Race and IQ

[Oil exporting People]

Whole point of the IQ test is that it covers a persons Potential intelligence from an information-capacity-based perspective. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything beyond that, and quite honestly I think it is given way more credence than it deserves

No, because IQ is static; you can gain knowledge, but you can't change your base IQ.

[Aggicificicerous]

On the contrary, you found there was a survey that took place from 1980-1990.

I don't know how you interpret numbers, but 1979-1992 is not the same as 1980-1990, and your insistence that it is does not speak well of your grasp on reality.

That is true; in your first post you did that and to your first post I made a narrow and specific response. In the paragraph to which I gave that reply, in a much later post, you made a general attack on scientific racists based primarily on character assassination. Even then, I did not take it personally, I merely pointed out that you are wrong to conflate blogster scientific racists with good ole boys living in their trailer parks in Alabama. As far as I am aware, and granting it's a largely anonymous pursuit, the overlap between them is practically nil.

Hey, you wanted my views, so I gave you one. One which, incidentally, did not mention trailer park boys in Alabama. Should I be keeping a tally of the lies you've misattributed to me?

You compared scientific racism to creationism. Either you are creationist or you believe scientific racism to be false; the tone of your post strongly suggested the latter.

Not false. Based on a faulty understanding of the evidence available and often begging the question.

[HMS Barham]

On the contrary, you found there was a survey that took place from 1980-1990.

I don't know how you interpret numbers, but 1979-1992 is not the same as 1980-1990, and your insistence that it is does not speak well of your grasp on reality.

I was at work between 8am and 6pm, and I was at work between 9am and 5pm.

That is true; in your first post you did that and to your first post I made a narrow and specific response. In the paragraph to which I gave that reply, in a much later post, you made a general attack on scientific racists based primarily on character assassination. Even then, I did not take it personally, I merely pointed out that you are wrong to conflate blogster scientific racists with good ole boys living in their trailer parks in Alabama. As far as I am aware, and granting it's a largely anonymous pursuit, the overlap between them is practically nil.

Hey, you wanted my views, so I gave you one. One which, incidentally, did not mention trailer park boys in Alabama. Should I be keeping a tally of the lies you've misattributed to me?

I do not see your point. First you complained that I responded to a broad personal point you didn't make, and now you complain that I objected to you making a broad personal point (which I didn't, I just rebutted it).

You compared scientific racism to creationism. Either you are creationist or you believe scientific racism to be false; the tone of your post strongly suggested the latter.

Not false. Based on a faulty understanding of the evidence available and often begging the question.

Then please tell me exactly what you claim about it and support those claims with data.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Every time I see this thread I think of my Chinese fiance and how infinatly smarter he is then me, a white person.

[Cekoviu]

Whole point of the IQ test is that it covers a persons Potential intelligence from an information-capacity-based perspective. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything beyond that, and quite honestly I think it is given way more credence than it deserves

No, because IQ is static; you can gain knowledge, but you can't change your base IQ.

Actually, you can, though mostly in childhood and adolescence.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... potential/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948283/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40064008
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1417644

And here's an interesting paper discussing the large effect of SES on IQ in children. Also take a look at this review of the black-white IQ gap, which, while assuming that races do exist in the first place and describing that a gap in average IQ scores does exist between various "races," does note that the heritability of IQ in Africa is quite low due to the impoverished conditions many families live in there.

[Aggicificicerous]

I was at work between 8am and 6pm, and I was at work between 9am and 5pm.

That's great, but 8:00-6:00 is not the same as 9:00-5:00. I've already explained repeatedly why a 1980-1990 survey is not equivalent to a 1979-1992 survey. Or to use a method we learned in elementary school, 8:00-6:00 > 9:00-5:00, and 1979-1992 > 1980-1990. At this point I can only conclude that you have no interest in responding, and are merely trying to waste my time. What's that term you used? Oh yes, sealioning.

I do not see your point. First you complained that I responded to a broad personal point you didn't make, and now you complain that I objected to you making a broad personal point (which I didn't, I just rebutted it).

No, I object to you putting words in my mouth. I said Creationists. I did not say Alabama trailer park boys. What you don't seem to understand is that words have meanings. Two words with tangentially similar meanings are not equivalent. Two numbers with overlap are not equivalent.

Then please tell me exactly what you claim about it and support those claims with data.

