The Rawness

Part 1 can be found here, where I discussed reasons why to me the focus on Black IQ versus IQ is very much a waste of time. Here in Part 2 I’d like to discuss what I consider average IQ of a racial group to be indicative of.

Average IQ of a racial group is simply an indication of how hospitable that racial group’s history has been to unintelligent people. That’s it. It’s all just a matter of how easy it has traditionally been for unintelligent members of that race to survive and reproduce.

I read a book in the 90s called Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond, and although it’s been a while since I’ve read it, I recall it gave some convincing theories regarding the causes of Eurasian innovation and world domination throughout history. A good summary of the book can be found here:

[T]he book is not merely an account of the past; it attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations, as a whole, have survived and conquered others, while attempting to refute the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that: the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate in environmental differences amplified by various positive feedback loops; and that, if cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example Chinese centralized government, or improved disease resistance among Eurasians), it is only so because of the influence of geography.

For a real dumbed-down, oversimplified example, since I’m unable to track down the book (it’s somewhere in my parents’ attic in Long Island buried inside some dusty boxes), consider the following. In a civilization that is developing in a continent like Africa where its warm and sunny, it’s easier for people who are not too bright to survive since it doesn’t take much innovation and resourcefulness to figure out a way to survive in an environment like that. In a place with harsh climates with radical environmental changes accompanying the changes in seasons, and prolonged periods of bitter cold, it is much harder for a stupid person to survive. Thus significantly more stupid people will be weeded out of the gene pool in the latter example in comparison to the former example, which would probably raise the average IQ in the latter society more. This is just one example of how the environment a civilization develops in can affect its average IQ.

Level of concentration of different organizations such as city-states in a given space can affect average IQ too. For example say two continents have areas of equal size. In one continent, the given area is occupied by one society, a monolithic empire of shared language and culture with very little warfare and fear of invasion and few natural barriers. In the other continent, the given area is filled with numerous city-states formed by the separations caused by natural boundaries like mountain ranges, and the competition and warfare among all these groups forced Europeans to encourage innovation. More conditions to weed the less innovative out of the gene pool.

Here’s another example of how environments can influence cultural and genetic development: Sparta and Athens. Both countries probably started out with similar genetic stock (if anyone knows otherwise, please feel free to correct me). Why did one city turn into such an intellectual center of innovative knowledge while the other became a master of physical combat and warfare? Are Athenians simply inherently smarter than Spartans through genetics? No, the reason is this: Sparta was situated on fertile soil, very good for farming. This made it very attractive to invaders. Invaders would frequently attack Sparta over and over again to get some of that good soil. Spartans had to adapt, and survival favored those who were physically stronger and were better fighters and tacticians over those who engaged in purely intellectual pursuits like philosophy. An uberintellectual philosopher probably had little value in Spartan society while great warriors and leaders probably enjoyed the most status. Also, they weeded out weakness from birth:

Everything was now dedicated to making each Spartiati a superb and unquestioningly loyal soldier. The Process started at birth. Newly-born babies were inspected by a committee of elders, and, if considered too weak , they were left to die by exposure on the sloped of Mount Taygetos. Those who survived were carefully brought up as Plutarch describes:

‘The women did not bathe the babies with water, but with wine, making it a sort of test of their strength. For they say that the epileptic and sickly ones lose control and go into convulsions, but the healthy ones are rather toughened like steel and strengthened in their physique.

So as you can see, the environment influenced the culture in terms of what traits were valued, how they chose to improve themselves, how they raised their children and how they structured their society. These cultural factors in turn influenced who survived to pass on genes and who didn’t, as weak children were allowed to die even. Genetics influence behavior as well (for example, societies with lots of tall men with high testosterone will probably be more hostile and have more competitive values). Which in turn influences culture, and the cycle goes on. These are called positive reinforcing loops.

Meanwhile, Athens was situated on land that was too shitty to grow anything. Because of its poor soil, it was less desirable and therefore less prone to invasions. Being relatively unmolested and left alone allowed Athens to prosper intellectually and devote more time to intellectual and athletic pursuits. Being intellectual requires a lot of free time to read and ponder deep thoughts. One simply cannot become intellectual without having free time, and since Athens didn’t have to constantly fight and depend itself, it had the time to dedicate to creating centers of learning, pondering deep topics and pursuing knowledge for its own sake.

Spending time obsessing over the IQs of Spartans versus Athenians in an effort to shape policy would be pointless, because as shown above the relationship between environment, culture and genetics is very complicated and intertwined. Sure one society may have ended up with a higher IQ than another, but all that shows you are the traits that society historically needed for survival, not what that society is forever capable of. If somehow conditions got reversed and Athens suddenly was attacked incessantly while Sparta entered an era of unbroken peace, within a few generations the situations could end up reversed with Sparta becoming a society that favors intellectual pursuits and Athens focusing on developing military prowess and battle toughness.

This is why I have a problem with the idea many conservatives push that society is shortchanging itself by not paying more attention to the race and IQ issues put forth in The Bell Curve. Even if blacks do have a lower IQ, all that shows us is that the history of blacks is one that left more unintelligent people in the gene pool. If you subjected blacks to environment and cultural conditions that rewarded high intellect, competition and technical innovation first and foremost and made it hard to survive and thrive without these traits, you’d see a positive change in average IQ, much like if you devalued intellect, competiton and innovation in the culture and environment of whites and made it easy for them to survive and thrive without these traits, their average IQ would drop in time as well.

