The conditions of the most "progressive" and "Inclusive" states/cities are horrible.

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,624
2,158
470
Brampton, Ontario
For anyone still interested in how IQ tests were done in Africa and other black populations, I am personally tracking down papers and making notes of the sampling data.
I am only doing this to compare racial backgrounds and IQ averages, NOT politics and environment.

South Sudan IQ Tests:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...telligence_of_south_sudanese_refugee_children

Lynn (2010) The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans: Comments on Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf

Wicherts review of Sub-Sahara Africa
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0c14/de5a9f7de7f6e09d55752b4dc736026b3e61.pdf

Studying intelligence in Jamaican two year olds
https://humanvarietiesfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2007-wachs-ppvt.pdf

Another study on Jamaican children
https://humanvarietiesfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2005-samms-vaughan-cpm.pdf

1969 IQ Study of Jamaica
https://humanvarietiesfiles.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1963-manley-mh.pdf

IQ Testing of Haitians in 1985
https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1985-cotten.pdf

1982 IQ Testing of Haitian immigrants to America
https://humanvarietiesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1982-douyon-wiscppvt-f.pdf

WW1 US Army Study of Blacks and Whites
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwj847BNfkDKN1hMbXp3ZThteEU/view#page=317

Rushton: 30 years of Race studies on intelligence
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

I'll be posting anymore studies I come across.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,624
2,158
470
Brampton, Ontario
No. Look, you're making a lot of exaggerated claims in this thread, that all substantiate your view that the problems of an entire continent are self imposed, or at least not caused externally. Your view is over simplified and suggest that you haven't really looked into these issues at all, the Senegalese fishing situation is just one example how the local population is strongly affected by an external factor outside their control. That doesn't mean there aren't things African countries can and should do to get ahead, but you don't seem interested in getting to the bottom of the issue, you're just using it to further your opinion.

I'd recommend you this book (which btw is mostly about internal reform, so you might like it):
Emerging Africa: How the Global Economy's 'Last Frontier' Can Prosper and Matter
I treat every country the same.
All nations should be looking for solutions, and not excuses. Otherwise, there will never be improvement.
You may think this sounds tough, but reference my previous posts where I mention all other races and ethnicity experience hardship.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,278
763
470
What is this referring to?
It's almost like right you directly admitted to reading none of the previous posts were I have listed the various ways that IQ studies in africa are done differently than every other country in the world. So this pretty much already breaks your argument to pieces before we even get started.

What is this referring to?


So what is the issue?
Again showing you never actually read any of the posts before and literally just posted reactionary responses defending a position you never had. I know you're trying to use tire out tactics to get people to walk out but that doesn't work on me.


Let me rephrase my statement.
It is completely possible for Black Americans to outperform mixed raced or other non-black populations.
But the distribution of Black Americans with that ability will be located at the far end of the bell curve.
Your statement is irrelevant, not only because it's wrong, but you've already shown dishonest debating by constantly looking for a way out of discussing the flaws in your posts about Africa, and will take any means to try and shift focus if possible. You clearly aren't competent enough to focus on multiple subjects at once, or are doing it intentionally. (not to mention you're still wrong, just looking for excuses, but we'll come back to that later.)


I'm reading through some of these studies right now and they appear to address your complaints on sampling. For example regarding how IQ testing was done in the Congo:
http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf



Testing of the Zulu



I'll report back more findings as I finish reading through it.
See the trick you're using here is knowing most people in the thread won't look at that link and likely assumed I wouldn't either, Congo appears only 5 times in that whole document and it doesn't share any methods of how IQ testing is done, in fact in most cases the word Congo is in the document it's followed by "study was rejected" or "study wasn't listed".

