Bobby_2021

What a G. I learnt to use profanities so casually after I watch Leo explain it. Before watching Leo I used to use profanities with Little regret and used to hold back a little. Now I don't see a distinction between profanity and normalcy.

No one knows clearly. I can only give a generic answer that merely explores the possibilities, just as any other evolutionary biologists would explain why differences exist despite all people originating from Africa 200,000 years ago. 1. Pure genetic randomness. Although you cannot boil down IQ to a single gene, or mutations of it, there could have been a mutation which release a certain chemical which creates more grey matter in brain. This possibility itself sounds silly, but something along those lines could be real. We know little of neurology or neuroscience to know the mechanisms of the brain of a high IQ person compared to a low IQ person. I am sure there are real physical difference, perhaps in the way neurons are wired or they may have some neuro transmitter that accelerates the development of new neural connections. Genetics can create random stuff without having any survival value or survival pressure. For example eye colour. 2. Environment exerts a strong selection for IQ all the way from the beginning. You need a certain level of abstraction to think into the future to plan for your hunger or to make a spear. Cows do not have that capability for abstraction. It could have been the case that the earliest differentiable unique ancestors of jews had to endure more pressure and undergo natural selection that killed off the low IQ jews. In general, selection pressure in ancient times were much more stronger than that of today. 3. Differences and varities are fundamental to evolution. What's truly impossible and remarkable is if two individuals or groups have the exact same making. This is even harder to happen in reality than them being different. It's not the case that all africans had to endure the same environment. They could have simply moved out to different places and endure different survival pressures. For evolution to work you only need small differences and that can compound over time. The question "why" become significant only if you feel there ought to be a certain way for things. Evolution dosen't have to justify anything to you. So if you have two different populations, it doesn't have to be equal. No two things in the universe is equal. And add to this the sheer variety of "things" in the universe. To make things even more complex, add to this the sheer amount of time you can play with. It's impossible for the human mind to comprehend the things that can happen over the course of a century. Evolution has hundreds of thousands of years to play with. Maybe a drunken monkey with a paint brush can paint Mona Lisa, if given enough time. It all has to do with time, differences in environments, and genetic varities. All of these three variables are a perfect cooking ground for differences among individuals and groups to compound over and over again. That's how we end up with people of different skin colour, IQ, height, tonality, etc. Notice that cows and dogs have the same Ancestors as you and still there are enormous differences between you and them. All the hypotheticals aside, the reason why jews do better, in my opinion, is because of their good genetics. All the intellectual drama we are playing is to explain away genetic differences. If there are differences among groups in 2022, then there could have been differences 200,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago. I am siding with it because it is the simplest explanation. Genetics which facilitates intellectual power is allowed to have Differences. You certainly won't be surprised when Jamaicans top the Olympic sprints in record numbers compared to Indians, say. They are simply genetically better when it comes to sprinting. Period. As a result they obviously value participating in athletics events because they can easily excel in it compared to Indias, say.

We all started as amoeba some four billion years ago. At what point did we become humans? The only thing I can say for sure is that, the reason you are a human and not a cow is because of genetics. That's a real World observation. It's okay to admit that we don't know how we got here. The thing is, genetics is extremely complicated, murky and also random. They both influence each other so intimately to produce what we have now. Especially when you are talking about eons of time, the genetic/environment duality begins to break down. It's correct to say that environment influences genetics. That's why we have to base our conclusions on what we can know for sure. That's all what I wanted to discuss. I am absolutely open to the possibilities being true as well.

Adoption of woke values have been proven to decrease IQ according to the latest research and studies. Source: Trust me bro.

