dey b stuntin
(twitter.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
You'd then have three sets of data from three very different countries. For instance:
Somalia: Weak liberal democracy.
Sweden: Established social democracy. Slightly but noticeably more collectivistic and organicistic than the United States. One of the world's most atheistic countries. High rate of antidepressant medication usage when compared with other OECD countries.
United States: Established liberal democracy. Slightly but noticeably more individualistic and social contractarian than Sweden. Noticeably less atheistic than Sweden. If compared to OECD countries, is either in first or second place in antidepressant medication usage.
The more, the better, so results from Somalis in places like Eastleigh (a Somali enclave in Nairobi, Kenya) and Mayfair (a Somali enclave often known as 'Little Mogadishu' in Johannesburg, South Africa) would yield even more accurate results, especially when South Africa has many differences to Somalia. If there are any Somali communities in Eastern Europe and Asia, IQ tests from these areas would further enrich the results, since the differences between them exceed those between Sweden and the United States, e.g., Eastern European 'post-communist' countries have more sympathy to authoritarianism and securitarianism, and so Somalis within them may perceive more pressure to avoid wrongdoing and correctly behave than in Sweden and the United States.
Particularly important would be Somalis who are in places where they are vast minorities and cannot insulate themselves from others. For instance, Somalis adopted by non-African parents, who thus do not have a Somali upbringing, and who have spent little to none of their lives around other Somalis.
My hypothesis: There would barely be a difference between any set of results once all samples are finalized, compared, and contrasted. Whether the country is more or less individualistic, more or less liberal, more or less wealthy, more or less mentally ill, more or less medicated, more or less atheistic, more or less, frankly, whatever, you wouldn't be looking at any serious differences between them. No, not even in the case of those adopted by White, wealthy, Christian parents - in a sense, the polar opposite of many of their biological parents - and who consequently likely spend little to none of their lives around gangs, (c)rap 'music', poverty, Islam, or even other nigs.
Even James Flynn, who was politically so Left-Wing that he opted to leave the United States in search of an even more Left-Wing environment, conceded that environmental causes at most accounted for 40% of IQ, leaving genes to account for all of the rest. That is, that genes accounted for at least 60% of IQ was the conclusion reached by a learned man who found that conclusion unpleasant.
The proliferation of posited environmental causes quite likely stems merely from an underlying unwillingness to accept the truth about race and genes. It *can't* be racial or genetic, says the contemporary scientist, so what else could it be? If Whites simply became 'racist' and/or 'eugenicist', etc., videos like this would become a whole lot more compact, because most posited environmental causes would simply be written off as non-compelling. That is, these environmental causes only seem compelling to those desperately clutching for every straw, every lifeline, to avoid accepting race and genes as the answers.
Take poverty, for instance. We can very easily dismiss poverty as a cause of low IQ through a simple history lesson. As late as 1960, South Korea was poorer than every or almost every other country in the world, yes, including the overwhelming majority, possibly even the entirety, of sub-Saharan Africa.
Did that mean that South Koreans had the IQ of nigs in 1960? No! In the 1960s, they got their act together under Park's military government (1961-1979) and rapidly became a first-world country. Indeed, if they had the IQ of nigs in 1960, the very notion that they would leave sub-Saharan Africa behind in the dust to become first-world becomes laughable. You'd be putting the cart before the horse to claim that first-world wealth ultimately begets a high IQ. It is the precise inverse. It doesn't matter how wealthy Angola or Gabon become from their oil. They'll always be cesspools. South Korea left sub-Saharan Africa in the dirt because a high IQ ultimately begets first-world wealth so long as you aspire to achieving it. By contrast, the aspirations to first-world wealth - said aspirations in extreme abundance across the third world - of low IQ peoples never amount to anything. All cesspool countries are full of materialistic peoples who aspire to live like those depictions of how wealthy people live on their stupid televisions. The difference is that high IQ peoples who desire first-world wealth do not merely unceasingly desire it, they materialize it.