Harish Murali

@arya_amsha I am I guess an alien to Indian politics - could you explain the concept of Muslim political veto? And perhaps, historical examples of this that had burdened India?

Inb4 someone says "Saar phir to tum sab sampradaya aur caste pe ladoge", absolutely we will (caste politics, sampradaya politics would be an even bigger thing) but it will be easily manageable because we wont have a Muslim political veto, and we Hindus are not terroristic zealots.

I can never forgive Nehru and Gandhi for snatching away a 0% Muslim India from me. Now I can only make fantasy novels about that reality and feel comfy asking Claude to describe it to me. Just imagine not having to care about politics or demographics.

Not sure what your goal is here. Muslims of India are predominantly Hindu in origin. Was it not mostly Shudras of the gangetic plains who converted? When you say Hindus - are you simply referring to Kshathriyas/Brahmins? And sure I have heard taxation was worse under the Mughals, but honestly agriculture simply intensified during the Mughal period. Cash crops were introduced. Population density grew across the frontier portions of the gangetic plains. We were simply pushing our Malthusian limits.

Under Hindu Kings, it was 35%. So we got poorer under Muslim rule.

@SaysSimulation The real Dutch? I thought the real Dutch primarily was restricted to greater NyC. Any source suggesting this Dutch populated the lower Midwest? Or are you perhaps referring to the Pennsylvania Germans

population of Pennsylvania. Both groups blended with the Anglos. The Pennsylvania Germans blended with Midlands Brits. Both the Germans and the (real) Dutch blended with the Scotch-Irish in the push down the Ohio River that was the original settling of the Midwest. 2/

The colonial-stock Germans & Dutch were here from the beginning, and are a key part of Lower Midwestern & Pennsylvania culture. The Dutch founded NYC as New Amsterdam. The "Pennsylvania Dutch" (actually Germans, mostly from Palatine) were close to half of the original 1/

@stephenehorn @rightwingnutrs California was mostly settled by the same colonial stock that spread across the frontier west (Appalachians). I think many followed the “California Trail” which starts from Missouri. Yankees however did settle the coastal towns of Portland, Seattle, etc.. across the west coast

@rightwingnutrs I've heard that many California settlers were from the south

If your state raised a single regiment to fight for the Confederacy, it has a reasonable claim for inclusion in "the South" (yes, even Oklahoma) Obviously, some of those states are more Southern than others, and some have been more overrun by Yankees and foreigners

The Northern Neck were where the first Northern Virginia settlers arrived. They relied less on the slavery economy than the settlers of Jamestown. Culturally conservative sure, but much less so than their southern neighbors on plantations. They helped settle Northern Virginia Piedmont, Blue Grass Kentucky, and the Northern North Carolina Piedmont region. A lot of the free African American population descended from here too (who later settled in North Carolina also)

@Indian_Bronson Michigan was first settled by Yankees in the 18th/19th century I believe mostly drawing from New York/New England. So culturally, it has Northeastern elements to it. Most of Ohio/Indiana was settled by others (except Northern Ohio which was settled by Connecticut settlers)

Michigan is such a strangely Northeastern style state in the Midwest. Spiritually I think it is more connected to New York and Delaware and Massachusetts than Ohio and Indiana.

What do the descendants of those earlier communities choose to pursue then? I feel like the likely explanation is that they have a high share abroad or have lower fertility. Hence leaving the competitive academic playground for others (Telugu agrarian communities, Baniyas, a few others)

@Shiftant @charliesmirkley Looks like we see this in the USA too? What is explaining this? My guess is it’s because they are refugee descended, perhaps unlike the others?

@Shiftant @charliesmirkley It seems it is mostly Vietnamese in Canada. I am fairly surprised by their crime data. Almost seems uniquely different from East Asians and South Asians. I guess - it is probably hard to see this in the USA given we have just an “Asian” category.

Plausible. South Asians, Chinese & Filipinos are underrepresented in federal prison in Canada 1/3

@Shiftant @charliesmirkley I am fairly surprised by the South East Asian numbers - what could be going on here? Do we see signals of this in the USA?

@charliesmirkley Sikhs probably higher than the South Asian average, but probably not by that much, as Sikhs are a pretty large percentage of Canada's South Asians, and Punjabis are the largest South Asian linguistic group.

Not sure how this is measured, but I have studied this a bit. Western India and South India have historically had a very different way of agricultural practices. It seemed to make these societies a bit more “WEIRD”. North-Western India will be culturally similar to Pakistan, while as you travel east across Northern India you start getting a bit more “Southeastern Asian” in culture. As you can see in the usa or other western countries, its migrants from western/southern India that have succeeded as small business owners and get more educated on average - while Punjabi Americans are a bit more represented in the working class. All gradients/averages though - these should not be thought of as distinct races.

Fascinating to see the difference in “Individualism” scores between Pakistan and India in the Hofstede individualism maps.

Well - financial constraints are without a doubt there. Equipment, private coaching, etc.. Generally great tennis players are also likely trained early - imagine the type of households who can arrange for time/money like this? The network effects of tennis are very interesting also, very much tied to elite networks and institutions. A good sport “of the poor” is basketball - not tennis. The type of personality traits tennis selects for is also very telling. It would confound for a demographic of people who would otherwise, likely still put greater efforts into health. Such as avoiding obesity, car accidents, drug overdoses, smoking, alcohol binging, risk taking activities, or operating machinery.

@hmurali321 @aakashgupta Access to tennis is fairly universal. Most communities, schools have tennis courts and it is not an expensive sport.

