by Baron Bodissey/Gates of Vienna
Rageboy Territory, Deliverance Country:
Aboutaleb shocked at Young Criminals’ IQ
* Â DidÂ Aboutaleb Â take the test? Just asking…?
Rotterdam is going to work together with Minister van der Laan (Integration) to look at what the State can do about the development level, especially in relation to Antilles and Moroccan youths.
Burgemeester Ahmed Aboutaleb is very shocked by what he has heard from police circles, he said yesterday during the presentation of the Safety Index 2009. “The IQ and the mental ability of arrested youths is so low that you can’t do much with them. When they are on there own they are great, but when there are two they do the most crazy things.” What’s more, with Moroccans there is often a severe form of schizophrenia present.
Aboutaleb will also ask that the GGZ and the Ministry for Health Welfare and Sport be involved in discussions to see what can be done. “We must do everything that will help and not hinder, such as tackling leaving school early.”
This article appeared in the Metro 16 April 2009.
The Labour Party Chairman Peter van Heemst is happy that Burgermeester Aboutaleb and Minister Van der Laan are taking the problem seriously. Van Heemst asked in May 2008 for an inquiry into the background and mental abilities of young criminals.
* Â There are lots of comments, Â most of them from Fjordman, who Â masterfully dissects Â the arguments of those whoÂ advocateÂ Â loweringÂ the bar:
Theoretically speaking you should see the same trend in the Southern Hemisphere the further south you get, but Antarctica has always been uninhabited by humans until very recently. In practice, therefore, this principle only applies to the Northern Hemisphere. People from Sweden or Russia should have significantly higher IQs than people from the Nile Valley. Similarly, Koreans or Japanese people should have higher average IQs than people from South India or New Guinea. Both of these examples roughly correspond to observed reality.
Several arguments are raised against using IQ as a measurement. By far the most common one is that it is immoral. This is an anti-scientific argument which should be dismissed.
The second argument is that because IQ-measurements were invented by Europeans, they are by nature “Eurocentric” and biased. This is a silly argument. Virtually all measurements of everything from electric charge to pressure were invented by Europeans. All temperature scales in use in the modern world were developed by men from Western Europe. As far as I know, Europeans were also the only ones to invent the barometer and to develop a method to measure atmospheric pressure. In order to be consistent you have to reject the meteorological terms “high pressure” and “low pressure,” too, since these correspond to a Eurocentric bias as well. I wish those individuals good luck in developing a non-Eurocentric weather forecast.
It is true that human intelligence is a complex thing consisting of several factors, not all of which are measured by IQ, but we have indications that at least some aspects of intelligence can indeed be measured by IQ tests. The ethnic group with the highest average IQ is Ashkenazi Jews, who have produced by far the highest number of Nobel Prize winners per capita of any ethnic group on Earth. The country with the highest average IQ is probably Japan, a fact which corresponds well with Japan’s high technological and economic level. Northeast Asians, Koreans, Japanese and Chinese people, all have high IQs. In the Western university system where people from all over the world compete, it is generally Jews, East Asians and Europeans who perform the best, and they are all high-IQ groups.
That being said, there are a few things that average IQ does not explain. It is interesting to notice that the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions took place among Europeans, not among East Asians, despite the fact that the latter have at least as high average IQs. This could indicate that IQ does measure something that is relevant about intelligence, but not everything. It is also theoretically possible that whites, i.e. people of European stock, have a higher standard deviation than East Asians, which means that we have more idiots and more people with extremely high intelligence. Geniuses drive scientific and technological progress forward. In order to establish the laws of universal gravity you needed one individual who was as smart as Newton, not one thousand individuals who were just pretty smart.
Finally, it is quite possible that once you have a minimum level of average intelligence, perhaps around 100 as many European nations typically have, other forces and factors come into play as well, for instance religion.