What? I just did. Case in point, the terrible graph you posted. Another point would be your strange obsession with IQ scores. Seriously, why do you keep bringing up IQ scores like some sort of trump card?

[HMS Barham]

I was at work between 8am and 6pm, and I was at work between 9am and 5pm.

That's great, but 8:00-6:00 is not the same as 9:00-5:00. I've already explained repeatedly why a 1980-1990 survey is not equivalent to a 1979-1992 survey. Or to use a method we learned in elementary school, 8:00-6:00 > 9:00-5:00, and 1979-1992 > 1980-1990. At this point I can only conclude that you have no interest in responding, and are merely trying to waste my time. What's that term you used? Oh yes, sealioning.

A 1980-1990 survey is a subset of a 1979-1992 survey.

I do not see your point. First you complained that I responded to a broad personal point you didn't make, and now you complain that I objected to you making a broad personal point (which I didn't, I just rebutted it).

No, I object to you putting words in my mouth. I said Creationists. I did not say Alabama trailer park boys. What you don't seem to understand is that words have meanings. Two words with tangentially similar meanings are not equivalent. Two numbers with overlap are not equivalent.

I am not putting words in your mouth just because I am not using exactly identical formulations. "Alabama trailer park boys" correctly characterises the sort of person you believe is a scientific racist - the sort of person raised from birth with an irrational prejudice.

Then please tell me exactly what you claim about it and support those claims with data.

What? I just did. Case in point, the terrible graph you posted. Another point would be your strange obsession with IQ scores. Seriously, why do you keep bringing up IQ scores like some sort of trump card?[/quote]
No you did not. You made no specific claim, and certainly gave no data. You stated that you believed understanding of the evidence was faulty without explaining exactly which understanding and what the faults were, and that questions are begged but not which questions.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

A: IQ tests are not particularly accurate. It might be the best data we have but I wouldn't accept it as anything more then an indication that more research should be done.

B: this is a simple debate of nature vs nurture. Both apply to some unknown extent imo.

C: Race does exist. Yes the genetic variations are not much but language evolves and changes. It is not just visible differences either. There are hundreds of what we colloquially call races on earth. The biggest differences are vulnerabilities or immunities to various illnesses such as skin/eye cancer, sickle cell, and aids.

D: If there is any difference in IQ based on genetics and race then I am confident in saying that it is minor. In the grand scheme of things humans are the smartest beings on the planet and still we are dumb.

[Aggicificicerous]

A 1980-1990 survey is a subset of a 1979-1992 survey.

Ok, I'll explain this in a really simple hypothetical. Suppose I find the following dataset from botanists measuring the height of six trees (in metres):

15, 12, 18, 36, 14, 29.

Yes, the dataset is too small for a real scientific study, but that's not the point. From the dataset, I make this graph. As we can see, the mean height of trees is about 15 metres, with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 18. Is something wrong here? Let's say you then look up my website and find it's devoted to explaining how trees never grow taller than 20 metres. Proving to people that trees don't grow taller than 20 metres is important to me, and I've devoted a great deal of time toward that end. Now check this graph again bearing in mind that all the data was acquired legitimately from respectable botanists with no agenda. Perhaps I haven't used all of it, but it's still a subset. So once again: is my graph on tree heights acceptable? Is it intellectually honest?

If you have a set of data and you choose to only select a subset, you'd better have a damn good reason, or people will rightly suspect you of foul play. Or maybe just incompetence.

I am not putting words in your mouth just because I am not using exactly identical formulations. "Alabama trailer park boys" correctly characterises the sort of person you believe is a scientific racist - the sort of person raised from birth with an irrational prejudice.

That may be how you view Creationists, but are plenty of intelligent Creationists with degrees, like in the Discovery Institute. Some of them even get laws passed, like what was challenged in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. Apparently it's not enough that you fall back on offensive stereotypes, but you have to assume other people do as well.

No you did not. You made no specific claim, and certainly gave no data. You stated that you believed understanding of the evidence was faulty without explaining exactly which understanding and what the faults were, and that questions are begged but not which questions.

Because I didn't make a scientific claim, and I doubt there's a scientific study on whether racists who use science to back up their beliefs are more likely to misinterpret the science than the average person anyway. I've given my opinion, and I've even given a couple examples to back it up. At this point it looks like you are definitely sealioning. How ironic.

[HMS Barham]

A 1980-1990 survey is a subset of a 1979-1992 survey.

