Why are Jewish people so successful?

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I dunno man. I write a lot on twitter where people compained that writing in seperate line improves readability. 

 

Quote

Write using proper English grammar, spelling, and punctuation so that your posts are easy to read and understand. If we cannot understand your posts, you will be banned.

You won't get banned, but please clean up how you communicate, or people will just give up talking to you. Don't use separate lines for every sentence, don't repeat yourself 6 times in one post, and respond to one point with one or a few points, not 12 points.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Bobby_2021]

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.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Carl-Richard]

27 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Complaining about writing style is just weak. Just respond to points with apt reasoning.

I just expect a minimum standard of layout and delivery. I can appreciate a long and well-formulated post if it has actual substance to it and doesn't consist of mostly empty spaces and repeating the same points over and over.

[Bobby_2021]

32 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I just expect a minimum standard of layout and delivery. I can appreciate a long and well-formulated post if it has actual substance to it and doesn't consist of mostly empty spaces and repeating the same points over and over.

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? 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[vindicated erudite]

On 09/10/2022 at 10:48 AM, Bobby_2021 said:

Academia is an IQ test.

This is bullshit. Maybe 50 years ago but not today.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Isn't it reasonable to assume that both are genetic? 

The way in which they are associated with genetics are different. Blue eye color can be traced back to a single event of genetic mutation. The success of Jews can be traced back to the literacy obligation. 

Was blue eye color caused by genetics? Well, it was caused by a genetic mutation, so yes. Was the success of Jews caused by genetics? Well, it was caused by the literacy obligation, so no. Does blue eye color have anything to do with genetics? Yes. Does the success of Jews have anything to do with genetics? Yes.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard We appreciate your patience in explaining things.

[ValiantSalvatore]

13 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

I dunno sure there has been a particular history in my country both countries in fact as I am German American, that has massively shifted since the 1960's if you check statistics etc. The amount of openness is mind-boggling if you just think for a second and realize how that ww2 was held not even 100 years ago. America is seemingly worse than Germany and I live in Germany. I don't think socially Germany has as much of an awarness of the topic of racism, although through their particular history created a lot of unity through divsion with the fall of the Berlin wall etc. It's one of the most open countries with Christohper Street Day, Love Parades etc. I just moved cities and it's incredible how open all of them are here. Still it is not enough if I would do some guesswork it's maybe 10-22.5% of the population that is on that high-end of openess. A lot of immigrants in fact are by far the more discriminating minority. That is a paradox also to consider and I am not an immigrant lol. Although I get bias so I know how twisted it is as I have a darker skin color. ( I would never be discriminated in India I am way to white in a sense by skin color) I lived in China and saw how ignorant bias plays itself out for the advantage of others survival out of pure glee and ignorance.

Also by statistics India is one of the most racist countries and has racist/bias views againsst darker skin tones. I am not denying that I could be overcompensating, also you could be compensating with your science based on the history of your country. That is also very obvious and a serious perspective to consider as these numbers did not change as far as I know. 

There are plenty of things that are offensive towards certain cultures here, not racist yet ignorantly stuck in bias. This is the kind of thinking that is very damaging towards understanding and accepting other cultures. For example many people in Germany complain about turkish people and indian people in a completely different way, it's the attitude and behaviour of those. I never got that once in a way, I legit get proper "racist bias" in a sense it's very akin to scientific racisim and their biased observation as they are utterly stuck in TIER1 moral and emotional development. I hope the terminology is fine we are here at actualized.org and it's part of the course.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-racist-countries
https://www.kajalmag.com/india-is-the-most-racist-country-i-have-been-to-an-african-americans-pov/

This is what  I mean your country is one of the most discriminating countries in the world. There is no way when you release a paper as well as share your story I could take anything seriously, besidses the content of the discussion. What you are missing imo, is that you have a public image even on this forum and yes me2. I bet we both frankly don't care and this is why I would personally like you. 