It also doesn't go into region or ethnic group, which most other countries in the world do, and even it shows that urban groups/areas were not included. Congo is one of the most understudied areas on the continent, and I'm talking about both congos (which you likely didn't even know there were two) with western Congo having had ONE general study that only tested one section in one school district that was mostly of non-native ethnic groups, with a low sample size. Do you think that's fair measurement and that's sufficient enough to come up with Congo-Brazza's average IQ? No, so that's just ONE example out of MANY countries. Africa is had had nowhere near enough studying done to come to any conclusion about MOST of the countries in the continents average IQ. That's a fact you won't admit for some odd reason. So you continue to cling to the same few country sets you can find detailed information on ignoring the fact you can't find any in-depth data in most other countries even half-way toward SA's studies. Especially the Zulus which historically where never that intelligent and had no real empire or infrastructure, and were among the weakest and disorganized armies in pre-colonial africa and yet they are the most pushed out and celebrated by "white" people. I can't imagine why....

There have been IQ tests done on black populations outside of Africa. The results are absolutely the same or of little difference.
This is not only a wrong statement but irrelevant. You're only bringing it up to try and cover the fact that Africa is heavily understudied and some areas have had no research done at all. This sentence is nothing more than desperately trying to find someway so you don't have to actually admit you can't find any data and that you have an excuse to be lazy. As i said above, a normal person at this point would admit that there's isn't enough data to come to ANY of the conclusions you're presenting with links that in many cases don't even say what you claim, and some charts that are outdated and have since been updated. But like I said you aren't expecting anyone to actually look into ha;f of what you're posting.

You can't find the data because it doesn't exist, hence why you keep going back to the same few countries and primarily, SA/Zim. Because your lie of there having been extensive studies is a lie for most of the countries in the region, as well as you ignoring the fast progress of some countries in particular...

How many people got shifted around during and after WW2?


.
For example, Kenyan has over 3 million Somalis from conflicts that moved refugees around, and were forced to take them after the leaders initial stance to not take them because of threads by external powers and a short military intervention.

Congo has 10's of millions of groups that shouldn't even be in the country, heck many of the conflicts before were about getting some of these groups out which apparently isn't allowed and the UN/other forces had to get involved. During the great war/crisis over 6 million native peoples died with millions more of after-effects of the war, yet the population grew in less than 5 years by 15 million. One of the most diverse countries on the planet, with million on millions of people in the country that shouldn't be there. if anything Congo is a good example of why radical immigration/refugee policies won't work.

In Nigeria, they were forced to take many Refugees, and have also been pressured into open border policies for years with mostly the South half being resistant. Congo, Central African, Somali, etc. Fleeing to Southern Nigeria most of the time. (hmm) while conflicts in Northern African for years from islam conflicts to Boko Haram have spread Refugees from North Nigeria to Chad and Niger at points 1,500 refugees every few days.

Now Botswanna, a usually homogeneous country, are being forced to take in refugees, and internationally controlled non-african organization salc is forcing them to change their immigration laws, they also forced them to accept birth certificate changes for transgenders and relax their anti-lgbt stance. Sovereignty? What's that?

Also heavy cultural refugee acceptance/immigration with no shared values or with no adaption will immediately make the groups taken in clash with the society they are in. Somalis make up like 65% of Kenyas violent and sexual crime rate (along with smaller muslim populations from south Ethiopia, Tanzania, and South Sudan). Not that different from some European countries with Arabs. (and also Somalis which in some countries have high numbers in Europe.)

United Nations Refugee Agency has been going after Kenya deporting Somalis for years, even when they are not only there without registration, but even if a crime was committed. As well as removing other ethnic groups non-native to Kenya. Most heavily in the capital, of which over the years 10's of thousands of Somalis have been removed or "missing", of course you could argue that deporting them back to Somalia may be "immoral" but there are several other countries with nice open borders that would take them, yet the UN and other non-African organizations continue to treat Kenya as the main spot to send many Somali refugees. Not only is that not even close to fair, which I'm sure you agree, but also equally suspicious. Of course when you have millions of Somalis in your education system that may cause a few issues.

Of course that over 3 million is outdated, some reports on Kenyan sites seem to imply 5-6 million Somalis now, though the number in the capital has reduced a bit due to Government actions that's still 6 million Somalis all over the place. Which again, are causing havoc. As of now, Kenya is rejecting pressure and sending troops to control and close-up the borders with all neighboring countries excluding Uganda. As there's a heavy anti-islam sentiment going on amongst the people. of course I'm sure Kenya will be punished for doing so, which will of course hinder growth.