Ok, I'll explain this in a really simple hypothetical. Suppose I find the following dataset from botanists measuring the height of six trees (in metres):

15, 12, 18, 36, 14, 29.

Yes, the dataset is too small for a real scientific study, but that's not the point. From the dataset, I make this graph. As we can see, the mean height of trees is about 15 metres, with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 18. Is something wrong here? Let's say you then look up my website and find it's devoted to explaining how trees never grow taller than 20 metres. Proving to people that trees don't grow taller than 20 metres is important to me, and I've devoted a great deal of time toward that end. Now check this graph again bearing in mind that all the data was acquired legitimately from respectable botanists with no agenda. Perhaps I haven't used all of it, but it's still a subset. So once again: is my graph on tree heights acceptable? Is it intellectually honest?

If you have a set of data and you choose to only select a subset, you'd better have a damn good reason, or people will rightly suspect you of foul play. Or maybe just incompetence.

Yes it is possible that this is some sort of data mining ploy. Is it likely? As I said originally, let this be considered by a candid world.

I am not putting words in your mouth just because I am not using exactly identical formulations. "Alabama trailer park boys" correctly characterises the sort of person you believe is a scientific racist - the sort of person raised from birth with an irrational prejudice.

That may be how you view Creationists, but are plenty of intelligent Creationists with degrees, like in the Discovery Institute. Some of them even get laws passed, like what was challenged in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. Apparently it's not enough that you fall back on offensive stereotypes, but you have to assume other people do as well.

The social class of creationists is certainly much lower on average than the social class of non-creationists. You no longer need to be high class to have a degree.

(by the way, in the Scopes monkey trial one of the principal arguments for banning the teaching of evolution by natural selection was that it logically implied biologically seated racial differences, so here by "creationist" I mean something like "idolatrous Christian", not "non-believer in evolution by natural selection", which encompasses the modern left and almost all fancy people)

No you did not. You made no specific claim, and certainly gave no data. You stated that you believed understanding of the evidence was faulty without explaining exactly which understanding and what the faults were, and that questions are begged but not which questions.

Because I didn't make a scientific claim, and I doubt there's a scientific study on whether racists who use science to back up their beliefs are more likely to misinterpret the science than the average person anyway. I've given my opinion, and I've even given a couple examples to back it up. At this point it looks like you are definitely sealioning. How ironic.

You made a vague scientific insinuation: saying that your opponents are wrong but without giving sufficient detail for them to defend themselves. You have just wasted my time and have nothing, as I predicted right at the start of this.

[Aggicificicerous]

Yes it is possible that this is some sort of data mining ploy. Is it likely? As I said originally, let this be considered by a candid world.

I don't know about a candid world, but a sceptical one does not accept numbers at face value.

The social class of creationists is certainly much lower on average than the social class of non-creationists. You no longer need to be high class to have a degree.

(by the way, in the Scopes monkey trial one of the principal arguments for banning the teaching of evolution by natural selection was that it logically implied biologically seated racial differences, so here by "creationist" I mean something like "idolatrous Christian", not "non-believer in evolution by natural selection", which encompasses the modern left and almost all fancy people)

Great, now you want to argue about the average social standing of Creationists. Just admit that not all Creationists live in Alabama trailer parks and move on.

You made a vague scientific insinuation: saying that your opponents are wrong but without giving sufficient detail for them to defend themselves. You have just wasted my time and have nothing, as I predicted right at the start of this.

You've been trying to defend yourself this entire time, and all you've managed to do is lie about me repeatedly and conclude that a graph leaving out key data is no reason to cast doubt on it. Let this be considered by a 'candid world'.

[HMS Barham]

Yes it is possible that this is some sort of data mining ploy. Is it likely? As I said originally, let this be considered by a candid world.

I don't know about a candid world, but a sceptical one does not accept numbers at face value.

Yes maybe, so buy access and take a look at the numbers and see if it is all wrong. It really just isn't a "gotcha", it's a minor inconsistency.

The social class of creationists is certainly much lower on average than the social class of non-creationists. You no longer need to be high class to have a degree.

(by the way, in the Scopes monkey trial one of the principal arguments for banning the teaching of evolution by natural selection was that it logically implied biologically seated racial differences, so here by "creationist" I mean something like "idolatrous Christian", not "non-believer in evolution by natural selection", which encompasses the modern left and almost all fancy people)

Great, now you want to argue about the average social standing of Creationists. Just admit that not all Creationists live in Alabama trailer parks and move on.

