Race and IQ

Im sure it is but it is a poorly designed graph that induces ambiguity

...

Fix the autism level problem and you have literally fixed everything.

new despook meme format tell me what u think

should i make his arm wider

nah it's pretty good

it's not very big
also the majority of the researchers think it's lower than 60% - even on this probably cherrypicked chart
heritability is not the same as genes - professions are heritable for example
if the environment has a very significant effect heritability will drop - this is why poor people have lower heritability estimates

according to genetic studies 40% of the variance in intelligence is explainable by genes - this is probably the correct figure

so no, we can't suppose hbd people are right, simply because they are wrong on the facts

dank and underrated.

Why is there a thread like this every single week? It does not matter. Even if blacks are inferior to whites, who cares? There wouldn't be a racial hierarchy because you don't need to be an astrophysicist for being respected in society. We already manage to have people with an lQ of 80 and people with an lQ of 150 living together without killing each other. If you remove the implications capitalism has on social life, the gap in intelligence will become even more redundant.
We will eventually have designer babies who are genetically engineered to be little Einsteins anyways. It is just a matter of time.

This is extraordinarily easy, and it's funny that it doesn't seem to come up instantly every time this is discussed:

If you acknowledge genetic influence on Autism Level (which I think is likely, but obviously doesn't exist in a vacuum where education and other things are not factors) then you also implicitly acknowledge that the actual gap is not related to race. If such a gap exists based on genetics, then it can be applied much more specifically based on ethnic groups, tribes, and families.

For solving societal problems, ending any separation at race becomes illogical - and so whatever action is taken based on genetics must discern between the Koreans and the Chinese, the Irish and the Germans, various 'mixed' groups from one another, and so on and so on. Otherwise any proposal is built on sub-19th-century level ideas and one has to ask why that's what they're relying on.

Hell, even in the 1800s and 1900s "race theory" rhetoric was effectively used as a tool against Irish and Italian immigrants, and some documents during this period refer to Irish people as "colored."

The people in the country that must live with them.

It can be applied directly to the genes themselves with genetic screening

You already live with people who are less intelligent than you. Does it bother you so much? Where is the difference between unintelligent whites and unintelligent blacks?

nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html

What's interesting about the above study is that UNKNOWN casual variants are taken into account - meaning they aren't even discovered yet. This suggests that the estimate will not increase if at all.

science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467

Genetic factors are estimated to account for at least 20% of the variation across individuals for educational attainment (Rietveld et al., 2013).

The above study also identified some alleles

From the allels idenitified so far (~100) no racial pattern is revealed

Well let's compare races on about ~100 SNP's people have discovered having to do with intelligence.

ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Educational attainment;ph=26069;r=6:98136357-98137357;v=rs9320913;vdb=variation;vf=5140739
Africans: 1.09
Mexicans: 1.14
East Asians: 1.16
Europeans: 1.19
South Asians: 1.13

Max score is 2.5408

ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Cognitive function;ph=5713;r=12:56086299-56087299;v=rs877636;vdb=variation;vf=624831

Africans: 0.75
Mexicans: 0.73
East Asians: 0.72
Europeans: 0.69
South Asians: 0.72

Max score is 1.2683

What you do there is you take each SNP's effect (for ex. +0.03 eye cue points) multiply by the frequency in the population and sum up - the unit is SD, so basically if an SNP has an effect of -0.02, that means reduces eye cue by 0.02 SD's - the results are SD's as well

on 29th june this year a larger report of even more SNP's will come out - and we'll compare

PS

unfortunately, of the about 100 SNP's Holla Forumsfags only ever "discovered" a convenient sample of 9.

if you look around the links, click around, you'll see africans win on a lot of those alleles in terms of a high frequency of a useful allele or low frequency of a harmful allele

what is also worth noting is that the above discovered alleles are the most significant in terms of size of effect - this is because they were discovered in studies with 50k to 120k people AND since the discovered ones are in fact the most significant it gives us a pretty good idea

if you want less significant SNP's you'll need millions of people

I would say the question about what african eye cue is is far from settled

...

my personal estimate would be ~90

reposting from last thread, not sure people saw that, since a new thread was made

under somewhat ok educational conditions genotypic mean sub saharan african Autism Level is ~90(a figure lower than 100, but still not that low since we also know that 100

lol no

But the issue is that crime will go up and productivity will go down.
If we know a race is inferior, it's hard to justify importing them or investing in them.
And this is the problem with Autism Level. You can't base policy purely on altruism.