Yeah so Ashkenazi jews having an average iq of 112, which is also close to the average iq of self made millionaires, was merely a coincidence, and has little to do with their success according to you?? Average IQ is a good predictor of the success of any population. Average IQ of a population is the IQ of the average individual. Notice that 50% of the individuals have IQs more than than the average. That's a lot of individuals packed with potential for success. High IQ = More work done in less time. The average jewish person literally has to work less to get the same amount of work done compared to an average asian, say, or any other ethnic group for that matter. So the average jew is more likely to succeed than an average, member of other groups. Pretty simple and straightforward if you ask me. There is absolutely zero confusion between populations & individuals. As far as IQ is concerned, the findings are pretty consistent enough to explain the success of both of them. Please don't make this more hard than it needs to be. I am not forgetting any group difference, while you are trying to forget about the main group difference about IQ. The most fundamental group difference is that their group has an average IQ way higher than that of other groups. Let's say that height is an advantage when it comes to running fast. So the fastest sprinters are usually taller than average. When a group of people are taller than some other group of People, the group with the higher average height is at a huge advantage when it comes to succeeding in a race. The most distinguishing factor that exists within the group is the differences in their average height. It explains why they will dominate the race compared to other groups. Simple. You are essentially ignoring the height, while looking for other things to explain why they win the race. Average height is the main group difference. The most important group difference is the IQ differences of the groups. When you say the average IQ of jews is 112, the sample size is not merely the jews. The sample size includes people of other ethnicities as well. IQ is a relativistic measure that allows you to compare your scores against other who took the test with you. The example you have given above has two samples. Fishes in ocean water and fishes in ponds. And they are evaluated according to different standards. There are no huge predators in ponds, while that's not the case with oceanic fishes. So the coorelations breaks down if you include many big fishes from ponds. Every single person taking the IQ test is evaluated according to the same standard. And you can't compare the results from two samples. That makes it unnecessarily complicated like the example you have given. You cannot seperate individual and groups so simplistically because individuals make up groups. Success and IQ is individualistic. When you look at the list of nobel prize winners, you only see individuals, not groups. Then you start to wonder why many individuals in the winners list come from the same group. 20% of the nobel prize winners are jewish people. Jews are over-represented in the top of the hierarchy. At the same time you are also talking about individuals only, while making the observation that some individuals come from a specific groups. Then the logical question is: what makes that group special? What is their distinguishing factor that seperates them from other groups? Obviously it's a higher average IQ.

Is suffering inevitable in finiteness? So just by God deciding to become finite, he accepted suffering and all dreams are essentially nightmares. Can you be in a finite dream and not suffer. Is this possible?

See what @Leo Gura has to say about it. My claim is simple and clear: Successful people has better genetics. And without such genetics, your hardwork and "smartwork" is worth dogshit. It does not mean that everyone with good genetics will acheive everything in their lives. You have to look at successful people and identify the most distinguishing factor in their lives. Which is obviously that, they are fucking smart. Smart = Higher IQ. You cannot make it to the top of any hierarchy without having a great IQ. Yeah because success is highly coorelated with IQ. You should look at the top billionares list and infer their IQ. Average IQ of self made billionares is said to be 133 while for self made millionares it is 110, close to the average IQ of jews. It's an incredible coorelation if you ask me. Elon Musk has it somewhere around 150, Zukerberg and bill gates around 160, which is the reason why the latter two got near perfect SAT scores. Jeff Bezos was in the gifed kids class. Self made = Didn't inherit the wealth from parents. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/ The main study: wai-americas-elite-2013.pdf Here you need to note that SAT, ACT or any other standardised tests are equivalent to IQ tests or have close coorelations. These are basically IQ tests with extra steps. You need IQ and a little bit more to excel in standardise tests. Again, there are tons of sources validating relationship between IQ and income/wealth. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/09/24/the-scary-smart-have-become-the-scary-rich-examining-techs-richest-on-the-forbes-400/?sh=2d5f9e2138cc It is not merely a hypothetical assumption. Google exists for a reason. Go use it. I don't have to teach and prove the basics of psychology to you. lol for thinking that the link between success and IQ is an assumption. Go check my sources. I am not going to spoon feed you. Research and make up your own mind. I am not a hipocrite. There exists evidence for saying that IQ and success is coorelated. I thought you would already know it. I have posted a few of the articles up above. And proofs are complicated. And discussing them is going to make m posts needlessly technical and long. I admit that I haven't completely studied the inside out of the sources I have provided here. But it is pretty conisitent with my assertions about IQ and success. You simply have no case of real world evidence. All you have is hypotheticals. Did you think that this was a hypothetical arm chair debate? I was going to ask for evidence once the hypothetical scenario was clear. But now it is clear that there is no evidence to substantiate your claims. Status is linked to survivability. A dork who is sitting inside his room reciting Torah all day has poor scope for survival. He may be able to barely provide for himself let alone his chicks. On the other hand some guy who could accumulate recources and money could easily provide for him and his chicks. Also note that this literacy was an extremely costly resource drainer. Status is associated with economic power, not intellectual ability. Jews have mandated literacy long before it started paying economic dividents. It was fairly recently that intellectual power could make money and translate into better scope for survival. Selection is not even plausible, unless you can come up with direct proof that it happened in the past. But it is certainly possible. Did it actually happen? I don't think so. Because it is not easy to pull off. I don't exactly know what redpill means, although I have heard the term before. This is sort of like the chicken and egg problem. Think about what came first. Merely mandating literacy simply won't turn into success unless they were high IQ to begin with. If they were not already high IQ to begin with, artificial/natural/environmental selection, increased their average IQ, for which there is no evidence. Or even more interesting question is this: Why didn't the litercy obligation collapse despite being so costly? If you mandated advanced education to a bunch of low IQ loser dorks, then the whole system would crumble because the low IQs couldn't understand complex concepts. The very fact that they were able to sustain the costly literacy mandate implies that the students of the system were not your average kids, but above average brains who could grasp what was being taught. Why do you think gifted classes are being removed from american schools right now? Because it cannot accomodate low IQs.