You are the sort of person who would read Julius Caesar and say that the affairs of men are not a tide at all but a series of events and cannot in any literal sense be taken at a flood, 3/10 would not beware the Ides of March again.

You made a vague scientific insinuation: saying that your opponents are wrong but without giving sufficient detail for them to defend themselves. You have just wasted my time and have nothing, as I predicted right at the start of this.

You've been trying to defend yourself this entire time, and all you've managed to do is lie about me repeatedly and conclude that a graph leaving out key data is no reason to cast doubt on it. Let this be considered by a 'candid world'.

Your objection was first that there were no numbers of a y axis that was clearly in fact labelled (essentially, "US population units"), which I guess you realised was pretty meaningless so you dropped it. Then your next killer argument was that 1980-1990 data had apparently been taken from a 1979-1992 survey which cannot possibly be anything but massive data mining. I accept this is not totally impossible but it's hardly a strong case and pretty obviously falls apart in the face of many other sources for the IQ gap that can easily be found on e.g. wikipedia. Now I have invited you to extend the discussion to include the many much more powerful arguments you must surely have and what I see is the rough equivalent of "no u".

[USS Monitor]

Every time I see this thread I think of my Chinese fiance and how infinatly smarter he is then me, a white person.

That doesn't really prove anything.

[Cekoviu]

Every time I see this thread I think of my Chinese fiance and how infinatly smarter he is then me, a white person.

That doesn't really prove anything.

It seems like racialists of HMS Barham's stripe (though not the meathead neo-Nazis who don't know a thing about science) tend to put Asians a step above whites anyway, at least from what I've seen.

[Aggicificicerous]

Yes maybe, so buy access and take a look at the numbers and see if it is all wrong. It really just isn't a "gotcha", it's a minor inconsistency.

That's not how burden of proof works. You posted the graph. You're responsible for it.

Your objection was first that there were no numbers of a y axis that was clearly in fact labelled (essentially, "US population units"), which I guess you realised was pretty meaningless so you dropped it.

I did not drop it. When you ignored my comments on it, I assumed you had no reply. Remember when you said that the areas on the graph corresponded to the [sic] "total population" of the US? Then I asked how you knew that and you conveniently ignored me?

Then your next killer argument was that 1980-1990 data had apparently been taken from a 1979-1992 survey which cannot possibly be anything but massive data mining. I accept this is not totally impossible but it's hardly a strong case and pretty obviously falls apart in the face of many other sources for the IQ gap that can easily be found on e.g. wikipedia. Now I have invited you to extend the discussion to include the many much more powerful arguments you must surely have and what I see is the rough equivalent of "no u".

You still don't understand what scope is. I only responded to the graph. I have no interest in the IQ gap because IQ is not a measure of intelligence. At best it can somewhat measure education with a heavy focus on math. I still don't understand why you're so enamored with IQ.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Every time I see this thread I think of my Chinese fiance and how infinatly smarter he is then me, a white person.

Yet another reason to adopt more Chinese kids instead of having more of our own.

[Catalonya]

Every time I see this thread I think of my Chinese fiance and how infinatly smarter he is then me, a white person.

Chinese are white.

Also, black and white are not races....they're skin tones.
Race is too complex to be understood or researched by ordinary scientists who get their facts from expired corpses and theoretical ramblings

Scientists just study biology, but they've never cracked anything real on race, which still eludes them to this day.

Cultures that had predominantly pale skinned races as ambiance had a higher density of population. Look at western Europe. Many were cities with very dense close living people, who were forced to overdevelop their social skills

IQ measures social intelligence, nothing else. True intelligence is not owned or possessed by any race or the masses, but by rare individuals.
Intelligence is not a matter of simple race, or skin tone.
It is supernatural.

Because stupidity is natural and the normal condition of life. That being said, outside of social skills (IQ), whites are not more intelligent than other skin tones, whether same race or other.

Though social skills and IQ appear intelligent, they are gravely detrimental to true intelligence in humans. The more you socialize the less intelligence you develop. Which makes whites of any race, sadly, nothing more than unintelligent social butterflies.