It's also going to make people very salty if the inferior race starts blaming the altruists for their own inability.
In communism it might be somewhat different, but it still provides a point of contention, a frayed end.
It may appear as though the inferior race is being underrepresented, and the state will be blamed.

teenvogue.com/story/14-year-old-graduating-texas-christian-university-physics-degree

Also, here is an interesting news story from a couple of days ago. Let's assume an HBD framework of thought.

You can easily say - well his mom is black, but his father is most likely Chinese.

There are a few questions here though - firstly he apparently left the family and she is a single mom (does not speak very well of the man) - but this could be in spite of a very high eye cue father.

Secondly, even if the father is high eye cue, then so must be the mother, assuming intelligence is entirely genetic.

So they have a kid, it's a genius that solves calculus problems at the age of 3. "regression to the mean" in mind - let's say they got very, very lucky.

But then you find out the following information about the 14 yo's brother:

His brother graduated high school at the age of 11. This is like winning the lottery and then your brother winning it - IF you have all the HBD assumptions about eye cue mean values, how genetic are they and especially regression to the mean.

Makes you ponder whether hbd people understand how regression to the mean works (they most certainly don't).
Also makes you wonder how lucky do you have to be to find an elite eye cue black mom and a chinese guy - this can be calculated, but you'd have to assume their eye cue values.

You can attempt to come up with the following: "Well, the kids didn't have an elite mom, they just got lucky, and the kids of those kids will regress to the mean". This is a paradox if you assume intelligence is highly heritable. Once you assume that smart people will have smart kids - that would be a heritable trait.

Chanda Chisala makes similar(but more sophisticated) statistical arguments at the Unz review - and generates a lot of confusion among users who are not used to seeing an alternative alternative point of view - you guys should check him out if you haven't. He is the guy that brought attention to Igbos and Nigerians in general.I saw pic related in one of his articles. This is when I started questioning the Autism Level means in Wealth of nations (which I had taken for granted earlier) - turns out I was right. If the current african mean is 82(and will increase), then giving India an Autism Level of 81 or whatever it was in his book is just plain laughable. This is also why African Autism Level is so important.

I forgot to mention in this post that on the 29th of June, this year even more SNP's will be released - in a GWAS of more than a million people.

And, I will compare. I don't expect to see big differences, if any.

Thanks

Because the issue is as simple as just autism levels. Fucking leftypoll. The socio-economics require meatbag societies to function as one according to market requirements. While the market changes quiqly, the genetic makup takes millions of years to change, therefore the gap between diffrent meatbags that evolved for diffrent purposes. Fast genetic selection can not change this quickly.
More news at eleven!

"Importing" smart Africans will have an eugenic effect. Just like importing smart Indians and Chinese. Just have an Autism Level test as your admission for immigrants.
IF intelligence is genetic. And if it isn't - why are we even having this discussion.

Race doesn't determine intelligence, but perhaps intelligence should determine race, since it's really arbitrary anyway, might as well make it meaningful.

And if you really, really care so much about race and looks, then have the smart people in the underrepresented group have 4 kids for a generation or so, while the overrepresented has 2 kids - there, fixed.

But I know, eugenics is only good when you want to kill and sterilize people based on them having nappy hair, big lips, short stature, brown eyes, non-pale skin, weak jaws or whatever other meme you can think of.

don't be a silly person, go watch a video on youtube and understand why if you take a group with a mean of X, two generations later they'll still have a mean of X (if intelligence is genetic, and if it isn't etc.)
Maybe we don't, but that's not the discussion we are having, nor is it the argument you're making.