Average IQ of a racial group is simply an indicator of that racial group’s historical tolerance for the survival of unintelligent people, not an indicator of that racial group’s future potential for the rest of its existence.

In part 3, I’ll discuss why I think the history of Africans, and black Americans in particular, has produced environments that allow more unintelligent people to prosper, thereby lowering the average IQ for the whole group. And social policy solutions that can get great results for blacks without even having to address average IQ by race.

Recommended Reading:

Feel free to post any random thoughts on the economy here folks. How we got here, predictions on where we’re going, anything.

My first prediction: Illegal Mexicans will be caught sneaking back into Mexico for opportunity. Remember where you read it first.

The chorus and the bridge just kill it, one of the best uses of the Bob James “Nautilus” sample ever. Terribly underrated.

In response to this post, Why? writes:

This is really creepy.
You are aware that pimps are horrible, horrible people right?

That they abuse and hurt people. I find this writing dramatic hearsay. Personally I think you are simply attracted to the idea of controlling a situation you had difficulty in and are rationalising it. That is stupid. Anti social stupid. Creepy stupid. No, wait, it?s not stupid, it?s ?outcome driven? your just trying to make yourself feel better about being a loser (really you wouldn?t obsess if you didn?t suck at it, losers suck).

That shit you said about ?outcome driven? compared to keeping your values, ah, that just another way of saying people have separate goals. In the pimp example you gave (when people think pimps have a lot of sex) That?s just valuing sex over control. The people want sex, the pimp wants control. You?re making up vague phrases to appear all knowing but really it?s just cold reading. You find what you like.
It?s like some sort of morally inept modern-day wife?s tale. You say this teaches the basic ideas but they are conflicting. A perfect example is the career of a pimp. You said now blah, blah pimps money not thinking ahead, blah, ignore that completely because blah, blah, blah. You know, you wrote it.

Another example:
He?s on drugs. Oh yeah, that?s process driven. Hey I?ll get addicted to something! What better way to keep a clear sharp mind that to always be craving my next fix! Smart.

Also what the hell does malcome X have to do with pimps? Hey why not just write something john kerry wrote about physics?
Why are you looking to evaluate a pimp? Also what proof do you have that everything went so smoothly? All you have is a book that was written by (Hell he probably had a ghost writer) pimp. Think about that. A pimp wrote it.
A pimp. Someone who is bottom rung, fucked up in the head, thinks people are property boy. Oh another thing about pimps, they like to get their girls pregnant it gives them more leverage. You gonna write about that too? Pimps also pay their whores with drugs instead of money. Keeps ?em real close. Why don?t you just suggest that?

Why not try to find someone who is in a caring and equal relationship? Or at least one where there isn?t the threat of violence, where both people in the relationship are allowed to talk to their family and friends?
Why not make your own values? Hopefully ones that don?t bring to mind guys who sucker minors in with drugs and parties and then slap them around and use shame and embarrassment and threats to keep control?

This makes me feel disgusted.

You are pulling shit out of your ass and clapping with it. There is no studying. You have not gone out on the street to try being a pimp. You have not been slapped in the name of control. You have not had your family and friends cut off from you. You have not collected statistics. You have not seen people lost to a lifestyle they wouldn?t wish on anyone. You are taking nothing but anecdotal evidence from a guy who is in a profession that has a reputation of being full of scum sucking asshole, manipulative liars. Pimps are liars. You have no concrete proof.

I hope you find better role models.

I admire the passion. My favorite part is “You are pulling shit out of your ass and clapping with it.” That’s hilarious.

In one of my recent Sweden posts, I described a concept called Simp’s Dilemma a play off the game theory concept Prisoner’s Dilemma. Many people out there still had no idea what a “simp” or a “trick” was though.

Lo and behold, I found a site with the perfect definition.

Here are some examples of ?simp behavior?. If you or your friends are exhibiting 2 or more of these symptoms ? immediately stop dating and email me for immediate help.

You bought her a Tiffany?s bracelet for Christmas, and she got you socks (because the Prada purse she bought herself the week before set her back) ? but you see nothing wrong.

All your male friends avoid you like the plague ? because all you talk about is what you bought ?baby girl? last week.

Your going into debt trying to support the lifestyle your ?girl? is into.

Your always eating p*ssy (performing cunnilingus), but you get a funny look every time ?reciprocation? is mentioned.

You are giving her elaborate dates (para-sailing, trips to Brazil, Helicopter rides) ? and she always gives you a nice hug as a thank you.

You get off the phone with ?I love you? and she responds ?yeah ? your cool too?.

Unfortunately, simping has hit an all-time high as more and more respected members of the black community have endorsed such behavior. There’s even a catchphrase for it now that states “It ain’t tricking if you got it,” meaning that tricking or being a simp is okay if you have the money to blow. This makes no sense because you have to have it in the first place in order to simp. You can’t be a trick if you don’t have it already.

When I was growing up, simping and tricking was spoken out against by rappers in our community. But now we’ve gone from this:

To this:

It’s still tricking if you got it. Don’t be fooled. What we are experiencing in men behavior in the dating world is a bona fide race to the bottom. We can do better fellas. Just like a man will take easy sex but rarely respect it, women will take the freebies, but won’t respect this type of game.

But what do expect from a community of fellas raised by women?

UPDATE:

Nothing, however, beats this as the classic anti-simp anthem.