Migrants make germany dumb

[Bosh]

I think that test results that show Poles having above-average intelligence tells us a lot more about the methodological flaws in those tests then they do about Polish intelligence

[Heraclitus]

I don't know... look at that nose...

Albert Speer assesing German banker's noses to determine possible semitic ancestry.

[Heraclitus]

I think that test results that show Poles having above-average intelligence tells us a lot more about the methodological flaws in those tests then they do about Polish intelligence

Poland has a history of importance and many talented individuals came from that corner of the world in the last few centuries.

Or did you think people like Marie Curie (Maria Skłodowska), Stanislaw Ulam and Nicolaus Copernicus where just flukes?

[Heresson]

I would say the results of national IQ tests have more to do with educational system (which we've unfortunatelly changed in Poland, so new Poles will be just as ignorant as westerners or Americans). Poland in general scores well in mathematics, we have good traditions in this field, and I believe thia is the reason for good polish outcome, not superior genes The French have contributed a lot to science, so I guess their outcome has more to do with their educational system prefering hs or something.

[BeBMan]

In fact Germans are so dumb these days they don't even know how to answer PMs anymore

[Barnabas]

Who says he is speaking primarily of Kurds?

I didn't say they where that dumb. You need to understand that Northern Central Eruopeans are really really smart (Germans have an IQ of 107 which is comparable to East Asians like the Japanese and less gifted Jewish groups), its not coincidence that out of the all the groups of Jews in the world, many of which filled similar neiches as the Askenazi Jews, the Askenazi Jews ended up the smartest. They had to be smarter than Dutchmen/Germans/Poles.

Note: The average IQ of Israel is just 94. Askenazi and certain Shepardim Jews are the ones with the proverbial smarts.

It depends on which Sryans you are refering to, many populations in Iran, Lebanon, Srya and the Arab world in general (to a lesser extent) are very well of in the inteligence department most with average IQs from the low 90s all the way to 100 and a few even a bit higher than that. The problem are the unwashed masses who drag down the IQs of countries like Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the low 80s.

Randomized Balkan (including Slovenian) immigrants would also probably hurt the German average IQ since we are probably in the mid 90's at the best of times and Gpypsies are probably in their high 80s or low 90s considering their origin. But fortunatley we aren't from cultures that breed like rabbits.

Overall the argument anyway wasn't nesecarily group differences but the average IQ of the immigrants. The ones who choose to migrate are usually menial or construction workers that are really poor, since its not that expensive to reach Germany (living there is another matter). Even if Japan was exporting immigrants like that, their average IQ's would probably be in the middling 90s.

Not only that but the ones with higher IQs among them tend to assimilate (ie breed less) rapidly to German norms in the course of a generation or two. So the remaining population with the backward culture (which I do agree is a problem for things like education) are still breeding waaay above the German average and have an even lower genotypical average IQ than the intial wave of immigrants.

Anyway I'm willing to quite confidently state that Turkey today is more meritocratic than 19th century Europe (it also porbably has higher average IQs due to the Flynn effect) this is why the poor workers who emigrated to the US climbed the social ladder, the Flynn effect did wonders for them as the quality of their life improved, not only that those that where stuck in their class due to unfair treatment experienced rapid gains in acheivment and to top it all of their culture was European in character and their religion was Christianity which made assimilation a breeze.

2nd and 3rd Mexican immigrants for example today in the US do worse than fresh immigrants precisley because the Flynn effect probably dosen't have much more to go in them also its much cheaper to reach the US today for a Mexican than it was for a Belorussian peasant in the 19th century.
Americans do whine too much about cultural endangerment. Mexicans in Mexico have stopped breeding like rabbits, which means that together with the ever decreasing standard of the American South East the immigrant flood will decrease to a trickle. The prominence of English world wide means USian Mexicans are slated to assimilate to the language unless they can acheive a clear majorit (which they won't since whites will still be the biggest single group in 2040). To top it off they are chatolic, their culture overall is heavily influenced by Europeans norms.