But hey everyones treated fairly right?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,624
2,158
470
Brampton, Ontario
It's almost like right you directly admitted to reading none of the previous posts
Your posts are always 100% ambiguous, without ever providing any real sources for certain claims being brought up.
I ask you to redefine what this all means but you just say "wrong" "look at my previous posts".

Yeah, I did that before and remember when you said this?

Afro Republican said:
Also, this is an odd segway to jump to Africa from Black Americans. Black Americans were a major part of the countries economy, there was investment in many sectors that are not invested in anymore as well as laws making it difficult. You moving away from post 60's doesn't make sense as the condition of Black Americans right now in 2018 is a direct result of WHAT happened after the 60's.
I never got back an answer. So at this point, I just have to do my own fact checking.


Afro Republican said:
Africa is had had nowhere near enough studying done to come to any conclusion about MOST of the countries in the continents average IQ. That's a fact you won't admit for some odd reason.
I'm looking into this and will come to a new conclusion based off what I've found. However, to say that we can't come to a conclusion about Africa with the current data we have now seems to ignore reality.
I already mentioned the Atlantic Slave Trade brought various African tribes to the new world. DNA tests reveal that not much has changed since they relocated in 400 years.
It would thus not be wrong to assume that Africans all over the world all score similar to each other in IQ tests.

In fact, your point about ethnicity having an impact on IQ tests is deeply flawed.
Do you think ethnic groups always marry within their own? Do Germans only marry other Germans, and not other Europeans?
What if someone claims to be French but it's only on their mother's side, and their Father was something else?

Racial ancestry is much more important in predicting IQ than relying on any ethnic ones.


Afro Republican said:
But hey everyones treated fairly right?
Population transfers are happening right now so yeah, it's not just an African thing.

But this doesn't actually tell me much about IQ testing and just goes back to politics.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,278
763
470
Your posts are always 100% ambiguous, without ever providing any real sources for certain claims being brought up.
I ask you to redefine what this all means but you just say "wrong" "look at my previous posts".
No you never directly responded to the previous statement which was intentionally isolated and skipped it. You find any excuse for you intentionally being dishonest and acting like you don't understand things. I'm not even the only person in this thread you've done that with.


I never got back an answer.
This is a lie. not only is this a lie, but you used that small comment about Americans as an escape route out of the African population and started pulling out ranom percentages out of nowhere to try and start a new argument.

I'm looking into this and will come to a new conclusion based off what I've found. However, to say that we can't come to a conclusion about Africa with the current data we have now seems to ignore reality.
Uh yes, we can say we can't come to a conclusion, we have no data for much of the continent, or data that's not been fairly measured or is the research is severely limited.

I already mentioned the Atlantic Slave Trade brought various African tribes to the new world. DNA tests reveal that not much has changed since they relocated in 400 years.
It would thus not be wrong to assume that Africans all over the world all score similar to each other in IQ tests.
This is also false, the vast majority of groups send to through the slave trade were mostly of the inward tribes of ONE region of Africa that were captured by coastal kings and sold to white people, with SOME other western nations due to British backstabbing being send in and a small percentage of other. Going by historical record numbers, it fits in with the amount of slaves that ended up In the Americans and elsewhere. So to say the slave trade would show any sort of clue to African IQ's is literally garbage and wouldn't even stand as a starting point for any research.

You have several western Africa ethnic groups and empires/states/villages that had few to NONE taken by the colonists either because they were providing the slaves from in-land or they had alliances with the British (some african states accepted british colonialism, or long resistance put them in protectorate status and the British or other colonial countries didn't touch them) Then you have basically the whole rest of the continent basically untouched outside may a few small marginal grabs here and there:

Most of the slaves were from this region:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-53ab845324b7c1d3b81bf742d444551e

and it matches the records
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a206ac6dec998d76dd8ab183e774a615.webp
And most of that was from tribes/ethnics inland and sold by the more advanced empires to the colonists with some exceptions as mentioned before. So to imply, as you did, that the slave trade brought many different typed of Africas giving an idea of the general continent is simply false and falls back on the issue that there is nowhere near enough data to come to any conclusions.

