Is lower intelligence the reason why Africans/blacks fail to thrive in the west on average?

Er Miqué

Sparrow
I'd say it's not IQ or intelligence.

It's more about impulse control and postponing gratification. If Blacks could postpone gratification and control their impulses they would be able to succeed in this society a lot more. If they could wait a whole month working for a wage instead of just going to rob somebody because it's quicker they would be better. If they could control their impulses better they wouldn't be as violent, lust-driven and so close to drug or alcohol addiction. And then you got the welfare culture and it exacerbates their weaknesses.

Not a lot of people are smart but they still get to succeed: it's just having the determination that you're going to do something and you will. The smarter people aren't the ones who solve all their problems alone but the ones who make others solve their problems. You don't need to have a 140 IQ to run a successful business: you just need to know what to do and you will do it. And that's another problem for Blacks: nobody tells them to become entrepreneurs or at least to get a decent job and have a nice family but it's only "be tha gangsta" and "get tha bitches" stuff they hear all the day. And then you wonder why they are like they are.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
My best guess is that black people spent most of their evolution near the equator which provided a easier life in the hunter gather days compared to less melanated races that evolved closer to the poles
The main vector for the increase of IQ was likely man-made environments that modestly favoured more intelligent people for reproduction. It appears a society without a large welfare state and where people who are more economically successful have more children leads to something like a 0.3 IQ increase per generation.

Other than places in Africa where Semitic culture flowed down to, there was essentially no written language in Mummy Africa, very few skilled trades or sophisticated classes. There has been no precursor for Africans to become more intelligent for the most part, so they aren't.

There is also the factor of nutrition. The far eastern societies had poor nutrition, hence their small stature. Their economies were not complex, but they had trades and scholars for 1,000s of years - longer than Europe and hence their higher IQs. But with East Asians their poor nutrition was likely a bigger suppressant on IQ potential. 200 years ago the average Northern European man was 5ft 5in, due to nutrition. That likely shaved 10 or so IQ points off. So in times past the bar for professional, complicated jobs was more challenging. It puts in context some of Europe's beautiful historic cities, like Vienna. That the people living there likely had a 5 point IQ deficit. This factor was much stronger in East Asia, where nutrition was much worse.

Another factor with blacks is that they have a much higher incidence of a variant of a gene known as the warrior gene, which is strongly linked with violent behaviour. One in a thousand whites have it, while more than one in twenty blacks have it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

This gene variant is present in something like half of street gang members.

Western societies wont deal with this, so the violence of blacks will go on.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
I'd say it's not IQ or intelligence.

It's more about impulse control and postponing gratification. If Blacks could postpone gratification and control their impulses they would be able to succeed in this society a lot more. If they could wait a whole month working for a wage instead of just going to rob somebody because it's quicker they would be better. If they could control their impulses better they wouldn't be as violent, lust-driven and so close to drug or alcohol addiction. And then you got the welfare culture and it exacerbates their weaknesses.

Not a lot of people are smart but they still get to succeed: it's just having the determination that you're going to do something and you will. The smarter people aren't the ones who solve all their problems alone but the ones who make others solve their problems. You don't need to have a 140 IQ to run a successful business: you just need to know what to do and you will do it. And that's another problem for Blacks: nobody tells them to become entrepreneurs or at least to get a decent job and have a nice family but it's only "be tha gangsta" and "get tha bitches" stuff they hear all the day. And then you wonder why they are like they are.
If you have an 85 IQ you can't run a successful business. Their brain does not have the capacity to deal with anything beyond linear problems, unless they are trained. Someone with an 85 IQ can be a cashier or maybe run a restaurant, but nothing notable. There is a good amount of research on IQ and occupations and all professional occupations (including at least some pro sports) have an average IQ of 110.

Those with top one percent incomes are also in the top couple of percent of SAT scores, which are largely analogous with IQ scores.



As for impulse control, to learn such things you probably need stable people around you. Poor life decisions correlate with low income, which correlates with low IQ, which both correlate with living around other people with the same. People who are less intelligent need good moral and economic leaders in their area, which they don't have. They have the opposite.

