet that you did not.
Reply
AA ProperGander Morris
AA ProperGander Morris1 second ago
Yes I did. I simply think there is a lot more to it. I just have a different opinion, but opinion is all it is. For example one of the authors of the study in question is: J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Below is a bit of information about the conclusions this guy came to. As you can see he believes East Asians are the smartest human beings on the planet. Do you agree with this? Maybe he changed his mind. In general there is a mainstream media meme that does seem to claim Asians are better at math and all sorts of other "scientific" skills. Or at least I seem to recall there used to be, maybe the Mandela Effect is at work. Seems to me the study you linked to is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg and this is perhaps a complex subject.

"Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995) uses r/K selection theory to explain how East Asians consistently average high, blacks low, and whites in the middle on an evolutionary scale of characteristics indicative of nurturing behavior. He first published this theory in 1984. Rushton argues that East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants. He theorizes that r/K selection theory explains these differences."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton

I'm not trying to argue with you or anything like that. I'm just engaging with the subject matter and am attempting to take it apart to examine it. It wouldn't surprise me if there was something to these claims, however I think social conditioning is the more than likely answer but I don't believe in closing one's mind off to other possibilities and think it important to engage with ideas I might not personally agree with to see if there is any merit to them. In general comment boxes are not the place for thoughtful commentary. In this case the YouTube video is perhaps the right tool for the job.

You have now got me interested into looking further into this subject. I forgot to thank you for posting this.

Maybe there is something to this and maybe there isn't. I don't really know. It seems to me that we can come up with all sorts of explanations to justify whatever kind of conclusion we seek to make. Human beings seem good at that. It also seems to me that cultural influences are the dominant force that shapes most minds. In my opinion there is a difference between creativity and the ability to perform we'll on standardized intelligence tests. The brain seems pretty plastic to me and I am of the opinion that neural network growth is something we all should focus on a bit more than most of us do. Most do not tend their mental gardens.

I don't think humanity in general is very smart. I basically think we are all very dumb, myself included. People tend to avoid acting as wise or as logical as we dream ourselves to be. Of course maybe you have a different point of view based on your own experiences. I'm not trying to argue or debate. I'm not trying to play a gotcha game or troll you or anything like that.I happen to think you post thought provoking content worth considering. The subjects you cover are usually very interesting, but do require a certain level of self educational commitment.

Do any of us need to take IQ tests to graduate from school? How important and relevant are IQ tests in the first place? Who really is interested in really focusing all their mental effort on getting every one of those IQ questions correct in the first place and why? Don't you agree that we should question underlying assumptions? Don't get me wrong I think it is a fascinating subject. All I am saying is when I look into it, I have more questions than answers. Do I have to have some kind of absolute opinion about a statistical study? We seem to agree that science is not as demonstrable as the system claims. It also seems clear that studies are used more to advance various social agendas than anything else, so in my opinion it is not unreasonable to question the underlying assumptions. Of course you may disagree and it really isn't my place to tell you what think or even how to think. All I can do is state what I think and why. My reasoning may make sense to your or not. It really makes no difference to me. No offense meant. I'm not trying to lecture you or anything, I was just responding to what seems to be an interesting and thought provoking video post.

Please excuse any typo I may have made. Autocorrect and my sloppy typing habits might lead to gibberish. In fact feel free to consider this reply gibberish if it suits you."

reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system