Comments on: Quote notes (#46)

By: The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish

The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:59:54 +0000

[…] times are had by most in the comment section. (And in the recommended reading list: the cards of a certain Carlyle […]

By: Reaction Ruckus | Handle's Haus

Reaction Ruckus | Handle's Haus — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:24:50 +0000

[…] 25-NOV-2013, Nick Land, “Quote Notes (#46)“ […]

By: Karl F. Boetel

Karl F. Boetel — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:26:15 +0000

The sigma is definitely more like 12, not 15 (15 is the white S.D.), so I get an expected 1.4 "black" Americans above 150. By the time we get to IQ 160, we're at 0.009. And that's assuming a mean of 85, not, like, 80, which would yield, e.g., an expected 0.1 above 150. I think it is hilarious that we are actually estimating this considering that "blah blah blah black guy r a smart" is just supposed to be intimidation.

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:44:29 +0000

OK, well I wasn’t thinking those numbers (more mu=85, sigma=15). Using your parameters, we get 150-70/12 = about 6.6 standard deviations which is (AHA) less than 1 in 10,000,000,000. So yeah, you’d be right. Very UNlikely any “pure” blacks are smarter than KFB(150). Assuming in the Normal model models accurately and yada yada.

Using 85/15, (150-85)/15 = down to 4.3 sigmas and we’re in pretty usuals-ville, about 1 in 100,000. So LOTS of (American) blacks smarter than KFB… tho’ they still are quite rare.

By: Karl F. Boetel

Karl F. Boetel — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:27:55 +0000

It's actually more of a comment on the normal distribution itself (aka "bell curve"): it drops off really fast. Let's say the mean black IQ — that's purely black — is 70 (based on Africa), with a standard deviation of 12 (based on US). There's, what, a billion black people on Earth? The question is, how high would one's IQ have to be, before the expected number of black people with a higher IQ, drops below 1.0? (This certainly constitutes at least a tiny bit of doubt.) I think your estimate of 150 will do the trick. (IQs out on that end are kinda hard to measure reliably anyway, so it's really about establishing doubt rather than fixing a number for me or anyone else.)

By: Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:20:52 +0000

Nick B. Steves

Thank you.

I deleted the old post and reposted with the “raciss” spelling.

We’ll see if it gets through.

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:42:13 +0000

Geez Karl, just how high IS your IQ? (Actually I’ve met Karl in person and I’d indeed be surprised if was below 150.)

There is, for the record, no doubt black guys that are smarter than me. (But I haven’t met them.)

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:40:24 +0000

Steve Johnson:

I have found that if you avoid links (even ones from the OP) and the exact strings “sperm”, “racist”, “Nazi” and “Hitler” it should go thru. Seems to take rayciss (raciss) with no problems. Try reformatting and republishing and then you can just delete the one held up in mod. Your thoughts are very much worth it.

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:30:39 +0000

Well, I am happy to think horses. I am, after all, reasonably pseudonymous.

It just didn’t sit right. I mean we had one guy (21st Century or some such) that was going around like a school marm saying “Tsk, tsk, tsk, dontcha know these people are evil, evil, evil… ‘cuz… Auschwitz.”

And all of us NRs are like, “Hey, not us. We want to make sure Auschwitz never happens again. We just happen to ALSO want to make sure the Collectivization of Agriculture never happens again, too!”

And then you have another guy show up and double down on the whole thing, “Hmmm…. maybe these Nazi’s are right about one thing… let’s feed them to the ovens. ” It was too clever by half in my estimation. It is of course, entirely possible the someone really could be THAT ham-handed…

By: Karl F. Boetel

Karl F. Boetel — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:35:13 +0000

I believe that in this case the faulty assumptions may be your assumptions about my position, particularly this: "a guide for judging or interacting with individuals rather than abstract classes." My 2nd paragraph explains why my "claim" or "rule" or, as I prefer to say, fact, is interesting; it does not involve "particular application." P.S. for the record, it is not true that there is "no doubt" a purely "black guy" with "a higher IQ than even" me