Racial ancestry is much more important in predicting IQ than relying on any ethnic ones.
No it doesn't since it has been proven enough times through multiple studies that all the "blacks" in "africa" are arguably not all the same race. However people don't want to break the category unification so most studies in a variety of subjects is done by ethnic group.

To say Ethnic group doesn't matter for Africa, is a very silly statement. Ethnic group differences have shown wildly different resorts compared to other ethnic groups in the same territory. Some Ethnic groups do vastly worse than other at certain things. In some cases, like the Somali, an Ethnic group can't taint studies. You can't compare Africa to Europe and that's the biggest mistake you continue to make. The two are nowhere near comparable. Africa has the most ethnic groups in the world, they have major differences in where they were historically and where they are presently, to deny that ethnic group matters is baffling. Look up some studies on ethnic groups, they make a huge difference in a country and how it progresses. Some of the conflicts on the continent where based on that very thing.

Population transfers are happening right now so yeah, it's not just an African thing.

But this doesn't actually tell me much about IQ testing and just goes back to politics.
It is primarily an African thing and has been since the early 30's, and yes ethnic group shifts do impact countries in this subject. Oddly, some countries in Europe are currently thinking the same thing, but i guess since it's Africa the same logic doesn't apply?

I've already talked about how some ethnic groups are either not measured at all, or ethnic groups, including those that are not from the country/region, will be given equal percentages despite the population difference, thus screwing up any measurements.

Of course the biggest issue is that MOST of the continent has no studies or is understudied. There needs to be further in depth-research along with measuring IQ the SAME way consistently, using the same methods across these countries the as all the other areas of the world. Until then there's no data to come to any conclusions.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,624
2,158
470
Brampton, Ontario
No you never directly responded to the previous statement which was intentionally isolated and skipped it. You find any excuse for you intentionally being dishonest and acting like you don't understand things. I'm not even the only person in this thread you've done that with.

This is a lie. not only is this a lie, but you used that small comment about Americans as an escape route out of the African population and started pulling out ranom percentages out of nowhere to try and start a new argument.
I can happily wait for when you finally provide an answer to that comment. Like I said, you always shout "wrong" "look at my previous post" but refuse to explain yourself again.


Afro Republican said:
Uh yes, we can say we can't come to a conclusion, we have no data for much of the continent, or data that's not been fairly measured or is the research is severely limited.
The last part is your opinion.
In regards to missing data, China is a big country yet somehow IQ Tests still manage to give us a rough idea where China stands. I wouldn't be surprised that most of China is actually composed of rural or poor farm land, but all the well off Chinese live in cities along the coast.

However, we still have other studies that conclude Orientals (in any country) still score a few IQ points higher than any other race.
When IQ studies attempt the same thing with Black populations, the results still demonstrate there is a 1 standard deviation below the White mean score.


Afro Republican said:
This is also false, the vast majority of groups send to through the slave trade were mostly of the inward tribes of ONE region of Africa that were captured by coastal kings and sold to white people, with SOME other western nations due to British backstabbing being send in and a small percentage of other. Going by historical record numbers, it fits in with the amount of slaves that ended up In the Americans and elsewhere. So to say the slave trade would show any sort of clue to African IQ's is literally garbage and wouldn't even stand as a starting point for any research.

And most of that was from tribes/ethnics inland and sold by the more advanced empires to the colonists with some exceptions as mentioned before. So to imply, as you did, that the slave trade brought many different typed of Africas giving an idea of the general continent is simply false and falls back on the issue that there is nowhere near enough data to come to any conclusions.
I'm confused. Which ethnic group do you believe these slaves belong to?

For example, just looking at where Jamaicans came from reveals many backgrounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Jamaican#Ethnicities
Based on the phoenix ship records, enslaved Africans mostly came from the Akan people (Twi [Ashanti Akyem, etc.], Fante and Bono) followed by Igbo, Yoruba, Kongo, Fon people and Ibibio people. Akan (then called Coromantee) culture was the dominant African culture in Jamaica.[2]
You were also the one who said how African countries contain "20 ~ 800" different ethnicities? Was Africa somehow more homogeneous before the 16th century, even though the actual kingdoms/borders were smaller?