What do you make of the statistics that people who have had pre martial sex are more likely to divorce from marriages? Virgins tend to be more commited in relationships. Experience also have some costs attached with it.

Valid point. Even to be a part of academia 50 years ago meant that you were easily above average IQ diey to the rigor of the academia. Now there has been a push to take IQ out of academia and the bar has been lowered so as to accommodate everyone in the name of equality. Standardised test scores are being removed and so as gifted classes. Pretty disheartening to see this. But still to climb up the ladder in academia still requires high IQ in rigorous fields like STEM, Law etc. Not for liberal arts. ? Even the standards of teaching STEM subjects have been lowered in my experience. You just have to live with it. College used to act as an IQ test for corporations to hire high IQ students. Now that academia is slowly taking IQ tests out if it, students will be able to directly apply for jobs without ever going to academia. This is the case in tech and finance, to some degree.

Here is a better way to reframe this statement because it is self contradictory: Literacy obligation is the main cause of *jews having better genetics*, which in turn, is the cause of their success in the real world. Saying that literacy obligation is the cause for their success and not genetics, when literacy obligation is what literally caused better genetics, is self contradictory. As a matter of fact, anyone or any group that succeeds in the modern world has genetics directly working in their favour. Jews are no exception. You can trace the success of jews to high average IQ, first. There is no direct evidence Linkin literacy obligation and selection pressure. Literacy obligation leading to a selection pressure for high IQ, is an assumption. Do you have any records showing that 18 years old jews who couldn't study and recite Torah, was not given a chance to reproduce? The article you posted admits that there is little evidence for literacy obligation exerting some kind of selection pressure. It is merely a presumption based on the fact that their population didn't expand quite as much as the others during the 18th century. Exerpt from the text: The first scenario explores the possibility that the mandate was a pain in the ass to finance. It was so expensive at the time that many jews left jewish culture so that they don't have to put up with this. The pressure was economic rather than selection for IQ. People who were weeded out of Jewish culture were not low iq jews who couldn't keep up with the education, but those who didn't have the money to keep up with the mandatory education. This also explains the second scenario why the population of jews didn't explode like others. There is no direct evidence for selection pressure caused due to the mandate. I agree that it's a possibility. But you need evidence that it actually happened among jews with some historical records and not presumptions and possibilities. Remember the Occam's razor. The side with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct. I don't make any assumptions. I am saying that jews have better genetics (evidently from their success) and have had them for a long time. The simplest explanation. For the sake of argument let me accept that selection pressures exerted by literacy obligation did infact, increased the IQ of jews. Let me ask you, what kind of people tend to obsess with manipulating words and symbols in the first place. The culture had to be high IQ to value something as abstract like literacy. Apologies in advance if my post is too long. I tried my best to condense it. If you make a wrong statement, I cannot deconstruct your statement in one sentence. It will definitely take more to unravel it. Anyway here is a summary for your convenience: In summary: 1. There is no direct evidence for selection pressure exerted by literacy obligation. 2. A culture that is obsessed with literacy and mandate it to their youth is already most likely high IQ to begin with. Low IQs do not value literacy and abstract thinking because they are not capable of it. 3. If literacy obligation did exert a sufficient selection pressure, it still doesn't invalidate the possibility that they were already high IQ in the first place, purely due to genetics. On top of that selection pressures may have further increased the average IQ, although there is little evidence for it.