“The best explanation for the Greek phenomenon lies in a combination of genetic and geographic factors. The peoples living in the cold regions of Europe had, over a period of many millennia, evolved higher average intelligence than the peoples living in the Middle East. However, because of the mild climate in the Middle East, and the availability of a large assortment of useful domesticable plants and animals, the inhabitants of the Middle East developed agriculture long before the peoples of northern Europe. The early advent of agriculture and cities in the Middle East enabled them to make major progress during the Neolithic Era and the early historic era, and to get a big jump on the rest of the world in technology and in intellectual matters. In time, the superior genetic endowment of the Europeans would enable them to overcome that head start. However, between European groups, the one most likely to advance first was the one which had the earliest opportunity of learning from the civilizations of the Middle East and Egypt. Because of their geographic location, the Greeks were the first European people to come into contact with those civilizations.”
Moreover, why did the Industrial Revolution begin in Britain? According to Hart, it could only have begun in a country where the average intelligence of the inhabitants was very high. However, it was unlikely to originate in a region where the average IQ was very high but the total population was low, for instance the Scandinavian and Nordic countries. It was more likely to arise in a region where slavery was rare or absent, as an abundance of cheap labor decreased the need for labor-saving machinery. It was more likely to originate in a region where there was considerable intellectual ferment (the Inquisition crushed the expression of heterodox opinions in Spain and Portugal; Russia was politically repressive). In some countries in Western Europe, the effects of overseas explorations added to the intellectual ferment. This was to the comparative disadvantage of countries such as Germany, Italy and Poland. The IR was less likely to originate in a region which was politically fragmented, such as Italy or Germany, as the free trade zone was less and the internal market smaller.
The IR was more likely to arise in a country with abundant iron ore and coal, as those resources were especially important during the IR. Finally, the IR was more likely to arise in a country where property rights were secure. Although a number of these factors were present in several countries, the only place where all of them were present was Britain. This does not prove that the Industrial Revolution was predestined to start in Britain, but it was more likely to start there than anywhere else.
It’s that pesky average. The average intelligence of east asians, particularly the chinese and japanese and their relatives, is slightly higher than the west. THe problem is, that average doesn’t reflect the spread of intelligence – the bellcurve,as I’m sure you’re aware it’s called. In teh west that bell curve is very broad. You get a lot of very dumb people and a lot of incredibly smart people (and both extremes of intelligence are dominated by men, oddly enough). The industrial revolution was driven by these very smart people. In the east the bell curve is very narrow. Most people are close to the average, so they don’t have the genius minds of the sort that drove the industrial revolution.
Add in the cultural factors (in China the only people with the time and inclination to actually progress in theoretical science tended to be court eunuchs, for instance) and you have a recipe for a civilisation that is competent but not innovative.
Careful. You are wandering dangerously close to CJs Nazi territory and may cause his head to explode. Again. ; )
I actually disagree with Michael Hart on a number of issues. Understanding Human History is provocative and worth reading, but it relies a little bit too much on IQ as an all-purpose explanation. IQ does not explain why East Asians have usually been so weak in creating mathematics. For most of the past 2500 years, the West has been superior to East Asia in mathematics, sometimes by a very wide margin. Despite the fact that China clearly has a higher average IQ than India, I would claim that the peaks of Indian mathematicians have been higher than those of Chinese mathematicians.
He also claims that it has generally been people from the north conquering people from the south, and he attributes this to the higher level of average intelligence among northerners. For instance, China has never been conquered from the south but has been conquered from the north or northwest several times, by the Mongols and the Manchus among others. Even within China itself, Chinese civilization emerged in the north and spread to the south. The same can be said about India.
However, while it is true that it is more common that people from the north conquer people from the south, there are some very important exceptions to this rule, few more visible than the Muslim conquests and raids in Europe. Moreover, I think IQ fetishists push the issue of IQ even in cases where it is not the main issue or does not apply at all. The Viking Age was not caused by high IQ alone. I don’t think there were major differences in intelligence between Scandinavians and other Europeans during the Early Middle Ages. Those who favor a genetic explanation for everything also cannot explain why medieval Scandinavians were greatly feared as warriors whereas their direct genetic descendants are today considered to be soft and weak.