Afro Republican said:
No it doesn't since it has been proven enough times through multiple studies that all the "blacks" in "africa" are arguably not all the same race.
Wait what? I've been arguing with someone the whole time who doesn't see Native Africans in Africa to be black?

Well, I'm sorry I had this conversation with you then. I'll end the debate here.
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
2,372
2,604
255
Wait what? I've been arguing with someone the whole time who doesn't see Native Africans in Africa to be black?
there's quite an obvious difference between people that grew up in Africa and had a home country and traditions, and people that were kidnapped from Africa and taken to another place, from their. personally i like the term "American Descent of Slavery" because it describes the reality of the situation.

"black" is not that accurate a term cos it sweeps all kinds of disparate groups under one banner. imo it's entirely disingenuous when people compare descendants of slaves to the "good immigrants" from another country.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,278
763
470
Wait what? I've been arguing with someone the whole time who doesn't see Native Africans in Africa to be black?
I didn't say this, but it is a very clever way to try to get out of an argument. One of which you're conclusions are all invalid because you don't have enough data to come to them. of course I figured you wouldn't try something this dumb to try to get out of a conversation. But you have lied and put words in peoples mouths multiple times in the thread so hmm.


In regards to missing data, China is a big country
Yes China is a big country.

With over 92% of the population being Han Chinese. Are you drunk? All you did here was prove my point.


I'm confused. Which ethnic group do you believe these slaves belong to?

For example, just looking at where Jamaicans came from reveals many backgrounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Jamaican#Ethnicities


.
I literally posted two links of indisputable facts of where the vast majority of the slaves came from, you are using immigration of other groups in jamaica and then spinning it that some of these were from slave ports, which outside some small exceptions is not likely, as some came willing and some were refugees, and some were from Central/Sotuahamerica/ other Islands which would ADD to the amount of ethnicity.

The vast majority of Slaves came from the regions I posted. Especially Too America. And there's still many areas in West Africa that had a marginal percentage of slaves taken or none at all, not even counting the rest of the continent that outside exceptions, had no slaves take period.

What's hilarious is your Wiki link has a table that copies the table I posted in link #2. Come on man.


You were also the one who said how African countries contain "20 ~ 800" different ethnicities? Was Africa somehow more homogeneous before the 16th century, even though the actual kingdoms/borders were smaller?
You're maps missing several empires, but the part that is more interesting are the areas you don't have data for, which is huge, YET, you are going to make a claim that Africa was less homogeneous in the 16 century when you don't have the data to make that claim? WHILE several of the empires and mini kingdoms ON your map WERE mostly homogenous to most extents?

And then you're going to ignore the MANY conflicts that were waged whether a direct war or secessionist in Africa over the last 100 years that were ALL DIRECTLY based on not wanting to share those drawn lines and creating their own Humongous state because they USED TO BE homogeneous?

Man you've really done no research on Africa at all have you? Just found some IQ charts and came up with conclusions without enough data to do so and limited knowledge on the continent even at a middle school level.

I also like how you continue to avoid talking about the biased measurements of many African countries which allows North Nigeria to be lopsided in scale, causing the whole country to have a low 70's/high 60's range IQ yet give Papua New Guinea an mid 80's range. Oddly enough the way both countries have been measured isn't consistent. But you're still arguing you have enough data to come to any conclusions about Africa? Even though you already admitted you can't find any real detailed IQ information because the data doesn't exist for MOST African countries?

I would suggest looking into this further with real research, you will find that most African country IQ measurements are either:

A. Made Up and countries were given similar averages.

B. Don't take ethnic groups into account.

C. Do take ethnic groups into account but only some.

D. Give ethnic groups equal representation ignoring populations.

E. Only study in small isolated areas of a country leaving the rest unknown and doing no further studies.

G. Will skew results to the lowest scoring group.

H. Will do select rural areas and avoid the areas of innovation or urban.

I. Will give disproportional sample sizes to immigrant ethnic groups.

J. Have not studies a country/region/State(s) at all.

K. A combination of A-J.

None of which are done in any other region of the planet. Nowhere. I can even get separation of the 3 Japan regions and by state, and by North and South, I can get it from flipping Honduras, why can't I get any consistency with Africa? Why are we having the same errors by different individuals and organizations? Bias.