Okay. There were subtle things that I found annoying about your style that I choose to ignore. I just like to stick to the topic at hand. Also, some people find spaced text more easy to read. Either of them is not an absolute standard by the way. A dense block of text is easy to ignore. You stated that eye colour is genetic while IQ isn't, with respect to natural/artificial selection. What is the fundamental difference? Isn't it reasonable to assume that both are genetic?

Question for men above 25 years of age. If you have an option to date a virgin girl and a 20 body count girl, which one would you choose, given that everything else being equal, more or less?

Noted @Carl-Richard I would personally prefer to keep it super short and sweet. But I value deep long explanations and nuanced reasoning. It takes more work from my side. Others clearly understanding my position is my absolute priority. I don't expect you to respond to all my points. Some are merely explanations to strengthen my side. I realise that it's making it harder for you to filter out the specific points relevant to the conversation. But plenty of relevant points do exist. Complaining about writing style is just weak. Just respond to points with apt reasoning. I may summarise everything I said in this thread later.

I dunno man. I write a lot on twitter where people compained that writing in blocks is unreadable. That's why I write in seperate line to improve readability. It's different for different people I guess.

Nuances need more than 3 lines. Some others reading this may find it useful. That's why I give indepth explanations. Making a naive distinctions like Is it environment or is it gentics, Is silly. Surely you can condense it that way.

@ValiantSalvatore bro just chill. It's just a case to prove a point. It's NOT meant to be rigorous. You are going on a rant more than giving a valid reasoning or arguments I never said that IQ and intelligence is the same. It's just that intelligence cannot be quantified or tested by mechanisms deviced by humans. Also due to your particular history you may perceive certain things to be racist because you live in a culture where extreme racism has happened in the past. You are most likely overcompensating for it. I don't share that history do I will be more free and open to talking about it without any stigma. Nothing around here is racist. If you are talking about multiple intelligence theory, then it has never been tested nor validated, or measured outside the context of IQ. The same is not true about IQ.

Duhh.. you admitted that eye colour could be genetics. That point means that IQ is genetic. By genetic, I mean that it's ingrained in your biological memory and wiring in the brain. Your IQ tends to be a good predictor of your childs IQ, means IQ can be selected and bread. The reason why some cultures don't have predominantly blue eye colour is because having such a trait didn't offer a survival advantage. In the same way, IQ is also genetics, in any person, of any IQ, in any given sample. Eye colour and IQ is exactly the same from an evolutionary point of view. Both are caused by genetics, eye colour has little more to do with genetics. It's not that hard to understand. (Yes. That point dosen't mean that jews had a Higher IQ, initially l, before the mandate. The purpose of my point was to establish that IQ is genetic.) The correct reason to argue for the fact that jews have a high IQ even before the mandate, is that only high IQ population are obsessed with advanced education. The fact that they mandated literacy and valued fiddling with advanced complex concepts is a clear indication that they were high IQ. It's sort of like saying Magnus Carlsen became the world chess champion because he came from a society that valued chess. That's true. But you need to be above a certain level of intellectual competence even to appreciate the intricacies of something like chess, let alone be the world champion. Literally, your brain need to be wired differently in order for you to do complex stuff. You choose to conveniently ignore this point that ultimately end up as the elephant in the room. Why did they mandate literacy and education when other tribes were busy hunting tigers? Selection pressure caused due to literacy mandates surely could have contributed to it. But that's not the sole reason. That's a small linear analysis which sheds light on one aspect. Think about this, Jamaican genetics are superior when it comes to sprinting. You need not sweat to explain whether the reason is caused by historical events or whatever. The observation is that they have BETTER GENETICS due to whatever reason. The only thing I am saying is that they have better genetics. This is explained by their current performance. As a matter of fact any person who consistently obsessed with philosophy, academia and earns Money in tech, banking is genetically gifted. It could easily be the case that nature simply decided to give better genetics to a group of people which helps them excel in a particular domain. You certainly can. But you are far from proving that this is the case in reality. And it's a huge assumption to make that all cultures have the same starting points. No two culture is the same. My arguments need not have to prove anything. It's self explanatory. If Magnus Carlsen becomes the world champion, then it is undeniable that he has superb genetics. If Einstein wins the nobel prize and does superb physics, it is undeniable that he has superb genetics. When jews win 20% of the nobel prizes, it's also true that they have pretty good genetics. It's self explanatory from their success in the modern world. Environment shapes gentics by natural selection. Or it could simply the case that they had better genetics all the way. The latter is more likely because dumbfucks do not want to study advanced stuff nor show interest in these stuff in the first place. These literacy mandates could have simply collapsed for some random fucking reason. But it still kept producing bright people because they were already smart. So there are good reasons to assert that they were too smart to begin with.

