Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

National strength

@nationalstrength

On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

1,122subscribers

+39 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001348081244
TypeChannel
Username@nationalstrength
CreatedBetween 1 March 2018 and 31 July 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded8 August 2026
Last confirmed live14 August 2026
Measurements held5
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 14 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/nationalstrength

Growth

1,0831,1221,102.57 August 2026 — 1,083 subscribers8 August 2026 — 1,083 subscribers8 August 2026 — 1,084 subscribers10 August 2026 — 1,100 subscribers14 August 2026 — 1,122 subscribers7 August 202614 August 2026
5 measurements spanning 7 days, net +39. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 1,077–1,128 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
14 Aug 2026, 15:051,122+22
10 Aug 2026, 23:311,100+16
8 Aug 2026, 04:161,084+1
8 Aug 2026, 00:061,083no change
7 Aug 2026, 18:061,083first reading

Engagement

18 posts held, back to 6 August 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
21.2%
avg views ÷ 1,122 subscribers
Avg views / post
238
18 posts measured
Reaction rate
7.30%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
18
of 18 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026
Posts held18 (6 August 20267 August 2026)
Views total4,290
Reactions total313
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken8 Aug 2026, 00:06 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

What this channel posts

Video runtime
24s
Average length
24s

Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no mark.

Reaction mix

313 reactions across 18 posts, in 11 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 64.2% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
20164.2%
😁7624.3%
🤗113.51%
👏103.19%
🔥41.28%
😢41.28%
🕊30.958%
10.319%
👌10.319%
🗿10.319%
🫡10.319%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 18 of the 18 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 313reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 18 most recent posts we hold, published 6 August 2026 to 7 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

7 Aug 2026, 19:17 UTC124 views6 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Video

Video, posted without a caption

😁2😢2🗿1🤗1

7 Aug 2026, 18:13 UTC159 views17 reactionsread 8 August 2026

ملاحظة بسيطة معظم الي يحاولون دحض كلام لين وخصوصاً من التيارات الليبرالية يستدلون بكلام نيكولاس ماكنتوش زين يا مطي ما عرفت تبحث اكثر وتشوف انه في المراحل اللاحقة ماكنتوش اقتنع بفرضية لين لو هو انت بس تريد تسوي نفسك فهيم قبل فترة واحد عرضلي مقال لماكنتوش و جنت متأكد جايب كلامه من ai فسألته زين شنو رأيك بمقالة ماكنتوش الي نشرها عام 2005 (يعترف بيها بصحة فرضية لين) ضل صافن مثل البغل

16😁1

7 Aug 2026, 18:07 UTC162 views28 reactionsread 8 August 2026

إنتهى … والمايتفاعل مضغوط من الكوين ايناس عطا

19😁7🤗2

7 Aug 2026, 18:04 UTC164 views16 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

التفسير البيولوجي في هذه الدراسة أفاد أن هذه النتائج تتوافق مع فكرة أن حجم الدماغ يعد عاملاً مسبباً للفروق في الذكاء تذكر الدراسة أن أدمغة الرجال أكبر من أدمغة النساء بنسبة تقريبية تتراوح بين 10% إلى 12%، حتى بعد ضبط المتغيرات مثل الطول والوزن. الارتباط بالذكاء: هناك ارتباط إحصائي (قدره 0.28) بين حجم الدماغ والذكاء. بناءً على هذا الارتباط، يُتوقع وجود فجوة في الذكاء تتراوح بين 4.6 إلى 6.7 نقطة.

14🤗1😁1

7 Aug 2026, 18:04 UTC159 views15 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

إعادة نشر كملحق أثبتت دراسة تحليلية شاملة حديثة أجراها الباحثان فيديريكو بارا وإيميل كيركيجارد بعنوان الفروق بين الجنسين في القدرة المعرفية: تحليل شمولى لبطارية اختبارات الاستعداد المهني للدفاع والدراسات الواسعة الأخرى، وجود فجوة في متوسط معدل الذكاء تبلغ 2.57 نقطة لصالح الرجال بين البالغين. ومن خلال هذه النتائج المنشورة في مجلة سايك، نجح الباحثان في إثبات صحة فرضية العالم ريتشارد لين، حيث أكدا بالبيانات الإحصائية أ

14😁1

7 Aug 2026, 18:02 UTC164 views14 reactionsread 8 August 2026

هنا حاول عالم النفس البريطاني نيكولاس ماكنتوش الرد على فرضية لين لأول مرة، استناداً إلى مراجعة أجراها كورت أظهرت عدم وجود فرق بين الجنسين في اختبار المصفوفات التقدمية، واستنتج ماكنتوش من ذلك أنه لا يوجد فرق يُذكر بين الجنسين في الذكاء العام رداً على ذلك ريتشارد لين نشر تحليلاً تجميعياً لـ 57 دراسة حول الفروق بين الجنسين في اختبار المصفوفات المتتابعة، حيث أظهرا عدم وجود فرق بين الأطفال الذين تتراوح أعمارهم بين 6 و14

13😁1

7 Aug 2026, 17:59 UTC161 views11 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Photo, posted without a caption

10😁1

7 Aug 2026, 17:53 UTC177 views6 reactionsread 8 August 2026

شدولها الهمة شوية حتى نكمل

5🕊1

7 Aug 2026, 17:50 UTC188 views19 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

هنا أجاك الساطي ريتشارد لين كسر هذا الإجماع، زين شلون ؟ لين جادل بأنه رغم صحة القول بعدم وجود فروق بين الجنسين في متوسط ​​الذكاء تقريباً في المرحلة العمرية بين 5 و15 عاماً فإن الذكور يبدأون في إظهار متوسط ​​أعلى حيث أظهرت الدراسات أن الذكور أكثر ذكاءً من الإناث، وأن هذه الميزة تتزايد لتصل إلى ما بين 4 و5 نقاط في معدل الذكاء لدى البالغين. وبشكل أكثر تحديداً ، اقترح لين أنه لا يوجد فرق يُذكر بين الجنسين في الذكاء بين

15🤗2👏1🕊1

7 Aug 2026, 17:43 UTC198 views17 reactionsread 8 August 2026

مبدئياً الي لازم تعرفه عزيزي القارئ أنه منذ السنوات الأولى للقرن العشرين ساد تأكيد مستمر على عدم وجود فروق بين الجنسين في متوسط ​​الذكاء العام والمُعرَّف بأنه مجموع القدرات المعرفية التي تقاس بمعدل الذكاء (IQ) المستمد من اختبارات مثل مقاييس وكسلر وبينيه. ففي دراسة مبكرة أكد عالم النفس الامريكي لويس تيرمان غياب الفروق بين الجنسين في متوسط ​​الذكاء حيث كتب أنه في عينة التقنين الأمريكية لاختبار "ستانفورد-بينيه" (التي شم

15🔥2

Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @nationalstrength. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank — 861,876 of 1,336,469entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.

Forward network

Republished by

Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Mentions

Names

Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“National strength” (@nationalstrength), 1,122 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/nationalstrength.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.