Kinda off topic but you have any reccs for books on transhumanism?

Maybe he has reccs about transhumanism, but I doubt he has any good reccs on the topic of genetics.

Yeah but they don't show up very often so you gotta take the chance when you see one in the wild.

Please mods remove the anchor to this thread it's actually not as bad as you might think it is

This

Mods are going to make Holla Forums weak to what makes up essentially 90% of their oppositions arguments.

What if there's a mole that's a mod?

No, the estimate they give is a lower bound:

Also, fluid intelligence, which was estimated at 51% heritable by the study, is more strongly related to g and Autism Level than crystallized intelligence (which is basically just acquired knowledge), so it's better to use that number.

Twin studies have given us a broad-sense heritability estimate of ~80% for adult Autism Level, and the Davies paper above gives a lower bound for narrow-sense heritability of fluid intelligence at 51%. So it's a safe bet that healthy populations fall somewhere in this range.

A few links I haven't seen posted on here.

Probably because you Holla Forums kids are so so passive.

If they have been posted on here, I'll say I'm sorry for underestimating you.

iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010.pdf
The above focuses only on raven's progressive matrices and is a different study from the wicherts article in

peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/more on black iq.pdf

The above is a commentary. The most valuable thing about it - it mentions and cites some interesting studies done - for example whether white ancestry (measured using blood group frequencies) makes a difference (you'll be surprised)
I don't agree with everything he comments, but there it is

peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf
A paper that aims to establish what the black american Autism Level is - it finds a value of 88

researchgate.net/publication/230828068_Group_Differences_in_IQ_Are_Best_Understood_as_Environmental_in_Origin
The above is a response to a response made about the paper about the black Autism Level being 88.
A cute quote from it:
Gains in sub-Saharan African countries of 0.50 to 0.70 SD in response to a few months of Western-style education have been reported for heavily g-loaded
fluid intelligence tests (McFie, 1961). And
a brief training session on Raven’s Progressive Matrices— often regarded as a virtually pure measure of g—increased the
scores of Black Africans by 14 points while
increasing the scores of Whites by only 4
points (Skuy et al., 2002).
(sorry for the crappy formatting)

mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1/htm

A recent addition to the debate(23 december, 2016), it mentions and cites more than 1 adoption study for a change
Again, I don't necessarily agree, but it's worth a skim.

crsps.net/wp-content/downloads/Global Livestock/Inventoried 7.11/2-2003-4-50.pdf

All kinds of interesting things can be found on the internet.

italianthro.blogspot.dk/search/label/IQ
Another fun one - Richard Lynn being wrong about south Italian I Q.
It's a blog, but the blogger cites studies done by italians confirming southern italians are as smart as northern italians- which has implications.

This is a bit odd, considering that pic related is unsourced. Counter evidence to this is that Professor Graves takes a look at the Fst value for several genes linked to intelligence, and finds most of the values to be below the .25 threshold usually used for dividing a species into subspecies. And then, this presupposes that the datasets used by Rushtons and Lynn are uncontroversial (who gets debunked here)

Lynn more or less made up the data for 101 of 185 countries in "IQ an the Wealth of Nations" by "approximating" the score based on the countries "race" or unrepresentative sample sizes. Similarily. Rushton only adjusted the data for 3 of all the datasets used in his landmark "Race I.Q. and Behaviour". Graves later goes into detail as to how the environment can have lasting effects on developing children, both outside and inside of the womb.

It should be noted that although genetics do define your I.Q, your """"race"""" does not.

Furthermore, this pretty much becomes redundant once you take into account that the I.Q for African-Americans is increasing.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603674/

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138412#pone-0138412-t001

jstor.org/stable/40064475?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The genetic's based number is far better.