You can "select" for something only if the genetics already offers you a variety of options to choose from. The options having the maximum survival advantage respective to the environment gets to reproduce and other options slowly gets eliminated from the pool. The selection pressure may be induced by environment/culture/nature or whatever. When a culture introduces mandatory education and literacy, they are selecting for High IQ, if not they were high IQ in the first place. Let's say some culture in Africa, valued athleticism so much for some reason and rewarded heavily. All kids will be trained by people to run, jump, etc from a young age. Being tall is an advantage when it comes to athleticism. So short kids will be at a disadvantage in athleticism. Only tall kids would be able to win and rewarded for their actions. Over tens of generations, only tall kids would remain since the short ones won't get a chance to reproduce. It really is not that different. If their culture valued blue colour eyed people, and those with black, brown eyes didn't get opportunities to reproduce, then they will end up exclusively with blue colour people over a few centuries later. Same is the case with height, IQ, or any other genetic trait. The fact any selection works at all implies that genetics offers a variety of options to choose from, in the first place. Selection Pressures can only weed out those without having such genetics. Selection pressures cannot just "increase the IQ",or height or change eye colour directly. It kills those who don't have it, bluntly put.

Taking notes just dosen't work for me. I like to watch and contemplate the things that stick to me.

There is no need to avoid anything. All of the video show a progression of growth of the individual. You should worry more about missing out on the insights in the videos that you have already watched.

Nope, in any kind of significant levels. Quickly after you jerk off you will notice a decrease, but it isn't enough to affect you on any significant level. Overall, not important. What's important is how you feel about it. If you feel guilty about it, then you may feel sad and depressed which in turn affect your T level. Obsessing about jerkin off isn't a good thing overall. Do it and forget about it. Thinking about it takes away even more of your time.

Great. Cognitive power alone isn't enough. Being business minded is also not enough on it's own. Look at Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. They have around 150 IQ and have had money to invest in as they were growing up. Most people accept that you need both environment and genetics to succeed. And talking about jews, it's hard to seperate these two. What's your Fide rating by the way? @integral

You are mixing up stuff without knowing the context. Yeah I manipulated results to have a publication under my name. That's the norm under science. That's also why I don't trust these studies. Including that of the race science studies. I don't need the credibility of other scientists. Most of the studies fail to be replicated for the same reason. 1. I am well aware of the fact that my observations could be used by actual racists to spread their racist propaganda. I myself have resisted these tendencies in RW circles where the only metric they seriously take into account is their IQ and nothing else. 2. Whether the findings feel racist or not has no bearing on the truthfulness of it. 3. Whether I am racist or not has no bearing on the validity of my findings. If you are doing good science, the results and inferences speak for themselves. 4. I can't think of anything more anti science than putting forth Ad hominem and wanting to ban science being done, because of your pre conceived notions. I don't calim the truthfulness of the papers I published. Publish or perish. A good scientist is one who cam manipulate the most and get more publications under their name. I don't make the rules. I play the game. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. I am more truthful in the sense that I admit doing these manipulations. A double PHD may not admit this. I don't wish to stay long in academia anyway. I have expanded my concept of artificial selection to include culture as well. And shared genetics. Genetics is unique to them. Cultural values may show some similarities with other cultures. For eg Asians value education extremely highly. Especially in STEM.

You may misunderstand his expert manipulations of people and systems as tier 2. He is capable of that. Apart from that there is nothing that he displays is even close to tier 2. He clearly says that there is nothing more to life than women, cars and money. He is on peak survival mode. Not the being mode that is in tier 2. He presents himself as if he has done everything and now he is sharing the news of his awakening to the whole world. Also he has shit political Takes like endorsement of Trump and rigging the system in favour of rich people. This aspect of Tate is something I didn't like even when I was following him so ardently

Imma graduate of chadistans University.