What you don't see in our everyday life here in the US is just how sissified and weak Americans are becoming from these so called healthy diets.
Men can't even work anymore, they don't have the strength to lift things, they depend on machines, they can't think because their brains are malnourished. We need carbs and protein in our diets to get our humans back up to a level they can function. Weak people means weak country.

Nope, Leo has rational reasons to be angry, about your refusal to be rational.

The term irritable male syndrome (IMS) is used in scientific and popular texts to describe a pattern of irritability and mood changes linked to hormonal fluctuations in males. However, it is not an officially recognized medical diagnosis in major clinical classifications like the DSM-5 or ICD-11; it remains a descriptive concept rather than a standardized clinical condition.

I would say that irritable male syndrome is the clearest reason for the existence of MAGA that I ever heard. The whole movement is based on primitive gut feelings, that things in the US are not going well, without any rational thinking about the reasons for why things in the US are not going well. If you look at MAGA crowds, it's clear that ALL these men have some form of hormonal imbalance. Either they are testosteron bombs who are frustrated for women not being interested in them, or they are middle-aged men in their penopause.

I found only one funny, the rest was cringe and stupid.
You're political side really has a disability to do humor.

You still don't understand the difference between sex and gender.
One is biological and the other is identity. That simple concept explains EVERYTHING.
And all those questions and jokes prove that this simple concept is too difficult for your side to understand. This indicates a general low IQ on your side of politics.

A lot of democrats are jelly fish indeed. Only the lefty progressives are fighters.
But look at Republicans. Almost none of them agreed with tariffs and said nothing.
Most of them think that Trump is crazy to focus on Greenland, but they say nothing.
The only ones who say something are the ones who are not up for re-election anyway.
They are all jelly fish. The only one with some principles and half a spine is Rand Paul.
only registered users can see external links
(Unfortunately he often has a spine over the stupidest shit ever imagined)

Here’s a clear assessment of the “Average IQ by Country 2026” data you mentioned (from WorldPopulationReview) and whether it’s scientifically valid, trustworthy, or meaningful for comparing national intelligence.

🔍 1. What This “Average IQ by Country” Data Actually Is

The WorldPopulationReview page you linked aggregates IQ estimates from various sources — especially the International IQ Test online platform and older datasets like those by Richard Lynn & David Becker — and presents them as “average IQ by country.”

However, it’s not original scientific research. It doesn’t collect truly representative, systematic data across whole national populations. Instead, it:

Uses voluntary online tests taken by internet users (self-selected samples).

Compiles and mixes data from multiple sources (some decades old) that use different methods and test types.

Often includes small sample sizes for many countries.

So the WorldPopulationReview figures are estimates or derived rankings, not rigorous scientific measurements of national intelligence.

📉 2. Problems With This Kind of Ranking
❌ Non-representative samples

Online platforms only include people who choose to take an internet IQ test. That group is typically:

More educated,

More urban,

More digitally literate,

… than the overall population. This skews results systematically.

❌ Varied test types & methodologies

Different IQ tests measure different skills (verbal, nonverbal reasoning, memory, etc.). Aggregating heterogeneous data without consistent norms makes comparisons unreliable.

❌ Sample size issues

Some low-population or low-internet-access countries might only have very few test-takers, invalidating the idea of an “average IQ.”

❌ Questionable historical sources

Datasets like the one by Lynn & Becker have been widely criticized by academic researchers for using unrepresentative data and for biases in how they estimate national IQs.

➡️ A recent critique argues that “national IQ” datasets do not provide accurate, unbiased, or comparable measures of cognitive ability worldwide due to methodological flaws like inconsistent sampling and test diversity.
🧠 3. What the Scientific Community Actually Says About Cross-Country IQ Comparisons
✅ IQ tests do measure certain cognitive skills

IQ tests can be useful in psychology to assess reasoning or problem-solving within well-standardized contexts.

⚠️ But conclusions about national differences are controversial

There is no scientific consensus that average IQ differences between countries accurately reflect innate intelligence differences. Environmental, social, and cultural factors play huge roles. For instance:

Education quality

Nutrition and health

Literacy

Socioeconomic status

Test familiarity

… all influence test performance and are not evenly distributed between countries.

Environment vs. innate differences

The mainstream view in intelligence research today emphasizes that environmental factors, not genetics, explain most group-level differences in IQ scores. Claims that genetic differences account for national IQ disparities are not supported by credible scientific evidence.