One piece of information I heard recently is that a better marker of bad life outcomes is not coming from a fatherless home, but coming from a neighbourhood where there are lots of fatherless homes. But it's not simple the absence of a father. These are markers of other things, including low IQ, which as mentioned leads to poor life decisions.

Due to social liberalism and leftism our moral leaders have been cast off. Until certain morals are again law, like no divorce or fornication these problems will continue to rage.
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
If you have an 85 IQ you can't run a successful business. Their brain does not have the capacity to deal with anything beyond linear problems, unless they are trained. Someone with an 85 IQ can be a cashier or maybe run a restaurant, but nothing notable. There is a good amount of research on IQ and occupations and all professional occupations (including at least some pro sports) have an average IQ of 110.

Those with top one percent incomes are also in the top couple of percent of SAT scores, which are largely analogous with IQ scores.



As for impulse control, to learn such things you probably need stable people around you. Poor life decisions correlate with low income, which correlates with low IQ, which both correlate with living around other people with the same. People who are less intelligent need good moral and economic leaders in their area, which they don't have. They have the opposite.

One piece of information I heard recently is that a better marker of bad life outcomes is not coming from a fatherless home, but coming from a neighbourhood where there are lots of fatherless homes. But it's not simple the absence of a father. These are markers of other things, including low IQ, which as mentioned leads to poor life decisions.

Due to social liberalism and leftism our moral leaders have been cast off. Until certain morals are again law, like no divorce or fornication these problems will continue to rage.
As Voxday once said:
"Intelligence is merely firepower. More specifically, it is your mental caliber. To effectively utilize intelligence, you still require the ammunition that is information, whether acquired via formal education or autodidacticism, as well as the wisdom to know where to direct it. A well-placed .22 round is more effective than a 152mm artillery barrage that is miles off target.

This is why the possession of high intelligence is little more meaningful than the possession of academic credentials. It's all just potential, and potential should never be confused with actual accomplishment. This is why even a moderate amount of wisdom merits far more respect than very high intelligence. "
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
If you look at people in terms of groups, there will always be problems since by definition you are doing it in order to compare. You could just look at it from a "let's see how group X is getting along" but we know that's not what is happening, it's never in a vacuum that one would do such an experiment or analysis. Throw in the egalitarianism nonsense of modern people, and of course you have the worst possible combination of things going. The bioleninism thread is informative on why this is so problematic, and thus, utilized. Of course, selective application of traits or talents (why aren't athletes equally distributed?) only goes one way and then even further becomes a joke (since all the athletes look like this, why aren't coaches?) to anyone who actually pays attention, is honest, or tries to analyze fairly.
 
As Voxday once said:


I was listening to a recent VD darkstream today. He explained that due to limited inflow of non native people into China that they would be far stronger in the future. Places like Europe and America with their constant inflow of people of different cultures was a clear indicator of war. Whenever there is a mass movement of people, historically, war is brewing. I really like this guy's delivery & wisdom. Thanks Vox Day.
 

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
I was listening to a recent VD darkstream today. He explained that due to limited inflow of non native people into China that they would be far stronger in the future. Places like Europe and America with their constant inflow of people of different cultures was a clear indicator of war. Whenever there is a mass movement of people, historically, war is brewing. I really like this guy's delivery & wisdom. Thanks Vox Day.
China used to be multiple ethnic groups and countries also. But they have long been unified under one Emperor and intermarriage has made them far more closely related. With each dynasty lasting longer in uniting the country for centuries.
 
Last edited:

infowarrior1

Hummingbird
If you look at people in terms of groups, there will always be problems since by definition you are doing it in order to compare. You could just look at it from a "let's see how group X is getting along" but we know that's not what is happening, it's never in a vacuum that one would do such an experiment or analysis. Throw in the egalitarianism nonsense of modern people, and of course you have the worst possible combination of things going. The bioleninism thread is informative on why this is so problematic, and thus, utilized. Of course, selective application of traits or talents (why aren't athletes equally distributed?) only goes one way and then even further becomes a joke (since all the athletes look like this, why aren't coaches?) to anyone who actually pays attention, is honest, or tries to analyze fairly.
Envy is an endless resource. Resulting in a ready made group to use against whatever group you seek to destroy.
 
Top