An interesting case would be Greeks vs. Jews. The scientific contribution of the Greeks 2500-1800 years ago vastly exceeded the relatively minor scholarly contributions made by Jews during the same period, yet this picture has been almost exactly reversed during the past two hundred years: We now have Jewish geniuses such as Einstein, but no longer any Greek geniuses remotely comparable to Aristotle or Archimedes. We have no indications that Jews in Antiquity had very high intelligence, and Jews from the Middle East or Ethiopia do not have so today. Only European Jews do. This strongly indicates that the very high average intelligence among European Jews is the product of the past 2000 years, perhaps even the past 1000 years. This again indicates that evolution is a continuing factor among human populations even in historical times.
At some point it was forbidden to take tests, but after Leefbaar Rotterdam became a power in the municipal council it was mandated again.
Hence these figures.
There is no way, NO WAY, you can use so many of these people in a modern economy.Â
“Spackle: I couldn’t care less about what CJ and his few remaining cheerleaders think about anything.”
Just so we are clear. I was joking. But I (think?) you got that.
The UK Labour Government for example SEEM to claim that they have advanced IQ/ability in just 12 short years.Â
Nonsense of course – they simply reduced the “pass” marks and devalued the exams to make it even easier and to produce the perception that the kids are more intelligent because of their policies. That will confound Darwinism!
And of course there ARE several different systems of measuring IQ so it isn’t entirely consistent.Â
For those from , let’s say,more tribal type communities the drive to become educated is less universally established and that in itself MIGHT affect measured IQ.Â
MOST importantly cultural values are FAR FAR different and “rob thy neighbour” is a NORM in some societies – if they can get away with it. SOME argue that in Islam the taking of booty and harming “infidels” is a religious duty. I’m sure it is for many, but not all, Muslims. At the very least the Koran and the Hadiths and Sura CAN be, and are, used to support such behaviour.
In their countries of origin then I’m sure that immigrants and their descendants would be horribly dealt with if caught committing such crimes against other Muslims, and perhaps even against “infidels”.
Here in the West though we now are SO soft and “liberal” (poor soul had a bad childhood) that we release killers to kill again and in the UK we give community orders and laughable sentences for serious crimes.
Whichever community the criminals come from the punishment, if they are actually caught, are SO light that they have no fear and KNOW they can continue offending throughout their lives. IQ has LITTLE to do with it. It is a red herring and they ALL have sufficient IQ to know that crime IS profitable even if caught.
I well remember in my youth. The “village idiots” could add up pounds shillings and pence (12 pence to the shilling, 20 shillings to the pound) rather faster than me and knew exactly what the change should be!!! Mensa reckon my IQ is 155!!
Just a few thoughts.
Some of my colleagues (above average IQs) became fixated on psychometric testing – a sort of variation on IQ tests linked with personality testing – in recruitment processes. I opposed that for very good reason (too mechanistic) but recruitment wasn’t my speciality or responsibility so I lost out.
Well guess what it WORKED – but much less often than it didn’t work. Draw your own conclusions.
JUST this week three people from an ethnic minority ( actual race unknown and likely NOT Muslim – African or Caribbean) have been given “life” sentences (just 19 years in the UK it seems and likely 50% off for good behaviour) for murdering an apparently innocent white kid because one of their number thought he’d “disrespected” him. THAT is the measure of the differences.Â
I “disrespect” people daily but fortunately we so far have few immigrants here so ALL that might happen is that I may be “disrespected” in turn. I WILL NOT be murdered.
The brain is a very, very energy intensive organ. The very reason we have a head is the same reason we have datacenters : if they weren’t separated from the rest, it wouldn’t be possible to cool them.
We have a head, and a very vulnerable neck that it stands on, because our brain would not be able to survive with any energy intensive organ (such as digestive tract) next to it.
BUT the energy use of brains is not consistent. It varies from as little as 30W to over 250W. This is a constant energy usage, and is quite a lot. 250W is more than enough to power a reasonably powerfull computer, screen and everything included. You could power 5 powerful laptops from the power that a well-fed brain uses.
That also means the brain needs to get that energy. Apparently the energy feeding rate of the brain is decided in young children.
So the first, absolutely guaranteed way to convict a kid to having the iq of a turnip is to ill-feed the little guy. Not breast feeding an infant, or irregular feeding of artificial milk will guarantee substandard development. That, by the way, is the only factor that can generate iq’s in the fifties (other than physical disabilities like underdeveloped myelin). Intensive long-term breast feeding (every 2 hours -very- gradually decreasing to every 6 hours) is the best way to initially guarantee optimal development (obviously a breast feeding woman should not -absolutely not- be dieting intensively). As soon as the kid wants it (but no sooner than 3 months of age) feed it more, fruit. A kid will not get fatter or thinner, no matter the amount of food you let it eat, putting a kid on a diet is an extremely dangerous exercise in futility.