The real key difference is their lower genotypical inteligence which will keep them poorer than whites its just a question of how much.
Depending on how you handle them they will either turn out like Apalachian Whites or Blacks.

Most of the Turks I saw in Germany were actually Kurds.

How do you explain that for much of Worlds History the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean nations were much more developed than the Western Mediterranean and Northern European nations? Ur, Babylon, Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Baghdad, for milleniums the center of the world was in the modern ****hole of Iraq.

My ancestry is German and Ashkenazi,so that makes me da pimp for you, but I still think that If Islam had never existed North Africa would be at least as developed as Southern Europe. Right before the Islamic Conquest the greatest Western City in the world was not Eurpean, it was Carthaghe, North Africa was the only Western Latin part of the former Empire that didn't look like a barbarized ****hole, and that land before being overrun had produced theologians like Augustine, Tertullian and Cyprian.

Islam was able to revigorize decadent societies immediately (Southern Spain and Sicily regained their prosperity of Roman times right after being invaded) but it failed at making them progress any further, Islam made them stagnant.

But I guess you could still say that slave trade with sub saharan Africa + Arabians spreading their genes made middle easterners and north africans dumber.

To be sincere, the endogamous christian minorities of the middle east like copts, tend to be more successful than the muslim majorities.


Where did you get the number for Israel? I am sure ashkenazi jews must be at least 40% of the Israeli population, if not more.

[Az]

heil hitler

[Az]

what I meant to say is - close thread.

[Heraclitus]

Where did you get the number for Israel? I am sure ashkenazi jews must be at least 40% of the Israeli population, if not more.

I did a bit of searching and figured out I got the number from Lynn.
As you will soon see I spoke too quickly and you where right to question the Israeli figure.

According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2008, of Israel's 7.3 million people, 75.6% were Jews of any background[1]. Among them, 70.3% were Sabras (Israeli-born), mostly second- or third-generation Israelis, and the rest are olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) — 20.5% from Europe and the Americas, and 9.2% from Asia and Africa, including the Arab countries.[2]

About 35% of all Israeli Jews are recently (first or second generation) descended from European Jews, while 25% are descended from Jews who immigrated from Arab countries, Iran, Turkey and Central Asia. In addition, 45.6 thousands (0.8%) are, or are descended from Indian Jews, and 106.9 thousands (1.9%) - from Ethiopian Jews[2].

28% of Jews are clearly mostly nonAskenazi in origin.
Meaning 54.4% of the population is Askenazi.

Also wiki estimates in another place the population of Askenazi Jews between 2.8–4 million. The numbers are sort of ok if one takes the higher number and assumes that there are more European Jews that have been in Israel for 3+ generations (reasonable considering the history of zionism and how early Frummy Jews mary) making the quick number of 1st and 2nd generation Jews and that people who identify as Askenazi have a bit of Shepardim ancestry due to recent intermmariage which makes the above quote misleading.

Most relativley well grounded estimates of Askenazi Jew inteligence wary from a mere 103 to all the way up to the low 110s, most estimates go towards the upper limit (Lynn put the figure at 108, Murray & Herstein at 113 [BTW these are American Askenazi Jews numbers]). In my opinon Askenazi IQ is probably around 112.

Quickly curnching the numbers from the above makes to realize that the nonAskenazi IQ of Israel would need to be just 75 (!!!) to get us at Lynn's figure. In other words Lynn probably took a quick and easy shortcut or Askenazi Jews in Israel have much lower IQ than American Askenazi Jews.

Jordan's IQ is estimated by various surces in the middling 80s (87, 84, ect.).
Using a average IQ of 87 for the Palestine population and a IQ of 100 for the nonAfrican Jews once comes up with a number of 94 for nonAskenazi Jews.

My rough estimate of Israel thus places it at about 103 (comparable to Germany, Italy but not as good as Japan or South Korea).

Criticism of Lynn's Israel figures:
http://ethnicgenome.wordpress.com/20...not-94-at-all/

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is becoming quite a trend. Heraclitus posts as many racist threads as Albert Speer posts my love life stinks threads .