Twin studies have limitations. They don't fully control for environment effects.
Two people that look the same can end up in the same environment.
Twin studies do not control for intrauterine/prenatal/early postnatal effects.
Also, 0.8 is an upper bound as far as estimates go, there's other studies that find different bounds.(even without taking the above into account)
From the wiki article on heritability of Autism Level
Poor people have lower heritability, because environment explains a larger portion of the variance.
Heritability is calculated as a fraction of the variance that's not explained by the environment (conceptually). So the fraction can change.

This should put challenges to the statements made by Raven etc.

racialreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html?m=1

^This above is adressed in

Should also mention, Lynn and Rushton's research is not only flawed, but you should also take a gander as to who funds their """'studies""""".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund

Lynn and Nisbett are both fraudulent scholars who are known to cherry pick and misrepresent data. You shouldn't take either of them very seriously.

To expand on this point

dangerousintersection.org/2009/03/31/richard-nisbett-intelligence-mostly-varies-due-to-the-environment-not-genes/

I'm pretty sure the guy who made the picture did the following.
1. skimmed the studies
2. found 9 alleles that fit his agenda
3. used the ensembl database to find the frequencies for the races

but he didn't know that there's many more than 9 alleles discovered
You should look at the links there, click around find the alleles, the group frequencies, the effect etc.

I will take this

Into consideration.

Graves is full of shit. 0.25 Fst is not the threshold usually used for dividing a species into subspecies, it's a completely arbitrary number. You can't use genetic statistics alone for this purpose.

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/variation-within-and-between-races/

“Wright felt the latter, measured by Fst was equivalent to the subspecies used by taxonomists (also called biological or geographical race.) Population subdivision can be calculated at individual genetic loci or for numerous genetic loci simultaneously. Wright’s statistic can range between 0 and 1.00. He arbitrarily suggested that the minimal threshold for the existence of great variation was Fst = 0.250 and moderate variation Fst = 0.15 to 0.250. He examined individual loci derived from protein electrophoresis from a variety of species, finding a range of differentiation from 0.023 to 0.501 (average Fst= 0.168).

Subsequent studies of multiple loci, including whole genome analyses, have generally shown human Fst at much less than Wright’s critical value.” –Graves 2006

As we have already seen, Sewall Wright did not think that Fst values should be a criteria for sub-species. He literally dedicates an entire chapter two the fourth volume of his X to race and never mentions Fst values, not does he anywhere else state that they should be used as a criteria for subspecies. In fact, on page 85 Wright cautions readers against using Fst values as a straight forward measure of genetic differentiation:

We will take F = 0.25 as an arbitrary value above which there is very great differentiation, the range of 0.15 to 0.25 as indicating moderately great differentiation. Differentiation is, however, by no means negligible if F is as small as 0.05 or even less” – Wright 1984

Thus, Graves is misleading readers by separating these two sentences, only showing his readers the first, and thus stripping it of its proper context. Wright’s views do not, in fact, lend credence to the idea that human races do no exist.

There's higher Fst indeces between different chimp groups in africa than there is between humans living in different continents.
io9.gizmodo.com/5890349/genetic-diversity-in-chimpanzees-reveal-just-how-closely-related-humans-really-are

the same is true for different african lion groups in Nigeria who have greater genetic distances than humans.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084288
here's the Fst for humans
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

Human subspecies is out of the question.

You are looking at it the wrong way.
We can still have a human specific, useful term like race, because even though the differences between the races are minimal, they matter much more to US than the differences between chimp tribes or african lion groups.

Another way you are misguided is that comparing Fst across species is not entirely a good idea, since if two populations are internally not diverse and a little diverse externally, the Fst will be higher.

That is true, but this was in regard to intelligence, not race, which he does cover. That being said, regardless of wether this was a mis-reading of wrights, Graves shouldn't entirely be dismissed.

Also, I wouldn't recommend using the alternative hypothesis, they unironically use the flawed research of Lynn and Rushton.

For those who are interested in what Rushton has to say;

resultant protein.