Yes, black skin is an indication of lower IQ, but the amount of difference is somewhat amplified by the simple fact that there are a lot of malnourished blacks.
Giving a kid the chance of a high iq is a very intensive job for both parents. Unfortunately it requires the woman stay at home (or returns every 2 hours at least), and the kid should be constantly cared for not by a creche, but by it’s mother (there is the question of the effects of another recent mother providing breast milk). Certainly breast milk cannot be replaced by the artificial products we have.Â
While, yes, it’s true that blacks have on average a low IQ, parents taking perfect care of their black child, however, will raise a kid that has an excellent chance of beating the white average, simply because there are many slightly underfed white kids too.
But muslims don’t have children to make those children the best human beings they possibly could, they have children for honor. Muslim child-rearing practices, especially for boys, at least where I live, look a hell of a lot like “just throw the little kids on the streets as soon as they can be reasonably expected not to die the first day”.
If a kids IQ drops due to energy shortage though, there does not seem to be a way to get it back up.
“Such differences (if they exist) are merely facts of nature; as such, they may be unfortunate, but cannot be immoral. Plainly, if such differences actually exist it is not immoral to believe that they exist, nor to honestly state one’s belief that they exist, nor to study the differences. And even if the differences do not exist, a belief that they do (if honestly held) is not immoral, nor is a serious inquiry into the question immoral. The attempt to turn factual questions into moral questions is the essence of dogmatism, and has long been a hindrance to scientific progress. A well-known example involves the conviction of Galileo by the Inquisition in 1633. The members of the court that condemned him were turning a factual question (‘Does the Earth revolve about the Sun?’) into a moral question (‘Is such a belief contrary to scripture, and therefore heretical?’)”
It could be added here that in the infamous case of Galileo vs. the Inquisition, the attempted censorship had limited practical effects in Europe and did not change physical reality. In contrast, the current censorship of everything related to genes and IQ has the potential to permanently and irreversibly erase entire nations, or even Western civilization as a whole. This makes the current anti-racism hysteria the most serious case of anti-scientific censorship in recorded human history. It is worth keeping in mind that these censorship efforts are primarily upheld by Marxists and self-proclaimed scientific rationalists from the secular Left, not by Christians.
Copernicus’s book about heliocentrism did not produce an immediate upheaval, although it certainly did offend the sensibilities of conservative religious thinkers and professors of Aristotelian natural philosophy. However, during the Catholic Counter-Reformation, any heterodox opinion became more dangerous than it had previously been. Scholar James Evans explains:
“But it was not until 1616 that heliocentrism was officially declared erroneous. De revolutionibus was placed on the Index of books that were prohibited ‘until corrected.’ In principle, De revolutionibus could be circulated and read only if erroneous passages (asserting the mobility of the Earth) were removed. Four years later, a list of ten specific corrections was issued. Owen Gingerich has examined nearly all the surviving copies of the 1543 and 1566 editions of De revolutionibus, which total more than 500 books. The majority of copies in Italy were censored in conformity with the decree. But the decree had almost no effect elsewhere. Not even in Catholic Spain or Portugal were copies censored. The condemnation of De revolutionibus had very little impact on the acceptance of the heliocentric hypothesis. Even the famous trial of Galileo for continuing to advocate heliocentrism after the condemnation only served to popularize the new cosmology. We should qualify this general proposition with a curious exception. After the condemnation, Jesuit missionaries in China, who introduced the Emperor’s astronomers to European astronomy, were forbidden to teach Copernicanism. They therefore continued to teach the Tychonic system long after it had gone out of style in Europe.”
He of course is not familiar with being called a racist, a xenofobe or a crypto nazi – otherwise he wouldÂ neverÂ have been so candid..Â
The blog Politiskt Korrekt has a great article on it. Just translate it via google.
“Smart” is relative to what your goals are.