Only individuals can possess true intelligence, which is as rare as miracles. Perhaps rarer. Whether those individuals happen to be white, of a race or other, that is another question entirely

Yes some of the most intelligent beings alive, are obviously pale skinned. If not, the only ones. Which is why pale skinned people, who again, are not their own race, but many different races which may or may not be pale depending on the breed, which explains why the social skill IQ is so high with pale individuals

They had to develop super-social skills to survive in a very competitive white society. And whites have a very vicious rivalry that is a sign of lower intelligence. This stimulates unintelligent social skills like the IQ

I myself am highly unintelligent, having extreme social adaptation instead, bordering on the almost 150 IQ margin.

I may be a social butterfly, but I'm dumb AF

IQ= charisma, nothing more. To idiotic "scientists" who are all hacks, that is mistaken for intelligence (aka manipulation)

Manipulation and charisma are not intelligence, they are instinct.

White individuals of any race, have a greater instinct, and heightened empathy. Socially superior in interpersonal or even professional mediums, because pale skinned people were most visible due to the glare white skin reflecting light and catching the eye and attention of others the easiest in history, allowed for these mutations to take place on a genetic memory level

If you are white, you inherit the empathic experience and social charisma skills like leadership and dominance and many many more, from your ancestors who stuck out the most because sunlight bounced off of them and blinded everybody.

It's all very dramatic

This is a social mutation that the brain developed over time, through overdevelopment of the frontal cerebral cortex, responsible for these interactions becoming patterns and evolving in predictible forms, leading to anyone white having a social superability of being perceived as Alphas.

Very few people are Alphas But whites have the often inherited mutation from white ancestors of an over-empathic brain function pattern, to stimulate socializing. This is why social media is run, developed and overrun by ....you guessed it.

But white =/= race. Skin color is not a race. Skin color is just a tiny fraction of what a race characteristic is.

Whiteness is a social condition, not a racial one. It is genetic, but not racial. Whiteness may not be genetically dominant trait, but it is socially dominant. For this very reason.

[Central Asian Republics]

Every time I see this thread I think of my Chinese fiance and how infinatly smarter he is then me, a white person.

Chinese are white.

Also, black and white are not races....they're skin tones.

When people say white, they usually mean European Caucasian. There's no real benefits to being pedantic other than a short term ego boost.

[Salandriagado]

One absolutely can have aptitudes for mathematics and music that vary wildly. Source: am mathematician. Am also tone deaf.

It need not translate into an actual ability with music, but the fact music and math share many similarities is well known.

Well known, and utterly unsupported by evidence.

[Salandriagado]

Whole point of the IQ test is that it covers a persons Potential intelligence from an information-capacity-based perspective. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything beyond that, and quite honestly I think it is given way more credence than it deserves

No, because IQ is static; you can gain knowledge, but you can't change your base IQ.

This is, again, not true.

[Catalonya]

When people say white, they usually mean European Caucasian. There's no real benefits to being pedantic other than a short term ego boost.

words like pedantic are defined as a tiny ego boost, often reflective of tinier genitalia, where i come from

As a real european, i can tell you there's no such thing as a european or caucasian. Those are scientific superstitions, urban myths

I see white people in Asia, I see white people in Americas, I see white people in Australia, even Africa. There may even be white frozen mummies in Antarctica.

This myth of whites coming from Europe is disgusting. Whites existed long before europe became a civilization. When it was nothing more than a geographical extension of Asia, a large peninsula north of africa.

It is only by coincidence and a series of geographical factors and resource requirements that whites ended up colonizing Europe in the ancient era. But us whites are not european
This place is wild and inhospitable, monkeys died here. Why should life flourish here in the distant past? It cannot. Europe is not the birthplace of whiteness that is an ignorant plebian insult to our extra-european ancestors.

Most like whites come from Mu or Lemuria. Some cool continent like that whose demise led to white refugees having to haul derriere to hospitable locations, few of which included Europe.

Whites lived among the indians, before the Age of Exploration seen by Columbus bringing spaniards or gothic dark age euros into the New World.

Europe doesn't have the climatic conditions for something like a white race to appear or develop. We barely survive here, and that's only because we had to overdevelop technologies because europe IS NOT THAT HOSPITABLE!
In africa you can sit buttnaked, and if the wild animals don't eat ya you're fine!