1/2

2/2

The other criterion by which one might identify geographic races within a species is to determine whether unique evolutionary lineages exist. This means populations that have had limited gene flow with other populations for a sufficiently long period of time. Such lineages, should they exist, would necessarily have large values of FST compared with nonunique lineages. However, we observe no such highly differenti- ated lineages within our species, anatomically modern humans (Barbujani & Colona, 2010; Lawson Handley et al., 2007; Templeton, 2002, 2013). The best way to under- stand human genetic diversity is through isolation-by-distance. This means that gene flow between different populations of humans is proportional to the geographic dis- tance between them. Geographic barriers to dispersal of humans exist, such as mountain ranges and deserts, but these barriers only account for 2% of the variation of FST, whereas isolation-by-distance accounts for 75% (Lawson Handley et al., 2007). Attempts to represent human genetic variation as “clustered” has been attempted (Rosenberg et al., 2002).
Furthermore, it has been claimed that these clusters roughly match the five continents, and thus correspond to the five-race scheme for modern humans (sub-Saharan African, European, East Asian, Australoid, Amerindian). This was accomplished by the use of a computer algorithm called STRUCTURE. The problem with this analysis is that underlying assumptions are essentialist and do not correspond to the evolution- ary history of our species (Weiss & Long, 2009). A typical STRUCTURE-like analysis defined a number of parental populations (either by user input or statistical inference) and then assigns fractions of parental ancestry to individuals. Unrealistic assumptions are made about the nature of the parental populations, such as random mating, with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium for allele frequencies, and minimal linkage disequilib- rium between parental populations. Of course, the most unsupported assumption of STRUCTURE-like analysis is that the world once harbored distinct and independently evolving populations (Weiss & Long, 2009). To determine the genetic character of the “parental populations,” one needs alleles that are “private” to the purported parental populations. However, these sorts of genetic markers, called ancestry informative markers were determined from small- to medium-size samples taken from geographically distant populations (Europe, West sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia). Given this sampling, it is a circular exercise to structure individuals into clusters. Of course, if the AIMS are not really informative of population ancestry, a STRUCTURE analysis may be simply meaningless.

On balance, the modern population genetic analysis suggests that our species, anatomically modern humans, does not display biological races (Barbujani et al., 2013; Graves, 2005a, 2005b; Montagu, 1997). We do have geographically based genetic and physical variation, and this fact has been consistently misinterpreted as evidence of the existence of biological races in our species. However, our species is young, has very little genetic variation, has maintained relatively high levels of gene flow throughout its history, and thus has never reached the levels of differentiation between its sub- populations consistent with the identification of geographical races (see discussions of this in Templeton, 2002; also see Graves, 2011; Lawson Handley et al., 2007; Serre & Paabo, 2004). Unfortunately, most researchers involved in projects that are affected by genetic variation do not have training or understand the historical context of evolution- ary thinking concerning speciation and the role that geographical races play in the process (Nesse et al., 2010; White et al., 2009). This is illustrated by the fact that they often assume that socially defined races are legitimate biological races (Bliss, 2012; Friedman & Lee, 2013; Graves, 2010, 2011).

Yeah, and somebody already posted a genetic study that suggests a lower bound of ~50%. So we know the twin studies are at least in the ballpark and narrow-sense heritability is fairly high.

All the weaknesses of twin studies - we don't really know how much they skew the estimate. Could be as much as ~30%, but probably less.

I'd like to see more work done with poor populations to see how much heritability is affected. I suspect it's not much for adult Autism Level in the US, as few people grow up in really awful conditions here. In a place like Africa heritability will be much lower, as factors like disease, malnutrition and parasite load will all depress Autism Level.

People and animals alike survive in their environment while the weak die off. The intelligence and "instinct" given is based on what they learned in order to survive. Throw a bunch of winged birds in a land full of ground predators, and the ones that can fly will pass their genes on.

