Why are Jewish people so successful?

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

Imagine two identical twins growing up in the same household: one started working at a farm, as did all of his descendants, and the other became a banker, as did all of his descendants. Then 1000 years later, it turns out the descendants of the banker have a higher IQ than the descendants of the farmer. Are the bankers more genetically gifted than the farmers? Probably. Was genetics the underlying cause for why they became a lineage of bankers? No. It was rather historical happenstance.

Jews were mandated by their religion to be literate and undergo religious schooling. This made them more likely to take up jobs associated with education, wealth and success today compared to other groups, and this also probably created a selection pressure for things like IQ.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Shawn Philips]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine two identical twins growing up in the same household: one started working at a farm, as did all of his descendants, and the other became a banker, as did all of his descendants. Then 1000 years later, it turns out the descendants of the banker have a higher IQ than the descendants of the farmer. Are the bankers more genetically gifted than the farmers? Probably. Was genetics the underlying cause for why they became a lineage of bankers? No. It was rather historical happenstance.

Jews were mandated by their religion to be literate and undergo religious schooling. This made them more likely to take up jobs associated with education, wealth and success today compared to other groups, and this also probably created a selection pressure for things like IQ.

I though that intelligence was related to empathy and love, but with that example it seems it doesnt. Most bankers have zero empathy, adopting questionable and unethical practices. Expecting from them a vast knowledge from their privileged education it seems they dont think nondual, and instead of striving for a better and fair society they fall for the greed, selfishness and own benefit even if this can harm others.

Why do you think is that?

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Shawn Philips said:

I though that intelligence was related to empathy and love, but with that example it seems it doesnt. Most bankers have zero empathy, adopting questionable and unethical practices. Expecting from them a vast knowledge from their privileged education it seems they dont think nondual, and instead of striving for a better and fair society they fall for the greed, selfishness and own benefit even if this can harm others.

Why do you think is that?

We're talking about IQ, brother. It's a measurement instrument and a way to operationalize intelligence. It's not equal to whatever definition you have of intelligence (theoretical definition ≠ operational definition). You're also giving a Leonian definition of intelligence, which is far away from most people's or scientists' definition. The world is not inside Leo's mind, even though he likes to say that  

Edited October 12, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Consept said:

According to 23andme im 6% Ashkenazi, my question is, is that enough to get into the club?

Don't worry, you will be welcomed at the gas chambers.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Tyler Robinson]

I have 0.0% Ashkenazi, I guess I'll have a wretched life. 

 

[Clabber Girl]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm 1% Greek. I'm essentially Socrates.

LOL.. What a Homer

8 hours ago, Consept said:

According to 23andme im 6% Ashkenazi, my question is, is that enough to get into the club?

I am 23andme Jewish I tell people jokingly... I am 1% Jew .. we are kin 

Oh.. and I forgot to mention my name is Sarah and I have curly hair... another percentage Jew there lol

Edited October 12, 2022 by Clabber Girl
added

[Tudo]

On 10/10/2022 at 4:15 AM, Leo Gura said:

Don't forget the simple fact that stupid people naturally die before they can reproduce, thus getting weeded out from the gene pool.

But you could certainly breed humans for intelligence. No doubt about that. It would just be horribly politically incorrect.

Interesting lol

[Bobby_2021]

On 10/10/2022 at 6:29 AM, Leo Gura said:

What you're really talking about is not IQ but g-factor, which is the factor for general intelligence. It is an important genetic factor and it's hard to compensate for if you lack it.

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.

16 hours ago, zurew said:

Regarding you trying to dunk on my reasoning is very funny, because you clearly don't see the logical jump that you are making ,when you try to "reason".  "Jews have higher IQ than others, therefore it must be because of their genetics, because I just assume that the environment don't have any significant impact on IQ levels" --> "I assume that the environment don't have any significant impact on IQ, regardless of most scientist and expert not agreeing with me on this, but I don't care, because my observation is more reliable than the vast majority of research that was done by experts"

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.

16 hours ago, zurew said:

Do think the Earth's shape is flat or that it is an ellipsoid? Will you tell me, that you proved and used mathematics on your own to prove , that the Earth shape is an ellipsoid, or will you tell me, that you are blindly believing  scientist and organisations that are providing the knowledge, and  the pictures to you about the Earth's shape?

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)

16 hours ago, zurew said:

That has little to do with the topic at hand. I don't know if its suprising to you or not, but even Leo is trusting science on many instances, where he doesn't have the time nor the capability nor the capacity nor enough knowledge to test everything on his own.

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. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

So again, I agree with the point you wrote above, but that alone doesn't prove your argument. I can accept that piece of information above and say that "yes IQ can be defined, measured, tested, replicated but there are environmental factors that can affect IQ, so I am not sure if the reason why Jew's IQ is higher than other groups is mainly because of their genetics".

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I am sure we both agree that both genetics and environment matters. 

 

Yes, and I say it again, that I am not married to the explanation that environment is the main reason why, there is a difference between Jews and other groups of people when it comes to IQ.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Don't say something like they mandated advanced education because that's not how IQ works.

So, again we can't argue on points if you don't accept certain underlying points. Most scientist agree, that the quality of study and how much you study can affect your level of IQ, but if you don't accept that, then we can't argue on further points.

On this case, I don't see why can't you accept that piece of information, what I wrote above. Why is the case, that you blindly believe certain pieces of information (that the Jews IQ is 112) when you have never measured it yourself, you just take that for granted, and when I show you a different peice of information that is pretty much widely agreed upon, you can't accept it.

In order for you to accept that the Jews actually have 112IQ you would have to take for granted many things, because you haven't validated any of these things yourself, so you just blindly believe in all these:

• That there is such a thing as IQ
• That IQ can be measured
• That IQ can be precisely measured
• That IQ actually correlates well with good grades and good performance in school
• That the study that you are using to inform you about Jews having 112 IQ measured their IQ correctly and that they didn't do any mistake intentionally or unintentionally
• That data that was used to conclude that an average Jew has 112IQ

So lets get back to your "observation" regarding those points above and tell me:

• What did you observe about any of those?
• How can you possibly observe that there is such a thing as IQ?
• How can you observe on your own, that the reason why certain students will be good in school is because they probably have high IQ?
• How do you know, that an IQ can be measured in the firstplace, when you have never built an IQ test and you don't even know how it should be built and why,
• How can you observe what method(s) and test(s) need to be used to properly measure IQ?
• How can you observe that Jews really have 112 IQ or not, when you didn't do the measuring yourself, and you didn't collect the data yourself

 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

So this is not a good argument either. Yes, scientist changed their positions on many many topics, but that doesn't mean that there were other people who were doing better sensemaking and a more reliable epistemic process compared to them. Most people who didn't agree ,they didn't have a good reasioning why they didn't agree with those scientist and they couldn't prove their points they just believed in the opposite what the scientist said or they were just simply religious.

So its not just about whether you are right or not at that time or in the current times, its about whether your epistemic process is more reliable than the scientific method when it comes to specific subjects. My claim is that your own observation is much more unreliable and problematic on many occasions and instances. There are several reasons why:

1. Everyone has their own biases and those could be called blindspots because you can't see them in many cases. More people can see more things because most people have different biases, so why not let more people do an analysis compared to you doing just everything on your own with biases you can't see?
2. In most of the cases, to get to your consclusion just on your own: 
   • you would have to have emourmous amount of knowledge in specific fields,
   • you would have to have all the measurements, all the data, all the neccesary equipment to do the calculations and the measurements with. So if you don't have any of those, you have to accept the fact, that you need to rely on outside information and that you can't validate everything just on your own.
3. Even if you have the first two parts in place, you would still need to validate a thousand more points on your own, so for istance, if you ever want to use any source to inform your reasoning, then you have to either validate every piece of information from that source, or you have to take certain pieces of information from that source for granted, that you have no way to validate or to measure.

Now, that being said does that mean, that you have to hold in every instance the positions that most scientists hold? No, especially not, when it comes to philosophical and spiritual questions, but when it comes to scientific fields there will be information that you cannot possibly validate on your own, so you will have to take certain things for granted and you have to be aware of that and you have to accept that.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The fact that earth is round is simply an observation.

(Logical reasoning: you can never see an edge of the earth, therefore it doesn't make sense to conclude the earth is flat)

You have never observed the Earth from space, so you can not be sure how it looks. You try to use the reason that the reason why you don't believe the Earth is flat is because you don't see the edge, but that doesn't prove your point. It could mean that you haven't been close to the edge, or "some models propose that the Earth’s edges are surrounded by a wall of ice holding in the oceans. Others suggest our flat planet and its atmosphere are encased in a huge, hemispherical snow globe from which nothing can fall off the edges" Good luck properly debunking with your layman knowledge all the flat earth claims.

So to conclude the Earth is not flat because I can't see the edge is not as good of a reasoning as you think it is.

Also you not being able to see the edge doesn't prove that the Earth shape have to be an ellipsoid, because there are many geometric forms that have round edges and just from your reasoning there is a possiblity that the Earth's shape could be any of those.

So just to be clear, I am not a flat earther, I just wanted to show you, that debunking certain information is really hard, and sometimes you have to be an expert to properly debunk certain claims and information. In most cases, you would have to be a physics phd to be able to properly explain to a flat earther everything in a coherent way with no mistakes or inconsistencies.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Outsourcing my thinking to "experts"  will be my last resort. I do it when I visit a doctor for sure. 

There is a difference between letting others to reason for you vs letting others to inform you. In this specific instance, I let scientist to inform me about this topic, and the "informing" in this case means me accepting that the environment has a significant impact when it comes to IQ. If I accept that information, then of course I won't automatically accept your reasoning that "it must be mainly because of their genetics" without you giving proof that the environment is not that significant or proof that even if we count most environment factors Jews still have higher IQ-s or proof that young Jew kids have higher IQ-s than other kids - thats 3 different ways to prove your point or to strengthen your point.

In the case of you visiting doctors, why do you drop your observations and why let doctors to outsource your thinking?

Edited October 12, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine two identical twins growing up in the same household: one started working at a farm, as did all of his descendants, and the other became a banker, as did all of his descendants. Then 1000 years later, it turns out the descendants of the banker have a higher IQ than the descendants of the farmer. Are the bankers more genetically gifted than the farmers? Probably. Was genetics the underlying cause for why they became a lineage of bankers? No. It was rather historical happenstance.

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. 

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Jews were mandated by their religion to be literate and undergo religious schooling. This made them more likely to take up jobs associated with education, wealth and success today compared to other groups, and this also probably created a selection pressure for things like IQ.

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. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Bobby_2021 Fix your grammatical errors.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

Bro. Work on condensing your writing. You don't need to repeat the same point 6 times.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that one individual who is mandated to be literate or incentivized to become a banker automatically gets a higher IQ (although you can actually make that case). I'm saying that over time, a population that values literacy and education will create a selection pressure for IQ, and over time as individuals reproduce and die, you'll end up with a population with higher IQ.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Tyler Robinson]

@Carl-Richard some part has to be genetic. 

[ValiantSalvatore]

I dunno what ya'll are talking about, yet this has 0 credibillity. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Analyse some genes and then see what the stuff is made out of and what caused the modulation for a certain cohort to become so succesful. What science are you even doing?

Reading santances 3 times in this thread was enough. This should be illegal.

Gosh I wish to write something offensive just so the stupidity continous and all effort will be in vain.

There is 0 account for randomness, this should be forbidden clearly lol. If someone has enough credibillity please close this freaking thread.

Edited October 13, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Yarco]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:46 AM, Consept said:

According to 23andme im 6% Ashkenazi, my question is, is that enough to get into the club?

If we're going by WWII Nazi standards then no. A 2nd degree mischling requires at least 1 Jewish grandparent.

At only 6%, your Jewish heritage is low enough that even Hitler would class you as an Aryan.

I'm 14.2% with 1 Ashkenazi grandparent so in WWII Germany I would've been considered a 2nd degree mischling. I could marry any Aryan but not another mischling or Jewish person. And I'd be restricted in terms of higher education and career options. But still probably wouldn't be sent to a concentration camp.

On the other hand, the Jewish community would also reject me and wouldn't consider me Jewish because my Ashkenazi ancestry isn't through my maternal line. So kinda rejected by both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling_Test

[Clabber Girl]

Woah! I didnt know there were actual tests... I always wondered about that also. Knowing how well the Germans kept records, this makes sense. So under this mischling test I would not be welcomed into the gas chambers after all 

[Bobby_2021]

On 10/7/2022 at 4:50 AM, Carl-Richard said:

https://slate.com/culture/2003/06/why-jews-don-t-farm.html

It basically all boils down to the literacy obligation in Judaism.

 

On 10/12/2022 at 9:50 PM, Carl-Richard said:

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that one individual who is mandated to be literate or incentivized to become a banker automatically gets a higher IQ (although you can actually make that case). I'm saying that over time, a population that values literacy and education will create a selection pressure for IQ, and over time as individuals reproduce and die, you'll end up with a population with higher IQ.

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. 

On 10/12/2022 at 6:58 PM, zurew said:

So, again we can't argue on points if you don't accept certain underlying points. Most scientist agree, that the quality of study and how much you study can affect your level of IQ, but if you don't accept that, then we can't argue on further points.

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. 

9 hours ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

Gosh I wish to write something offensive just so the stupidity continous and all effort will be in vain.

The fact that you want to sabotage an informative conversation, conducted politely & respectfully, says a lot about you. 

On 10/12/2022 at 6:58 PM, zurew said:

Yes, and I say it again, that I am not married to the explanation that environment is the main reason why, there is a difference between Jews and other groups of people when it comes to IQ.

ok. What is the main reason for the difference then? 

I want to hear your explanation completely.

Forget about everything else.

@zurew

Edited October 14, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[ValiantSalvatore]

On 9.10.2022 at 7:19 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

This is straight up pathetic as a scientist to be proud of this and to openly and actively manipulate results. I don't think you will gain any credibillity, as the only thing you care about is a toxic agenda seemingly. Of some race science. 

45 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The fact that you want to sabotage an informative conversation, conducted politely & respectfully, says a lot about you. 

It says nothing. I am beign authentic and this wannabe rational science is an effort that is going to be in vain. That is all that I am seeing so much bias. There is nothing scientific about this. As well as you writting that you manipulate papers. Says way way more about you and you should not be doing science and let allowed to be doing science. As your viewpoints are racist and you manipulate results and seemingly don't care. It's incredbile hypocritical of you to assume you are rational and biased. When you clearly are personally motivated to skew results in your favour by manipulating papers. 

This is also close to disinformation, nothing you shared is new. 

That I want a person to not do science based on bias, is clearly the most ethical approach. I don't think someone like you should be allowed to do science, because of implicit bias.

There is barely anything informative about this, you don't even analyse genes, alll you do is predict based on models, you never analyzed the gene pair of a human. So all what you are saying has 0 credibillity. Is speculation now causation? That is how you do science?

Tell me which gene pairs cause the mutation of intelligence, that would make more sense the idea that it is based on family is reductonistic and myopic. The gene pair itself expresses the qualities if intelligence is to be inherited, no model can really predict that. As well as it should be identifiable which gene pairs cause an increase in IQ.

Like I said this has 0 credibillity and I am going to flag posts. Just because it's racist science skewd to ones own agenda. 

The point is you can't even be rational yourself because you skew results to your agenda. There is nothing rational about you and your agenda. The results would count and you have none since you manipulate data into your favour. There is 0 interest in truth in you, that is very obvious. You should be forbidden to do science with the other racist scientists who skew and manipluate results in their think tanks for their agenda and income and survival.

For me it clearly shows a pattern people in my circle have been complaining about. I don't think your shit will fly for long tbh.

Edited October 14, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Clabber Girl said:

I would not be welcomed into the gas chambers after all

There, there...

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

This has nothing to do with artificial selection. Nobody is artificially choosing who gets to breed and who doesn't. There is not a person somewhere who picks out who gets to breed like in a dog breeding program. The only thing the individuals are doing is merely adopt the values in question, and this alone creates a selection pressure which natural selection acts upon. In other words, in a culture that values literacy and education, people who excel in literacy and education have a higher likelihood of surviving (and probably also a higher sexual market value) compared to those who don't, and this is linked to IQ. So you can also argue for a sexual selection component.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Carl-Richard