[Heraclitus]

Most of the Turks I saw in Germany were actually Kurds.

From wikipedia:

The German state does not keep statistics on ethnicity but, rather, categorizes ethnic groups originating from Turkey as being of Turkish national origin. This has the consequence of ethnic minorities from Turkey living in Germany being referred to as "Turks". However, about one-fourth [41][42] to one-fifth[43][44] of Turkish nationals are ethnic Kurds (amounting to some 350,000).[45] Furthermore, the number of ethnic Turks who have immigrated to Germany from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Romania and other traditional areas of Turkish settlement which were once part of the Ottoman territories in Europe are unknown as these Turkish minorities are categorised by their citizenship rather than their Turkish ethnicity.

The estimates may be a bit off but clearly the number of Ethnic Kurds in Germany is quite a bit smaller than the number of ethnic Turks.

How do you explain that for much of Worlds History the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean nations were much more developed than the Western Mediterranean and Northern European nations? Ur, Babylon, Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Baghdad, for milleniums the center of the world was in the modern ****hole of Iraq.

I hope you agree farming in Northern China and Northern Europe is more difficult than lets say the Fertile crescent?

By far most plausible explanation to me seems that human genetics especially with relation to inteligence are not all that matters, a popular read to show the strong Guns, Germs and Steel to see how the environment and genetics have massive impacts on the development of civilization.

[Also as a bonus here is a quick overview of my pet theory for the rise and fall of civilizations:]

Farming in some areas rather than others primarily due to environmental factors (a high IQ and future time orientation help, but we see from American Natives that you probably just need average Homo Sapiens IQ to get there)

The elites of the early civlizations where well fed even if the average pesant was worse of than a hunter gatherer (note that this is after the malthusian trap sets in where the farmers breed like bunnies for generations, before when there are few farmers the first farmers are better off than hunter gatherers). Better nutrition, higher average IQ's, an ancient Flynn effect among the elite in other words.

They maintained wast populations and trade at greater distances than primitves enabling "faster" evolution (read The 10000 year explosion by Chochran) meaning they domesticated themselves rapidly creating more tolerance for heirachy and inequality than before. Perhaps there where even Eugenic breeding patterns if farming was demanding (since cities have always been genetic black holes). Rapid specialization and a larger economy that followed was more conductive to early discoveries.
Once you get writing that by itself is a giant step and we know from literacy rates world wide that learning to write and read aren't that hard, so even if the above effects are exausted we would see continued progress that puts Euros or people like the Japanese and Mongols to shame due to the accumulation of writting.

Also who is to say that eventually dysgenic breeding patterns didn't mean stagnation or even decline? Cities drawing the best most ambitious blood of the country side for generation after generation for thousands of years is bound to have some effect especially if farmers get marginal returns in reproductive fitness for even more inteligence.

Anyway.... We know inteligence matters more for job performance the more intelectually demanding the job is. Is it difficult to imagine that the differences between people's mattered less in agrarian civlizations or even as recently as before the industrial revolution?

My ancestry is German and Ashkenazi,so that makes me da pimp for you, but I still think that If Islam had never existed North Africa would be at least as developed as Southern Europe. Right before the Islamic Conquest the greatest Western City in the world was not Eurpean, it was Carthaghe, North Africa was the only Western Latin part of the former Empire that didn't look like a barbarized ****hole, and that land before being overrun had produced theologians like Augustine, Tertullian and Cyprian.

You are probably right in many respects. I agree with you on your assesment of most North Africa (not Egypt though, despite the impressive intelectual pedigree of places like Alexandria we musn't forget the huddled masses that supported this).

Islam was able to revigorize decadent societies immediately (Southern Spain and Sicily regained their prosperity of Roman times right after being invaded) but it failed at making them progress any further, Islam made them stagnant.

I feel the need to point out that the memplex of Islam and Arabian culture where very different in the time of Mohammed compared to the 9th century compared to the 11th century let alone the 17th century.