Only a very small group has been actually doing real studies. But it should have been done fairly with the same methodology as everywhere else from the start. Your Argument is inherently broken, it just gives a good reason to be lazy, not give any effort, and to remove a reason to look into causes and effects.

Considering how much data we Don't have (a damn lot) any conclusion is flawed. There's really no way around that. There's a reason why you have to cling to a few countries and have constantly fell back onto SA/Zim numerous times, because there's no data. Again most people, especially professionals, would admit that would be due to a lack or no studies being done to get the data, so if you don't have data, than reaching your conclusions is impossible. It's nothing more than finding an excuse to justify bad effort and lack of interest.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,624
2,158
470
Brampton, Ontario
there's quite an obvious difference between people that grew up in Africa and had a home country and traditions, and people that were kidnapped from Africa and taken to another place, from their. personally i like the term "American Descent of Slavery" because it describes the reality of the situation.

"black" is not that accurate a term cos it sweeps all kinds of disparate groups under one banner. imo it's entirely disingenuous when people compare descendants of slaves to the "good immigrants" from another country.
Slavery does not change genetics.
Africans brought to the new world are still Black, just as how Europeans who settled there where White.

There can't be a conversation if we don't even recognize race, so I'll end it here.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
2,278
763
470
Slavery does not change genetics.
Africans brought to the new world are still Black, just as how Europeans who settled there where White.

There can't be a conversation if we don't even recognize race, so I'll end it here.
Notice that Jordan came this this conclusion himself, ignored my above post calling him out for jumping to an absurd conclusion where I never once said Africans were not black, I never even implied it, I made a statement based on studies and went into detail the very next line why ethnicity is important regardless , Jordan then purposefully ignored both of these and decided to say I made a statement that was never made, and I know he knew full well that was not actually said, however he took the above users post as a way to escape his faltering conversation since every single argument he has had is based on not having any or enough data to come to any conclusions, and he was slowly shrinking his responses omitting points he did not have the ability to respond to


Very disappointing, that he would lie and put words in ones mouth, just to save his ego, what utter trash,. Not even one with the worst reading comprehension could come to that conclusion, you made a cowards run from the subject JordaN, and decided to join the worst scum at the bottom of the cesspool. Congratulations.

-----

Meanwhile for those with brains with still working blood circulation, JordaN has continuously been shrinking his positions st the argument went on, he knows he doesn't have enough data to come to any of his conclusions, but still argues there's enough data despite the fact he can't find data on 20 countries that have detailed IQ measurements. Only 20, he can't find them, because they don't exist.

I also listed in the above post he avoided, the many biased ways IQ is measured in African countries that has never been done anywhere else in the world. His own map a few pages ago showing IQ scores on a global map also shows IQ measurement bias. How can Papua New Guinea, farm based, disorganized, community run "country" with a low urban population and several inhabitants that are "uncontacted peoples" score a higher IQ score than innovative, progressing, diverse, tech focused, economy growing nations like Kenya is baffling. Heck Ghana and Nigeria are significantly less than PNG on his map. And Madagascar is another higher scoring nation, somehow, despite it being vastly inferior to around 15 countries just off the top of my head including Kenya, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast, etc.

He claimed that IQ shows through the countries progress, education, and conditions, than how the heck is PNG scoring significantly higher than countries that actually have better schools, better conditions, more infrastructure, diversified economies, and organization, especially considering PNG is disorganized and is nothing more than a country of several "community-states" that are farmers or hunters?

Yet oddly I can look at IQ their by region, which for most African countries isn't available, I can go by several ethnic groups, which isn't available for most African countries, and I have more detail with where the measurements took place, unlike most African countries.

So if one is dumb enough to still say there isn't a bias in IQ measurements I have a time machine on Ebay for $400000, wanna buy?
 
Last edited:
Likes: 7echnicolor