In Europe mini ice ages freeze us to death, mountains ensure blizzards never miss us in winter, the infighting for resources is chaotic and socially cancerous. We're like animals in a cage. It's only by a miracle of fate that we haven't triggered a new world war to engulf the world in, this century

You have got to stop propping up my continent like it's the alpha and omega of everything. Europe sucks just mildly enough for me to not want to permanently leave it, but i hate living here just as well. I expect Japan is far superior in living conditions than my gruesome Europe be.

Europe is not that epic. The commercials lied, as many dumb illegal immigrants have been surprised to discover after swarming this place hoping to find Eden.....the Paradise they hoped would be their Promise Land was just a billboard poster.
In many ways Europe is like Hell on Earth. Not the very worst, but tolerable over time.

It really grinds your nerves tho. And it's not because of the whites, those are only sometimes the annoyance. It's the continent itself that bites.
North America is 10.000x times more superior to Europe. Also it has the USA which makes it 200.000x times better

I dont like Europe, but i tolerate it

[Uxupox]

When people say white, they usually mean European Caucasian. There's no real benefits to being pedantic other than a short term ego boost.

words like pedantic are defined as a tiny ego boost, often reflective of tinier genitalia, where i come from

As a real european, i can tell you there's no such thing as a european or caucasian. Those are scientific superstitions, urban myths

I see white people in Asia, I see white people in Americas, I see white people in Australia, even Africa. There may even be white frozen mummies in Antarctica.

This myth of whites coming from Europe is disgusting. Whites existed long before europe became a civilization. When it was nothing more than a geographical extension of Asia, a large peninsula north of africa.

It is only by coincidence and a series of geographical factors and resource requirements that whites ended up colonizing Europe in the ancient era. But us whites are not european
This place is wild and inhospitable, monkeys died here. Why should life flourish here in the distant past? It cannot. Europe is not the birthplace of whiteness that is an ignorant plebian insult to our extra-european ancestors.

Most like whites come from Mu or Lemuria. Some cool continent like that whose demise led to white refugees having to haul derriere to hospitable locations, few of which included Europe.

Whites lived among the indians, before the Age of Exploration seen by Columbus bringing spaniards or gothic dark age euros into the New World.

Europe doesn't have the climatic conditions for something like a white race to appear or develop. We barely survive here, and that's only because we had to overdevelop technologies because europe IS NOT THAT HOSPITABLE!
In africa you can sit buttnaked, and if the wild animals don't eat ya you're fine!

In Europe mini ice ages freeze us to death, mountains ensure blizzards never miss us in winter, the infighting for resources is chaotic and socially cancerous. We're like animals in a cage. It's only by a miracle of fate that we haven't triggered a new world war to engulf the world in, this century

You have got to stop propping up my continent like it's the alpha and omega of everything. Europe sucks just mildly enough for me to not want to permanently leave it, but i hate living here just as well. I expect Japan is far superior in living conditions than my gruesome Europe be.

Europe is not that epic. The commercials lied, as many dumb illegal immigrants have been surprised to discover after swarming this place hoping to find Eden.....the Paradise they hoped would be their Promise Land was just a billboard poster.
In many ways Europe is like Hell on Earth. Not the very worst, but tolerable over time.

It really grinds your nerves tho. And it's not because of the whites, those are only sometimes the annoyance. It's the continent itself that bites.
North America is 10.000x times more superior to Europe. Also it has the USA which makes it 200.000x times better

I dont like Europe, but i tolerate it

dude your argument is all over the place.

[Catalonya]

It need not translate into an actual ability with music, but the fact music and math share many similarities is well known.

Well known, and utterly unsupported by evidence.

Pythagoras developed a mathematical basis for modern musical theory that is in place today. What is perceived as music, is nothing more than applied mathematics.

All musical theory studied in academies is based on pythagorean maths. Sometimes, read a book. Not the worst of time drains.

[Salandriagado]

It need not translate into an actual ability with music, but the fact music and math share many similarities is well known.

Well known, and utterly unsupported by evidence.

Pythagoras developed a mathematical basis for modern musical theory that is in place today. What is perceived as music, is nothing more than applied mathematics.

All musical theory studied in academies is based on pythagorean maths. Sometimes, read a book. Not the worst of time drains.

I'm literally a mathematician. Actual mathematics, as done by actual mathematicians, and actual music, as done by musicians, have nothing to do with each other. It is telling that the only citation you can find is literally millennia out of date.

[Austrasien]

1. denying intelligence exists

Now, this is thinking progressively.