Islam changed and then the societies that adopted it became stagnant.

Or perhaps part ot the golden age of Islam where just the effects of connecting sucha large domaine into one cultural sphere (especially the former Roman world with the Persian world).

But I guess you could still say that slave trade with sub saharan Africa + Arabians spreading their genes made middle easterners and north africans dumber.

I wouldn't be comfortable speaking of the inteligence of Arabians in the 7th century so ignoring their effects is probably best. However the Islamic slave trade (20 million!) from Africa was massive and did have an effect.

Taking your example of Augustine. Algeria underwent massive demographical changes in the past few centuries. However to be fair North Africa also imported perhaps 1 million White slaves from Europe so the effect might be primarily cultural after all.

Most of the population is Berber derived and considers itself Arab.

Especially the article on genetic origions of the Berber is interesting, a mix of Subsaharan, Levantine, European and "Native".

[Heraclitus]

This is becoming quite a trend. Heraclitus posts as many racist threads as Albert Speer posts my love life stinks threads .

Don't see what is racist about my posts. Racialist or even biased (bigoted?) perhaps, but not racist.


BTW If my pet theory on the rise and fall of civilizations is taken to its logical conclusion, Northern Europeans simply enjoyed a happy time from 1100 to about 1900AD just as Souther Europeans & North Africans (sans Egypt) enjoyed theirs from a few k BC to about 500 AD (1200 for Byzantines) and another one during the 14 to 16th century (due to renewed acces to ancient accumulated knowledge and perhaps genetic infulux from the North in the middle ages and positive Eugenic selection in the Merchant republics) before being outrun by the Northerners.


The happy period ended in about 1900AD when perhaps the economic benefits due to their position in the world where slowly less and less able to translate into more high IQ outliers (since nearly all of them probably got a shot at making a difference). This meant for the last 100 years Whites have enjoyed ever higher standards of living due to positive feedback of the Flynn effect, and a larger population due to growth (untill the 70s) but genious wise the flow is only decreasing. They're mined out.

The Jewish happy time is probably still here since about the early 19th century with their high IQs being let loose on Gentile knowledge armed with the scientific method and a large Gentile class to manage for faster economic growth and to help share the burden of moderatly complex labour with the lower half of the Jewish curve. Unfortunatley they seem to lack a place where to build a economy large enough to ensure as much of their gifts are used for advancement rather than just keeping hostile Gentiles at bay (Israel) or dissapearing among friendly and cooperative Gentiles (America). Especially in America they tragically melting in with the Whites boosting the economy and white IQ but reducing the number of very high IQ individuals.

The NeoNazis and White Supremacists are wrong. Whites don't have an amputed destiny of glory, they have an amputated destiny of being content and comfortable stagnant hobbits. European nations even if filled only by Europeans will never agiain shake or move the world unless they adpoted a policy of grand population growth (even that would just make them into a dumber China and would enjoy just a short revival perhaps as short as 2 generations), but even so they would be more comfortable places to live without Third Worlders. Jews are the ones who due to crossethnic marraige may be selling themselves short in terms of their potential contributions to mankind.

East Asians may be entering their second (third?) happy time starting in the 1980's. My prediction is that it won't last more than another 70 years. They seem to be even more vonureable to the stagnating aging population syndrome, and dysgenic trends are present everywhere except perhaps China (1 child policy may be Eugenic or at least less Dysgenic than western breeding patterns).

Once the Jews have melted away and the Asians are spent as much as Europeans are today I'm afraid we may see science and technological progress grind to a halt in the 22nd century. Lets hope genetic engineering tempered by prohuman bias will provide a solution to this problem.

AI is another option, but that would probably result in rapid human extinction. I'm not convinced its possible to construct anything like a proof of friendlines, let alone build such an AI faster than the other team that dosen't bother with friendliness as much. I'm also sceptical of things like extrapolated coherent volition (by Elizer Yudkowsky). Building a general strong AI seems like a horrible idea from what little we know.