The African Americans are no doubt extremely different, if not their environment where they originated from the rest of the races of the world. They lived in harsh conditions to be short. Not only that, but they didn't adapt to greater lengths. They were gathered elsewhere via slavery and other means, but they're still the genetic code of whatever it is they were before. Such as their skin. The melanin in their skin used to survive the heat and cancer from the middle of the earth's belt. That, and only that, is just skin. What goes undiscovered is the rest of their genes. The genes developed by doing nothing but making do with sand huts and little resources. The genes where you had to kill like animals for they lived near dangerous animals. The genes where they needed to find their own happiness and self work in the desert of little visions. They have those genes. They are animals, as are we. We should have never of enslaved them away from their place.

This doesn't really mean anything. As Wright (the inventor of Fst) himself wrote:

Fst doesn't account for individual genes that have a large effect on the phenotype, nor frequency differences in a large number of alleles that each have a small effect on a trait, so it's possible for a population with lower Fst value to have more important differences. That's why Wright cautions against using Fst as a straight forward measure. Nobody who knows what they're doing actually divides subspecies this way.

Not entirely. They surprisingly had some pretty interesting aspects to their civilisations. It is true, that isolation played a part, but given the interaction they had, with other cultures that didn't want to butcher them, I'd say that it was pretty ingenious that they adopted them to build trading links etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_of_Djenné en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasil_Ghebbi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia#Middle_Ages en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Saint_George,_Lalibela

richard-hooker.com/sites/worldcultures/CIVAFRCA/SWAHILI.HTM

Sorry not Rushton, Graves.

But again, the idea of subspecies is flawed. And if Wright says differantiating subspecies via Fst isn't straight forward, then this study in itself remains inconclusive for sub species. But that being said, let's play by ear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

Legal scholar/ Genetecist Dorothy Roberts argues, "Edwards did not refute Lewontin's claim: that there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, especially when it comes to races. (…) Lewontin did not ignore biology to support his social ideology (…). To the contrary, he argued that there is no biological support for the ideological project of race." "The genetic differences that exist among populations are characterized by gradual changes across geographic regions, not sharp, categorical distinctions. Groups of people across the globe have varying frequencies of polymorphic genes, which are genes with any of several differing nucleotide sequences. There is no such thing as a set of genes that belongs exclusively to one group and not to another. The clinal, gradually changing nature of geographic genetic difference is complicated further by the migration and mixing that human groups have engaged in since prehistoric times. Race [however defined] collapses infinite diversity into a few discrete categories that in reality cannot be demarcated genetically."

Similarly, biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation." The view that, while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist, this does not lend biological validity to racial groups, was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.

It doesn't matter. Jews will be in charge of everything anyway don't you worry about that goy. ;)

Because it contradicts your preconceived notions?

...

Yes, good on you boyo, 5 lucky charms have been deposited to your account.

I'm not saying that humans _should_ be separated into subspecies. Just that Graves and others who claim you can look at Fst and say 'that's below the arbitrary threshold of 0.25, definitely can't be a subspecies' are mistaken or at best misleading.

I don't really find it very productive to debate what is largely a semantic issue. If the average genotypic Autism Level of Switzerland is 100 and 85 for Nigeria, does it really matter whether human genetic variation is clinal or if there are distinct races/subspecies? Not to me, I want to figure out how to best structure society to deal with this if it turns out to be true. We can only explain about 9% of variance in intelligence right now using genetic data, so obviously we need a lot more to come to solid conclusions. I think we'll have the answer within 5 - 10 years for sure.

Lewontin was correct in that most genetic variation is within 'races', the fallacy is in thinking this means there can be no significant differences between them. ~70% of genetic variation in dogs is within breeds, but there are very large differences in cognitive and physical traits between them (obviously much larger than those between human populations) so clearly he was wrong about that.

...

Fair enough. Though in future I wouldn't recommend using dog breed analysis, considering there was a shit load of selective breeding amongst them to turn them into the certain breeds we see today.

As if this has anything at all to do with intelligence and isn't just the barest attempt to cloak racism in the guise of scientific conclusions.

The picture is based on a 2015 study by Davide Piffer.

emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf