Bobby_2021

Not if he is running actualized.org

Thank you so much. This is the only place on the internet where you get to talk about controversial topics and dig deeper, while also doing it respectfully. Absolutely. Infact you could make a case that the most rash drivers are also men. But that's another claim. Lewis Hamilton probably crashed more cars than you or me. But still he is a better driver than you or me. Excellence is a double edged sword The real claim should be that women are *safer* drivers than men, not better. I thought the talking point of younger women having less expensive with women was more *attractive* and not exploitable. I haven't yet watched the whole Tate Morgan interview yet. Just a few clips. I would have furiously defended him a couple of months ago. I am kinda growing out of Tate to be honest.

Yeah then what about Bill Gates who used to hang around with Epstein and possibly have had a hand in those nefarious activities. Who will risk their lives investigating those? Plenty of extremely powerful people in society felt like Epstein was too much to a threat so that's why he was "suicided" in custody. His death is the literally the reason to protect the interests of a greater number of devils. Also why is the media silent about Ghislaine Maxwell trial? She is guilty of sex trafficking. Where is her clients list. Why is it not public? All to protect the interests of devils who did devilry along with Epstein. And the media and judiciary is playing along with it. Truly scary. Their silence is payed for by the devils. You are looking at a handful of devils like Johnes who is obviously a fucking idiot who should fuck up. Epstein was extremely clever although he went too far with his devilry and things got out of hand. But there are plenty of crony capitalist CEOs that manages to escape the radars leading peaceful and calm life with the millions they grifted from the public. Look at bankers who make decisions that will crash the economy and live their life with no consequences. They are in the majority, when you compare with those devils who got what they deserved. Like how many bankers were held accountable for the 2008 economic crisis? Where is their karma? They have all managed to escape. It's hard to calculate net worth. Especially celebrity networth. But Buggati posted his car on his official Instagram account with the name Tate 16. He definitely has money. Hustler University brings in close to 5 mill/month. Just by calculation. Enough to buy cars and pay for private planes. Private planes require around $30k for a flight. Anyway none of those are important. He is definitely not putting up a show for what I am saying. Dan Bilzerian has obviously rented cars and models to make up for his poor social skills. Fair enough. Iam sure if you confront Tate with this he would correct himself as this is something he said when he had small number of followers. If he doesn't, that's genuinely sexist. But is that all? Is that all the outrage is about? Piers Morgan called him sexist because he said that a 19 year old woman is more attractive than a 25 years old woman. Watching this I am like, yeah that's true lol, like most of the time. So what? I think what's more important is how people *feel* about an argument versus what exactly the argument says. Ok. Gather 50 men and 50 women at random. Now make them compete in a formula one race. Make it as rigorous and difficult as possible. Record the results. Redo the experiment with different samples. Now look at the results and there is your scientific study. There is a reason why only a handful of women compete in top racing events. Men have higher Testersterone levels so that they can regulate stress more easily, be clam, take risks and drive in perilous and risky conditions. They also have better sense of direction, calculation and judgement of roads, dimensions of vehicles etc. Men are. More logical which helps in these areas. (Another possible sexist claim). Again this is on AVERAGE. I am sure that there are better woman drivers who are far better than many male drivers. But on *average*, men are better drivers. Just like men are taller than women. Some women exist who are taller than men. But on average men are taller. Number of times of cars crash isn't a good metric for determining excellence. https://youtube.com/shorts/4FL5uGbU_FA?feature=share I mostly agree with everything else @Leo Gura mentioned in the quoted post.

Cool. Finally something we both agree on. I called it artificial selection because the selection pressure is imposed due to a pressure for education which is imposed by their culture which is a social construct. The artificial selection is not done by an individual, but a group of people. Afterall it's the people who impose such pressures on other people, therby eliminating some genes from the gene pool. Natural selection means that the environment is doing the selection. Note that humans has outsmarted other animals because of our genetics and intellect. Intellect makes your life comfortable and survival easier. So nature/culture will eliminate those without such favourable traits. I wouldn't call this a "historical happening" though. The reason why you have high/low IQ is itself genetics, given a random sample of people with average IQ of 100.

For someone who's net worth exceeds a few hundred millions, does it really matter in the long run? His social media presence is not completely zero. He still continues to have a voice among young men, although not as much he had earlier. The idea that devilry boomerangs to yourself is absurd to me. The devils live among us and hell is empty. If I have to give up all my social media accounts for a few hundred millions, I would gladly take it. I don't see a problem with any events happening. I want someone like Tate to exist. I also want angry feminists to exist. Cancelling him was going a bit too far, but that's also necessary in some kind of twisted way, although I am against cancelling anyone, on a personal level. Terms like "Toxic masculinity" are only exacerbating the problem. It's well understood that too much of anything is toxic. So calling anything Toxic is meaningless unless something is so explicitly toxic, which isn't the case with masculinity. Ultra right wing figures like Tate & Trump, although they are entirely different in their own rights, are a reaction to stifling and suffocating men for who they are. If you criticize white men for the killing and raping their ancestors did some 300 years ago, they will repress all those emotions and let them go in the polling booth after 4 years. Somewhat the same is happening with Tate. Not a single woman has come forward saying Tate has misbehaved with them despite him hanging around with thousands of women. This is an impressive record for the most famous man on the planet. Just a bunch of allegations with zero evidence and zero victims. You can literally see plenty of Joe Biden videos where is found kissing and touching underage girls on Camera, saying creepy stuff no one shows outrage for it, even though he made lots of women uncomfortable. https://youtu.be/DAUOurZIVfI And Tate will be called a sexist for saying that Men are stronger than women or that men are better drivers than women, even though they are scientific and factual claims. It's just that different standards for different people, and people react based on how they feel with their knee jerk reaction without giving any serious thought. I don't feel too much compassion for Tate either since he also took advantage of the same triggering mechanisms to gain popularity within a short period of time and managed to monetize it and rake in huge profit. So in some sense it did backfire, but he already made the Lion's share prior to cancellation, and still continues to do.

A lot of things that we do is bad for the environment. Our task is to balance and minimise the loss of environment while maximising the benifits we get from the damage we do to the environment. The net forest area in US has only been growing despite being the largest producer of beef. Which means that the loss of forest is not that great as the environmentalists want you to believe. Maybe you should try to find methods to implement more effective strategies like work form home which helps to reduce emissions, instead of focusing our efforts to cut down beef consumption which may not be that big of a deal when it comes to climate change.

The whole foundation of this vegan discussion is centred around advanced economies. Almost half of the worldwide deforestation occurs in two countries, Brazil and Indonesia. These people really don't have much choice. Beef production will not have contributed to deforestation, if they had access to superior technology and methods of agriculture that is in US. The US produces 18% of the world's beef. The amount of forest area in the US has only been slightly increasing not decreasing. It's because they can feed on grass, take shit in the grass, and the whole carbon cycle continues. They can eat the waste from crop production factories. All of those are converted into food in the form of meat. Beef production has been ultra efficient in the US if you compare it to these "tropical countries", who may not have the tech or infrastructure to reach such levels of efficiency. Beef production can work in sync with plant production, if you can organise the whole process systematically. This conversation could be interesting if you could pull up stats just from the united states. Worldwide stats are misleading. Brazil may give you 1 kg of beef by clearing some area of forest land. The same 1 kg of beef may come form a cow who has been grown besides a factory that produces plant waste. No forest has to be cleared at all, if you can make the production efficient.

You didn't say artificial selection. You merely stated "literacy obligation" as the explanation for the high IQ of jews. Those are entirely different claims. Artificial selection means breeding a population for a certain trait by eliminating those without such traits. Again the reason traits for any reason at all is genetics. The environment is not actively increasing the IQ. Environment is just letting them survive. The reason why Albert Einstein's IQ is 160, is genetics. The reason why a child is retarded (Iq 60) is also genetics. By eliminating the retarded child (artificial selection), although you can put forth a claim that the average IQ of the sample is increased, by "some historical occurrence", therby citing and environmental factor, the fact that someone has an IQ of 160 itself is pure genetics. Scientists may not be wrong. But I can't comment on it since I don't know the context of the study. You can observe slight increases in IQ depending upon how you conduct the test. There are many restrictions to be laid down before conducting IQ tests. You cannot take the same test over and over again and report that you have increased the IQ simply because you have increased the scores. You are supposed to take the test with zero preperation. You can also device tests where preperation is involved (like SATs) but now scores will appear more variables due to variance in preperation and amount of time dedicated to study. None of these are actual IQ tests but tests that gives close correlation to actual IQ tests. What an IQ test essentially does to Guarantee replicability is to eliminate factors that induce variations like preperation and study time. When all candidates have zero study time, and they all take the same test, they all will get different scores. That is the actual IQ. You can manipulate the scores to get them higher or lower by violating how you conduct IQ tests. The score merely dictates the speed at which you learn intellectually rigorous topics. You cannot increase the speed at which you learn, really. You can optimise your surroundings and it will surely impact you speed. But environment has it's limits. The fact that you want to sabotage an informative conversation, conducted politely & respectfully, says a lot about you. ok. What is the main reason for the difference then? I want to hear your explanation completely. Forget about everything else. @zurew

It could be healthy if you can dedicate lots of energy into making it that way. I am simply not in a position to dedicate my time into it. The original idea of supplements is to supplement your body with what your food cannot. Supplementation is fine. Supplements are not a replacement, which is the way vegans see it. It a cope to make up for the lack of meat.

Our bodies have adapted to eating meat because it offered a quick source of all the vitamins and minerals compared to plants. Meat was our primary diet for most of history because plants couldn't fulfill that role. I completely accept if you raise ethical concerns, like should we eat meat at the cost of animal suffering. I myself am a great animal lover. Accepting this is hard for me. Even climate concerns are mostly bullshit. Check this video for an indepth explanation.? https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g Reducing climate change by reducing meat consumption is pure propaganda. @Carl-Richard Another serious cause of concern is soil degradation. Excessive farming and over reliance on plant products will be problematic because the nutritional density of our crops have steadily decreasing over time. An orange made in 1920s were much more Nutritionally dense compared to an orange made hundred of years later. (Source: God revealed it to me.?) It's a common myth that cattle takes away land which can be used to grow crops. In fact cattles grazes on non stable and rugged land which are unfit for cultivation anyway. So eating meat is a great way to replenish what being excessively hard to replace with plants alone. Or bill gates is a stage orange multi billionaire who wants to amaze more money and power while masquerading as an elite thinker. He is more orange than yellow. Observe his actions, not his words. He himself eats ham burgers but he wants you to go vegan. Lmao. In general health and fitness. I have seen jacked body builders who are vegetarian. They are the exception, rather than the rule. I don't give in to propaganda sources. Creatine, for starters. That is almost exclusively found in meat. You need to supplement a lot. You can ask a vegan. All I have seen is theylm obsessing about 112 supplements and still appearing dissatisfied. ? I will go vegan after seeing the vegans experiment with this stuff for decades until they generate good results. It's also a cause of concern the way supplements are being made. The last thing you want is heavy metals which are found in many vegan supplements. Is it really worth the cost?

All I am saying is, quite simply put, if someone is extremely successful, then they have a high IQ. Evolution is just environment selecting the best genes over eons of time. Also, two things can be simultaneously true. Genetics makes sure that high IQ parents always leads to high IQ progeny and environment/culture will do a job in eliminating the low IQs. Either by killing them early or making sure they won't reproduce. With regards to your analogy here are my comments: 1. Let's say the father and mother were high IQ and both their sons were also high IQ. First son went into banking. He became a successful banker because he had the genetics of a banker in the first place. The complex computations that are required to be done simply cannot be done by simpletons. So the first son being a successful banker is validating my theory that IQ is genetic and success requires IQ. 2. Second high IQ son went into farming. He couldn't generate money because father funneled all his resources to the first son for some reason. Since he doesn't have money and resources he won't get the best women from the tribe. So he may marry low IQ women and generate low iq children and the cycle continues. Worst of all, he may not be able to buy food and other resources for his child. So of course the brain won't be able to function in it's full capacity without having access to adequate resources. This may be the reason for the low IQ. It could also be the case that the descendants of the second son have high IQ dormant genes. Having access to good nutrition clean water and access to education may result in improved IQ levels back once again. I am not really saying that having high IQ is guarantee to success either Shit happens all the time. IQ can regress due to a million reasons. But we don't take into account people who do not succeed. You don't need a reason to fail. We are always interested in explaining why people succeed. Bro that's not what IQ is. You cannot teach advanced complex topics to low IQs. IQ can't be trained to improve. If mandating advanced topics meant higher results, then all kids would get perfect SAT scores. But if you mandate advanced complex topics to low IQs you will only make themselves hate it. This might be one of the reasons why some students hate mathematics. You need to have high IQ just to discuss complex topics that jews have mandated. They do not have high IQ because of the mandate. I have already mentioned this, if you can make people high IQ by mandating classes of advanced topics, then everyone would have done it. Artificial selection is absolutely possible like Leo said. For eg, killing off low IQs or negating their reproductive scope, culturally. This would greatly improve the IQ of future generations. If this is the case, then I would like to discuss more about it. But still that would mean that jews intelligence is due to their genetics anyway. Because the people having poor genetics have been eliminated long time before in the past. Certainly possible.

The reason I stick to talking about IQ so confidently is because IQ can be defined, measured, tested, replicated and it is a surprising predictor of performance in the real world. I am not sure if the same can be asserted about intelligence, g factor, EQ etc. All of those tend to be intangible and non quantifiable, although quite important. I am sure we both agree that both genetics and environment matters. Quantify what you mean by "significant" impact when you say environment impacts IQ levels. Also specify all the environmental factors which led jews to having average IQ 112. Don't say something like they mandated advanced education because that's not how IQ works. Majority of the "scientists" believed that the earth was flat at one point in time or that earth was the centre of the universe. You would have blindly believed them because they were the "experts" of the time. I won't. You believe the earth is round not because you read some study proving that roundness of earth. But because other people who went to space shared their observations & reasoning. Just like I am sharing my observations and reasoning right now. The fact that earth is round is simply an observation. Not a conclusion from a 10000 page study? And you thought it was logical to conclude round that round earther's reasoning and observations was better than the flat earther's reasoning and observations. Studies never come into the picture. It was observation and logical reasoning. (Logical reasoning: you can never see an edge of the earth, therefore it doesn't make sense to conclude the earth is flat) Outsourcing my thinking to "experts" will be my last resort. I do it when I visit a doctor for sure. Leo's opinions in this thread have been pretty consistent with what I have said. You can breed humans for intelligence only if the characteristics of parents are more or less, guaranteed to be inherited by the progeny.

What were you in your previous lives?

Improving access to nutritionally rich food will result in increase of average height levels in a given random group of people. But there will be some other tribe in Africa with poor nutrition that will have tall people purely due to their genetics anyway. Make of that what you will.

Yes. But you will have to grind extra hard. ? @Consept

I would personally have an insecurity if I leave some aspect of reality unexplored. However being an expert in mathematics is different to understanding and appreciating the beauty of it. Einstein's theory of relativity and his equations looks beautiful even though I don't understand what they really mean. Whatever you experience is truth. For you maths, is nothing more than numbers on a page. That is reality. That understanding would suffice.

Highly unlikely. At this point, meat eaters are simply more healthy in my observation, on average. Agriculture is a fairly recent development. We relied on meat for millions of years for than on plants. Vegans overcompensate for not eating meat is already coming across as try hard. However lab grown meat is still in it's early phases. We are yet to see it's real world effectiveness and side effects. Personally I don't have much hope. There is a whole agenda by the ruling elite to make you go vegan, while they themselves may eat meat. Especially Bill Gates. The way they are pushing the agenda onto people as if this is healthy seems so unnatural to me. Anyways I am open to the possibility that vegans could be better when a random vegan beats a meat eater.

They say they don't want macho males. But it is yet to verify if their actions and behaviour are in congruence with what they say.

The primary motivation for veganism is ethical concerns and climate change. Not to make you healthy.

True. Small difference is all it takes to make big difference after compounding over multiple stages. If you I am 0.01 second faster that you in a race, I will win the gold medal and all the rewards. The world may barely remember your name simply because you were 0.01 sec slow. The difference is between gold and silver, first and second. There is an exponential nature to success. Jews need not have grossly superb genetics to outsmart the rest of the people. Being slightly better matters a lot. Iq coorelates to the speed at which you get complex computations done. If you can be slightly faster than the masses you win. It's enough to get you 20% of all the nobel prizes. You don't have to be necessarily smart, others have to be dumber than you for you to succeed. ? High IQ parents lead to high IQ offsprings. Culture which influence genetics which in turn influences IQ is a good conversation to have.

True. Small difference is all it takes to make big difference after compounding over multiple stages. If you I am 0.01 second faster that you in a race, I will win the gold medal and all the rewards. The world may barely remember your name simply because you were 0.01 sec slow. The difference is between gold and silver, first and second. There is an exponential nature to success. Jews need not have grossly superb genetics to outsmart the rest of the people. Being slightly better matters a lot. Iq coorelates to the speed at which you get complex computations done. If you can be slightly faster than the masses you win. It's enough to get you 20% of all the nobel prizes. ? High IQ parents lead to high IQ offsprings.

I already told you what's wrong in your study. Your study assumes that you can isolate and study IQ, wealth, and education as seperate integrious variable that can exist on its own. My claim is that high IQ is what generates wealth and also better education. Those studies miss that link. Instead makes dubious claims like high IQ happened because they came from wealthy families and had higher education. In reality you can't get a STEM degree from a reputed college if you fail their IQ test. (SAT exam is an IQ test.) The coorelation is true with wealth and IQ. But high wealth doesn't cause high IQ. Now obvious you need money to buy good food and clean water free from Mercury, else your IQ will be hampered. I know that millions of people in the world don't have access to clean water and Nutritionally dense food, so their children will unfortunately have low IQ. So having an optimised environment will increase the average IQ, but only to a certain threshold. Your IQ won't go past 110 just by having good food and water. (Source: I made it up) It's primarily because you really don't get what IQ measures. And what people whit high IQs are capable of. And what an IQ test is. Either the people doing the studies are dumb (which I doubt) else they are intentionally or unconsciously ignoring what they don't want to see. Bro it doesn't work like that. Of course I didn't care to read just like you. I already admitted that I didn't read it. You just read one sentance. You can't make sense of it without reading the entire study. You are taking one sentance and claiming the study js about that in it's entirety. I said environment can have minimal impact. Not zero. Like having Nutritionally dense food and clean water. It's common sense. Yo mama twerking while pregnant might result in a retarded child. ? Nobody is denying that. You said significant impact. Then it's on you to quantify what you mean by "significant" impact . "Significant" is an ambiguous word. 80% of it is genetics. 20% of it is environment and culture. Is a good %. As the world develops more and more, people gets access to better environments. This will level the playing field. This will NOT bridge the gap between IQ of different groups. It will only widen the gap, because now it's all about genetics. It doesn't change the fact that you are blindly listening to scientists and believing them for their words. Here is another study for your viewing pleasure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False "Majority of the scientific publications fail to be replicated." I highly recommend you watch the Leo's playlist of deconstructing the myth of science. Listen you don't know if they disagree with me or not. You are making a claim from your half assed reading of research papers and incompetence to understand them in it's entirety. Plenty of researchers agree with me as well. So what? I have perfect confidence in my reasoning. What I am saying is true because of my reasoning. You are free to discuss about my logical reasoning. Instead you ask for sauce. I don't want random people in the internet to support me to give credibility to my claims. Anyway there is plenty of people who support me anyway. It's not my issue that you have poor reasoning, which is why you need people in the internet to support you. Not my problem. Lol reading your studies will take months. Who are you fooling? We both haven't read what each of send each other apart from a few sentances which terribly fails short for having a conversation about the topic.... You cannot argue with me after having read 2 sentances. What if the next sentance says something different? It's a shitshow you don't realise you are playing and dragging me into it.

https://youtu.be/P6bVl47kdNk https://youtu.be/3fq83qbjPCM Essentially what Julian Assange did is to publish documents someone else handed to him on his website. Isn't that accounts for normal journalism? What he did should fall under freedom of speech. Instead he is subject to inhumane psychological torture in prison for doing what you consider as normal journalism. Why is the US govt so afraid about whistle blowing if they didn't do illegal shady stuff in parts of the world with no strict laws or government? Transparency is supposed to be good for everyone.