Edit: Happy time = a time when technological innovation feeds back enough to more than offset the loss of productivity by eating up smart people.

(example: only a idiot would suggest that South Africa would be better off dedicating half its doctors to medical research on AIDS)


If the science is really hard and the population really dumb you are better off having all the high IQ people manage things and contributing to the economy, otherwise the standard of living will fall. The more complex the jobs that need filling in a economy the harder it will be to spare those high IQ folks. Automation helps, information technology (writing in my example) helps since it reduces the number of people needed to maintain existing level of advancement, division of labour helps since it simplfies jobs, economy of scale ect.

Smart but primitive people (not hindered by things like dying off from new diseases brought by the conquerers) exposed to the accumulated knowledge will enjoy a positive feedback loop for some time.

[Al B. Sure!]

Racialist = Racist. It's the term used by Neo-Nazis because racist is such a 'nay' word as you would say. They would say they are racialists because they have a racial understanding of the world (the Nazis had a racial understanding of the world). Once you start believing that cultural and social phenomena can be explained by racial differences, you become a racist by logical conclusion because some cultures have plain done more than others and if you believe that is wholly explained by race, then you therefore become a supremacist.

And a bigot is also a racist. It means prejudiced against a group.

[Heraclitus]

From Wikipedia:

Racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations.[1] Currently, racialism entails a belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, but not necessarily that any absolute hierarchy between the races, has been demonstrated by a rigorous and comprehensive scientific process. Racialists usually reject some claims of racial superiority (such as "racial supremacy"), but may explicitly or implicitly subscribe to others, such as that races have acted in morally superior or inferior ways, at least in certain instances or periods of history.

Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

I suppose a fair assesment of would be:
racism=racialism+belief in a hierarchy of races(racial supremacis)

I do not belive in anything like the master race or even some race being superior to another. The closest I can come to supremacism is in some of my more Darwinian toughts and according to those Black Africans and Indians are the superior breed since Australian natives and Native Americans are too susceptible to old worlds social and biological ils while Europeans, people like Tunizians and East Asians are unable to maintain their numbers.

Differences in culture do not translate into differences in race. I would be a fool to somhow claim that Muslim Boshniaks aren't White. Differences between races do not translate into differences between cultures. I would be a fool to argue African Americans have more culturally in common with the Bantus of Central Africa than with American Whites.

However. Race is a real and usefull concept in biology and antrhopolgy. Also humans are not blank slates. Therefore one must be a racialist if one dosen't deny any sort of effect of race on behaviour.


Do you deny different peoples and individual have different responses to alcohol not just due to culture but due to biological differences?

*If you do congragulations you are a racialist
[Unless of course you somehow believe vulnerability to alcoholism doesn't affect outcomes or culture. I would like to see a defense of that position].
*If you dissagre congragulations you are cleverer than modern doctors, biologists and anthropologist who are perpetrating a massive hoax and misinterpereting or even faking data, go get em tiger!


Anyway under your forumlation considering I belive different religions have different sociological and psychological properties and effects (as well as affects) on their followers. As such I am a religious bigot. I also belive in significant differences in ability and behaviour between the sexes, meaning I am a sexist. I also belive that in a semi-meritocratic society can be acheived and that we are much more meritocratic than 400 years ago, precisley for this reason differences in ability do on average exist between people of different classes. So there I are classist. I also think its fair to use someone's DNA to figure out probable future behaviour and potential.

So very well I am a religious bigot, sexist, classist racist who advocates genetic discrimination. We can adding more and more boo words untill the Sun expands beyond the radious of Earth's current orbit but I'd much prefer you engage my points instead of arguing that two different but related concepts are the same thing, when by nearly any dictionary definition they are not.

[Al B. Sure!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6442853.stm

So do racialism and racism mean the same thing? Yes, says John Simpson, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary Online. They didn't start out that way, but they are now considered one in the same.

The definition of both words are now identical and interchangeable. They refer to discrimination and antagonism based on ethnicity, especially the belief that one race is superior to another.