🧩 4. Other Explanations for Score Variations (Aside from “Smarter Countries”)

Here are important reasons why average IQ scores might differ — none imply one nationality is inherently more intelligent:

📊 Educational access and quality

Better schooling systems and early childhood education boost test-taking performance.

🍽 Nutrition and health

Early nutrition affects brain development; better diets often correlate with higher cognitive test performance.

📚 Literacy and test exposure

People familiar with testing formats and abstract reasoning tasks do better on IQ tests.

🌍 Cultural familiarity with test content

Even “culture-fair” tests can still favor certain ways of thinking or problem-solving.

🧪 Sampling bias

If only a subset of people in a country participates (e.g., mostly well-off, urban, educated), the “average” is skewed.

🧠 5. Should You Trust This Source?

WorldPopulationReview is not a peer-reviewed scientific source for IQ research. It’s a publicly accessible statistics site that compiles existing estimates without rigorous methodology.

It doesn’t ensure representative sampling,

It mixes diverse data sources, and

It does not conform to the standards you’d expect from academic research in psychology or psychometrics.

Therefore, the data can be interesting for informal comparisons but should be treated with strong caution — particularly when drawing conclusions about national intelligence.

📌 Bottom Line

✅ IQ testing can measure some cognitive skills.
⚠️ But country-level averages based on online, non-random samples are not scientifically robust.
❌ These rankings do not prove that some populations are inherently more intelligent than others.
📌 Factors like education, health, environment, and test-taking bias are huge contributors.

👉 In short: no — the “Average IQ by Country” list is not a scientifically valid or reliable measure of national intelligence.

If you don't pay nurses enough or make their jobs suck, no one will want to be
a nurse anymore. Unions are just a way for employees to organize themselves,
so they can demand respect from their employer. Why do you hate that so much?

Why do you always fight for the powerful to exploit the powerless?
Don't you think that the little guy has been exploited enough already?

🧾 What the Story Is Really About
1. The Core Report

Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, has said Ford dealerships in the U.S. have about 5,000 open mechanic/technician jobs that can pay up to roughly $120,000 per year.

Farley and some articles frame this as a sign of a broader workforce issue in America — especially in skilled trades like mechanics, electricians, plumbers, manufacturing, and emergency services.

The headline you’re seeing — “I’m offering $120,000 jobs but nobody wants them” — seems to be an Internet exaggeration or social-media meme of that underlying claim.

💬 Public and Media Reactions
A. Business & Economic Coverage

Fortune and other business outlets note the shortage is not about laziness but about skills and training: auto technician jobs require years of apprenticeship/training before many workers hit the six-figure level.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the six-figure pay is not typical for people starting out; many techs start much lower and only reach high pay after years of experience and working conditions that are physically demanding.

B. Worker and Public Commentary

Many people online push back against the simplistic headline and offer alternative explanations:

Pay isn’t really “$120 k” right away: comments and threads point out that the phrase “up to $120k” can be misleading — that figure is often top end after many years on the job, not starting pay.

Training and tools cost time and money: many skilled trades require upfront investment in education, certification, and tools, which adds barriers.

Work Conditions Matter: some workers note that physically demanding jobs with long hours and limited flexibility are less attractive even with high pay.

Online critics also argue that employers sometimes inflate pay numbers for headlines or list jobs they’re not actively hiring for yet, contributing to confusion.

📊 Why These Jobs Are Hard to Fill (Beyond the Headline)

Experts and labor analysts point to several real reasons beyond “no one wants to work”:

1. Skills and Qualification Gaps

A lot of jobs that pay well require specialized skills, certifications, or years of experience — and there simply aren’t enough trained workers currently. Labour market research shows that mismatches between job requirements and worker skills are a major challenge today.

2. Training Time

Becoming proficient as a mechanic or skilled technician often takes multiple years of training or apprenticeships, and that delay means many people don’t enter the field immediately.

3. Job Conditions and Expectations

Even if compensation is good in the long run, the day-to-day reality — physically demanding work, safety risks, less flexible hours, and uncertain overtime — can deter applicants.

4. Labor Market Dynamics

In some sectors and roles, there are simply fewer open positions overall, or employers are very picky about qualifications, which can make openings linger even when workers exist. Research on hiring finds employers sometimes list broader skill “wish lists” that discourage applicants.

5. Broader Trends

Some data shows job openings overall have declined in late 2025, and hiring rates are sluggish even as claims of worker shortages persist — indicating structural complexity in the market.

📌 So Why Do People Say “Nobody Wants These Jobs”?

That interpretation tends to come from simplistic media memes or social posts, not detailed economic analysis. On deeper inspection:

✔ It’s not that Americans categorically refuse to do these jobs —
❌ It’s that the jobs may require skills many workers don’t yet have, or pay structures that aren’t transparent or worth it for people just starting.
✔ Many workers are interested in well-paid, sustainable careers, but they also value flexibility, training investment, and workplace conditions — and if those aren’t aligned, even high nominal salaries aren’t enough.

🧠 Conclusion

The viral story you linked is essentially a viral spin on a real labor market issue — namely, a shortage of trained workers in certain industries, including high-paying mechanic jobs. But the idea that “people don’t want to work these $120 k jobs” is too simple and misleading. The real challenges include:

The need for skills and training pipelines

Physical demands of jobs

Misleading salary framing (“up to $120k” vs starting pay)

Broader hiring and labor market mismatches

In short, it’s not that “no one wants them.” It’s that there aren’t enough traders with the right training, the pay ladder is long and opaque, and labor market dynamics are complex — a more nuanced picture than the meme-style headline suggests.

Why Humans Cannot Be Divided into Biological Races

For centuries, people have tried to divide humanity into a small number of “races”—sometimes three, sometimes five, sometimes dozens. These classifications were often presented as scientific facts. Modern biology, genetics, and anthropology, however, show that there are no biologically distinct human races. All attempts to divide humans into races are arbitrary, historically contingent, and unsupported by genetic evidence.

1. Where the Idea of Human Races Came From
The concept of race emerged primarily in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries, long before genetics existed. Naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach classified humans much as they classified plants and animals, relying on visible traits like skin color, hair texture, or skull shape.
Crucially:
- Different scholars proposed different numbers of races (3, 4, 5, 6, or more).
- The boundaries between races were never agreed upon.
- These systems often reflected colonial, political, and social ideologies, not biological discoveries.
If race were a natural biological division, scientists would have converged on a stable, consistent classification. They never did.

2. What Genetics Reveals About Human Variation
Modern genetics allows us to directly measure human biological diversity. Its findings are decisive:
- All humans share about 99.9% of their DNA.
- Of the small fraction that varies, most variation occurs within local populations, not between so-called races.
- Roughly 85–90% of genetic variation is found within any given population, and only a small fraction distinguishes populations from different continents.
This means that two people from the same “race” can be more genetically different from each other than either is from someone classified as belonging to a different race.

3. Human Differences Are Gradual, Not Categorical
Biological races, when they exist in other species, are defined by clear genetic boundaries. Humans do not show this pattern.
Instead:
- Human traits vary gradually across geography, forming what biologists call clines.
- Skin color, for example, changes slowly from the equator toward the poles, correlating with ultraviolet radiation—not with racial categories.
- There is no point where one “race” ends and another begins.
Any line drawn between races is therefore a human decision, not a biological fact.

4. The Arbitrary Nature of Race Classifications
The history of race science exposes its arbitrariness:
- Some systems grouped Indigenous Australians with Africans; others with Asians.
- People from North Africa have been classified as Black, White, or Middle Eastern depending on time and place.
- In the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were once considered non-White; today they are considered White.
A classification system that changes with politics, geography, and culture cannot be a biological one.

5. Ancestry Is Real; Race Is Not
Rejecting biological race does not mean denying human diversity.
- Ancestry refers to genealogical and geographic history and can be studied scientifically.
- Population genetics can identify patterns related to migration, isolation, and adaptation.
- These patterns do not form discrete racial boxes.
Race, by contrast, simplifies continuous variation into rigid categories and assigns social meaning to them.

6. Why the Myth of Biological Race Persists
The idea of race persists because it is socially powerful, not scientifically accurate. It has been used to:
- Justify slavery, colonialism, and segregation
- Naturalize inequality by portraying it as biological
- Provide simple explanations for complex social differences
Science does not support these uses.

7. Scientific Consensus
Today, there is broad agreement among:
- Geneticists
- Anthropologists
- Evolutionary biologists
- Medical researchers
Humans form a single, interbreeding species with no biological races. Race is a social classification imposed on biological variation, not a natural division within it.

Conclusion
All attempts to divide humanity into three races, five races, or any other number fail for the same reason: human biological diversity does not come in discrete units. The boundaries are invented, the numbers are arbitrary, and the categories change over time.

What unites humanity is far more fundamental than what superficially distinguishes us. From a biological perspective, race is not a fact of nature—it is a story societies tell.

only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links