1. You didn't even read it Fully. 2. You can't deconstruct the methodologies unless you have a degree in statistics bare minimum. I have some understanding of the numbers since I used to work in machine learning and published paper in this field depicting accuracy of various ML models. I easily manipulated data to fit my conclusion and published my results in a reputed journal. There is almost no way anyone can spot the manipulations that I done even if they are PHD professors. So understanding the methodology is a joke. Don't even get me started on this. Reading the conclusion is not understanding the methodology. ? 3. The momma shaking her Belly during pregnancy will result in a retarded child of IQ 75. So next time you send me a study make sure you include that as an "environmental factors". Because there exists many children with low IQ because there momma shaked her belly during pregnancy. 4. More variables don't mean more accuracy. If 80% of the results is determined by a single variable, then adding any number of variables won't improve the accuracy of a variable. Access to food and water dosen't mean your child will have high IQ. But parents with high IQ predict children with high IQ because of the heritability if IQ. And yes I know that improving access to clean drinking water and nutritional food will increase IQ. But that has a limit. If you are claiming that jews have higher IQ because of nutritious food and water, then other people who also have access to the same, should also have high IQ. Which is not the case. Which is why you drop silly variables with poor capabibiliy for predicting IQ. 5. Wait till I send you 20 more articles each of them hundreds of pages long and requires you months to properly understand and finish, only to find that they didn't take into account some important variable and made hidden assumptions in the end. You are honestly not ready for that kind of work. Don't kid yourself. If you are honest you should admit that you don't understand shit about the studies you are reading. You are blindly believing the experts. Just be real bro. I know you have taken things for granted that are mentioned in your studies and skipped straight to the conclusion. Iq is 80% heritable. Proof: Wikipedia. Listen, I don't care to read your studies just like you didn't read the ones I send you. I am just more honest. Don't just read the conclusion thinking that you understand the methodology lmao. ??? You are probably doing just that. A normal person do not posses the cognitive resources for understanding a study of that nature. You don't understand shit about how the study was conducted, their hidden agendas, the political nature of the organisation that funds the studies etc. You have no access to none of that. Just a bunch of complex math and numbers you don't understand. Do you see the level of delusion? If I am wrong, then let me know when you finished all the sources I send you. Anyway a discussion is not possible unless you read and properly understand research articles written by double PHDs, like you said. I will leave you to it.

Yes of course, if you don't eat food and drink clean water, you will suffer from dehydration and lack of energy and won't be able to perform well in IQ tests. You think I don't know that? Also, if someone points a gun to your head while you take IQ tests, scores will significantly decline. Of course. Include all of that in your "environmental" factors. It's basics of psychology. Listen man, you are really not qualified to speak with authority on this. I didn't really make claims. I provided substantial reasoning behind them. All you did is to outsource your reasoning to some random 1000 page study which I am not going to read. I could also do the same. It's a waste of time. I am sure you haven't read all the pages of the study that I put up saying the average IQ of jews is 112. You didn't even comment on it. When I provided my own reasoning you did is to say that they are not relevant. You simply don't see the connection. No study could ever properly isolate wealth, IQ, education, earning capacity. All of those are dependent on IQ which is dependent on genetics. So when a study says, "high IQ students because they come from wealthy families"I know they simply do not see where they are wrong. Plus: google can give you studies that supports both your and my conclusion. That's why I don't see a point in studies. You are literally making the same claim bro. Why should I listen to you when you say I should read random articles on the internet? ? Are you the most trusted source on planet earth to decide which studies should I read out of the millions of trash studies, out there? Direct experience and apt reasoning is how we arrive at truths. You are making claims to authority just like religious dudes say "oh so you think you are better than what the Bible says" lol Scientists are dudes no better than you or me who make tons of biases and assumptions. Why is this so hard to get lol?