What do you notice?
https://x.com/martinez_clips/status/1852496428662169818
shareThe black kids and some of the teenagers won't share a bite of their food with the person asking them. The young white kids and a few of the white teenagers are more than happy to share (in one case, overdoing it, hehehe). I'm guessing the kids who won't share usually come from households where they have to compete a lot with other siblings for stuff, and that includes food, so they're bound to hang onto their food more so than households where the mom and dad teach their kids manners and how to be generous to others.
shareI don't know if it's genetics, environment, or a mix of both, but anti-social behavior is common among young blacks. If you've ever spoken to teachers who have them in their classrooms, get a few drinks in them, and they'll tell you: you can't civilize these motherfuckers.
shareThat depends on the kid and their family. It's mostly their culture. Far too many come from broken homes with no dad, and some have such messed up moms that their grandparents are forced to raise them, but there's only so much elderly guardians can do. You can thank that monster LBJ for this blight on America.
shareI used to think the same — it does seem logical and entirely plausible. But recently, I came across studies suggesting otherwise. They’ve done research comparing Black children raised by affluent White parents from birth, and there’s still a noticeable gap in IQ, criminal behavior, and tendencies toward violence. Twin studies also show that traits like IQ and certain behavioral issues remain consistent between twins, even when they’re raised in completely different socio-economic environments.
This account on Twitter posts a lot on this issue:
https://x.com/eyeslasho
This is his second account that is a repository of scientific findings and data on human intelligence and other psychological traits. And he adds new ones all the time:
https://x.com/iointelresearch
This guy is often slammed as a White nationalist, racist, or Trump supporter, but he's actually just a moderate Democrat — and not even White. He’s a data scientist who took on this issue as a side project because there’s a ton of data that goes against the mainstream narrative, data the scientific establishment simply refuses to acknowledge. Many scientific journals won’t even publish studies on race if they reveal data that could be seen as 'harmful' to minorities. The objections aren’t based on science but ideology.
The reason the majority in the scientific community only publish what is accepted by the govt. and the majority is because the govt. owns them. It's not unusual for scientists to compromise their values because they either aren't moral people to start with, or they're greedy for money, and will publish any result their backers want if they're paid enough.
An interesting theory that's been pushed forward recently (and I doubt the govt. puppet scientists in the West will support it) is that people of African descent are less intelligent than everyone else because their Cro Magnon ancestors did not interbreed with Neanderthals, unlike people living outside of the African continent. The theory supports the idea that Neanderthals introduced larger, more intelligent brains to the mixed descendants that later became Homo Sapiens.
I don't think the problem is government in this case. The real issue lies within academia, where this whole woke ideology first originated and has since spread like a cancer. This phenomenon has been around since the 90s, with some arguing it dates back to the 60s, but it wasn’t until the late 2000s that it began to infiltrate other institutions. It was during Obama's presidency that it was officially implemented as government policy, particularly with initiatives like DEI. Woke ideology has completely overtaken academia, the scientific establishment, and most scientific and literary journals. It's been thoroughly captured.
As for the Neanderthal Ancestry Theory, while I can't definitively say it explains the IQ gap, it's true that non-African populations, particularly those of European and East Asian descent, possess significantly more Neanderthal DNA (about 1-2%) compared to sub-Saharan Africans, who generally have little to no Neanderthal ancestry. This difference stems from the migration of modern humans out of Africa and their interbreeding with Neanderthals in Eurasia. It’s also a fact that sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of around 60, which would be considered retarded in most European and Asian societies, but I don’t know if these two points are directly related.
There have also been other theories as to why Sub-Saharan Africans never advanced beyond the stone/bronze age compared to Europeans and Asians.
A key component someone brought up on Quora was the fact that they didn't have horses or other large, 4-legged animals they could easily tame to pull wagons or carry people. (Zebras are not an option because they're too wild). Modern research discovered several viruses present throughout the continent south of the Sahara that kills horses, cattle, and oxen. So you can imagine how hard it would be for a civilization to advance if all you had to transport goods or trade were just human beings on their own two feet. It wouldn't have even mattered if they'd invented the wheel. Doesn't do much good if you don't have large animals that can travel long distances to pull vehicles with said wheels.
Even worse, using rivers to travel long distances wasn't an option either. Too many rivers in Africa have waterfalls, so traveling on a boat to trade doesn't work so well either.
The final issue is, there are many places in Africa outside of the jungles and South Africa that do not have rich soil or enough water to keep everyone from dying of thirst or starvation. Even the jungles could be dangerous to live in if you didn't know what you were doing. So often you had the various tribes spending most of their time just trying to survive and fighting over meager resources available. They rarely had time to build a civilization, much less get beyond simple tribal societies that weren't struggling to stay alive. The few times they did, their kings squandered their wealth and their dynasties fell apart in less than one or two generations. Either that, or they ran out of goods to keep their little budding civilization going.
These are all valid points. Ultimately, though, these people aren’t suited for life in an advanced, high-trust society. It's unrealistic and unfair to expect them to meet standards they’re simply not equipped for, and it’s equally unfair — and dangerous — to continue forcing our societies to integrate in ways that don’t work. The best outcome for everyone involved would be if we lived apart in our own societies with our own people.
shareYeah. If I was gathering people to colonize another planet like Mars, I would not take along people who didn't value work, didn't respect the law, and were not willing to work as part of a team. I'd leave people like that in the hell they created on Earth, while preserving the better parts of Humanity out in the stars.
sharewhy Sub-Saharan Africans never advanced beyond the stone/bronze age
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/extraordinary-african-kingdoms-from-ancient-times-to-centuries-ago
https://www.history.com/news/7-influential-african-empires share
So where has this guy published elsewhere? I mean, anywhere in a peer-reviewed environment?
shareI don’t know his real identity, but I’ve followed him for a couple of years. Based on what he’s shared, he seems to be a moderate Democrat, non-White, and works with scientific data, though I’m unsure of his exact field. He’s taken a particular interest in this topic because, from his perspective, the data often supports conclusions that the mainstream scientific community either disregards or actively suppresses. Many studies align with ideas put forward by race scientists over the years, but these findings are rarely acknowledged; some journals even refuse to publish them over concerns that the conclusions might harm minority groups.
From what I’ve observed, he’s motivated by what he sees as an objective commitment to data and facts. My impression is that he might be a bit autistic, and this could partly explain his frustration with the way certain findings are swept under the rug. Through his account, he’s created a space to analyze, critique, and showcase these studies, breaking down their methodologies, sample sizes, and validity. He even challenges people on his side of the political aisle, often questioning myths about race that these studies debunk.
Since I don’t know his identity, I can’t verify everything he says about himself. But from following him for years, he comes across as genuine. Regardless of how anyone feels about him personally, the studies he shares are available for anyone to examine. His I/O Research account has become a sort of repository for these papers, so anyone can review them and draw their own conclusions.
I don’t know his real identity, but I’ve followed him for a couple of years. Based on what he’s shared, he seems to be a moderate Democrat, non-White, and works with scientific data, though I’m unsure of his exact field. He’s taken a particular interest in this topic because, from his perspective..
Unfortunately we are still left with an anonymous poster, on a site without editorial standards, offering (at least in the two links I saw) data without a source and without context and you say to a 'perspective'. It may well be that he does better elsewhere, but I would be reassured if one knew his specialisation for sure, and for links to some work of his that was fully attributed and peer reviewed. share