Tennis players live 9.7 years longer than sedentary people. Not 9.7 months. 9.7 years. Nearly a decade. The Copenhagen City Heart Study tracked 8,577 people for 25 years and ranked every sport by how much life it adds. Badminton: 6.2 years. Soccer: 4.7. Cycling: 3.7. Swimming: 3.4. Jogging: 3.2. Tennis almost triples jogging. A separate study of 80,000 adults found racket sports cut all-cause mortality by 47% and cardiovascular death by 56%. Swimming hit 41%. Aerobics hit 36%. The question is why racket sports destroy everything else. Three mechanisms stack on top of each other. First, the physical demands. A tennis rally requires explosive sprints, lateral cuts, and sustained aerobic output. You're training fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibers simultaneously. Most cardio only trains one system. Second, the cognitive load. You're reading spin, predicting angles, adjusting position, and executing motor patterns in real-time. Your brain is solving spatial puzzles at 80+ mph. That hand-eye coordination and strategic processing builds neural connections that protect against cognitive decline. Third, and this is the one researchers keep coming back to: you literally cannot play alone. Every racket sport requires another person on the other side of the net. That forced social interaction triggers neurochemical benefits that solitary exercise cannot replicate. Strong social connection alone increases your chance of longevity by 50%. Jogging is you and your thoughts. Tennis is you, a strategic opponent, and a community. Dr. Daniel Amen is right. The data is overwhelming. If you want the single highest-ROI activity for a longer life, pick up a racket.

@OldNewYork1664 Actually no, I am pretty sure estimates suggest the opposite. A little under a 2-1 in the other direction

Actually Irish Catholics outnumber the Scots-Irish by almost 2-1 in modern day descendants.

Well even if you don’t believe Lynn, when India participated in PISA it effectively was a 75 IQ performance. It has been 15 years I think since this, but I doubt it improved too much. A good proxy for this is average height. India will reach its genetic IQ potential the day its average male height reaches 68/69 inches.

@hmurali321 @yajnadevam Lynns' studies literally look people from developmental retardation studies and used them as representative samples. If you don't understand this then yes, you should downgrade your IQ estimates further. Currently urban india has an avg IQ of 95 and middle class ~100-103

Medians: IQ of an IIT graduate: 130 IQ of a general Indian engineer: 110-130 IQ of a guy who runs a motel: ~100. IQ of preselected Indian immigrants to the US is generously speaking, around 110. If two high IQ preselected immigrants have children, their IQ would be around 106 due to regression to mean. IQ heritability (approx 0.65) Expected IQ: 100 + 0.65*(110-100) = ~106 If you consider that the engineers marry non-preselected Indian spouses with an alleged avg 80 IQ Expected IQ: 100 + 0.65*((80+110)/2-100) = ~96 The 108 average of Indian students in USA indicates that the median IQ of non-preselected Indians has to be close to 100-103.

Your point on East Asian ancestry entering late is very interesting. But the arrival timing of them - is this based on the genetics or a theory tied to the Sinhalese? I have wondered though - maybe Sinhalese might have a similar history to Maharashtra? Populations with Dravidian roots from the Neolithic period, but sanskritized/became Buddhist early on due to trade/religious influence? I for some reason lean this way rather than a mass population. But, perhaps you could prove me wrong?

I mean honestly, we are potentially arguing over a few IQ pts haha. So the number itself might not be important. But I think my main point was that I think IQ should not differ from an IIT grad and say an Ivy League. I feel like the hyper selection of IIT seems like a semi-Korean/east Asian culture rather than true selection that is meaningfully different from the USA

@hmurali321 @yajnadevam 130 average of IITs definitely tracks for non-quota admits

A lot of extrapolation from my own argument - seems that you all took it personally. Anyway, my current stance on India’s average IQ potential is at about ~90 with significant population stratification due to caste. The 75/80 measured in Lynn’s studies reflect a lack of skills within India - which can be improved with better institutions. It shows though, that many middle class Indians live in “developed bubbles” while others do not seem to have access to this yet. And sure, China with an average IQ of ~100 has its urban coastal cities averaging in 110. Washington DC has an average of about 110. Your average Indian middle class gifted with good education in Chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai, and likely even some small towns will have an IQ average of 100 - I agree there at least. But again, these are all micro bubbles. The vast majority of India likely will score a 75/80 on a random IQ test even today

@hmurali321 @yajnadevam Please stop internalizing this '80 IQ' nonsense from richard lynn's racist studies. Middle class Indians have around ~100 IQ avg which has stayed stable as the middle class have 10x'd. Our development tracks with countries like Korea which supposedly had 80 IQs in the 80s.

@yajnadevam @MasExMachina Though I myself scored high on the SAT, when I give myself an estimate of my IQ I correct it downwards by a decent bit to adjust for this problem above (I without a doubt gamed it by studying much more than the average test taker)

Yeah but this fails to account for the concept of gaming for an exam. Mensa IQ takers, though supposedly are only entered under the IQ criteria of 130, test around 120 after entering in. Same issue with Harvard students when evaluating them after they enter in. Despite Indian Americans scoring an IQ of 103 in the ABCD dataset, they average an SAT score over 1200 which is technically equivalent to over a 110 IQ score. You see the problem here? I do not see how this invalidates my claim. I honestly highly doubt IIT grads are much smarter than your average Harvard grad (though I am sure they are higher in conscientiousness and other such things orthogonal to IQ)