I don't think you did anything particular wrong as you sound rational, yet I've seen those kind of scientists and they are certainly not happy. The happy scientist I saw as a personal anecdot are mostly working on robotics and HCI. There is also a lot of international collaboration which fosters strong bonds between cultures. 

I disagree I received some threats that concerned racist bias. So it is not an overreaction it is a proper reaction towards harsh discrimination. It's impossible to not include emotions that means people especially from countries that have a strong discriminatory bias, need to flesh out their bias. In the near future all of this stuff might not work. Depending on what happens with Putin and Ukraine and nationalism/maga movements world-wide. 

There needs to be a solution for this not further skewed and biased science for some stupid survival agenda of becoming a scientist. This is scary in my point of view.

Edited October 20, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[ValiantSalvatore]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

genetic mutation

In terms of biology we would talk about the Variance of parents genepool passing on their genes to their offspring? Is the use of variance associated with genetic mutation correct? 

Anyway this stuff is very complex imo in a ML context I don't even understand it's current maths. Without variance the offsprings parent generation would be inable to diversify their population. Basically this is the definition of Variance in terms of a fitness function in ML meaning a fitness function f(x) represents the quality of adaptation of an individual/population to it's enviroment. It's simply a measure of quality (driven by competition). I am not even 10h into this so spare me any criticism.

This is our definition of Variance in machine learning (my own notes, the Prof does a good job to present this practically and mathematically) as this is more our job.
 

• Offspring not exact copies of parents

• Offspring are subject to random variance

• Reproduction process can cause small variations (positive and negative)

• Increases diversity of population

• Driven by recombination and mutation (non-goal oriented)

In that sense as blue eyes are recessive in themselves some mutation has to happen and that mutation could be genetic as well as enviromental? Is that presumption fair and justified? I am just intersted in the topic...

Edited October 20, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[ValiantSalvatore]

11 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

I know Twitter is good for scientific political drama, yet this horseshit does no good or does it? Every "scientist" I see enter into Twitter besides businessmen get abused imo for some agenda and I bet lobbying is not far away at one point. 

Won't deny it's good drama and has use for networking. Maybe I am just to ehtical in a sense. I don't think of myself as ethical, yet I see the same patterns where people go in disarray and I am extremely good at detecting ideologies and not believing anything. Just saying... I will make twitter paradoxically when I get the chance to enter science to skew things into my favour. Yes I am that manipulative in a good sense. I do have a business background also...

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

In that sense as blue eyes are recessive in themselves some mutation has to happen and that mutation could be genetic as well as enviromental? Is that presumption fair and justified? I am just intersted in the topic...

I don't really know what you're asking. The trait arose in one individual 6000-10000 years ago due to genetic mutation. All people with blue eyes stem from that one individual. Whatever caused the mutation, it was still a genetic mutation.

[ValiantSalvatore]

35 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't really know what you're asking. The trait arose in one individual 6000-10000 years ago due to genetic mutation. All people with blue eyes stem from that one individual. Whatever caused the mutation, it was still a genetic mutation.

Wow that is incredible that biologist can be that percise! I am pratically talking about this subject. It's more A.I related seemingly yet inspired by biology... anyway... I am learning! From you .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Stage Green academia is kinda shitty imo... I like it when stuff interconnects. I love what you wrote about biology, as I just dabble into it with pre-conceived notions.

I am imagining in the near-future you can have entire biospheres simulated at a nearly realistic level, otherwise we would not learn this stuff, this mainly accounts for randomness. Hope this is somewhat interesting. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Epikur]

I thought this topic is taboo
 

Quote

Some social scientists are wary of calling attention to the reality of disproportionate Jewish economic success for fear of arousing anti-Semitism, or contributing to conspiratorial theories about Jewish economic dominance. 

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-do-jews-succeed

[Bobby_2021]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Was the success of Jews caused by genetics? Well, it was caused by the literacy obligation, so no.

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. 

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The success of Jews can be traced back to the literacy obligation. 

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:

Quote

The second effect of the literacy obligation was to drive a lot of Jews away from their religion. Botticini and Eckstein admit that they have little direct evidence for this conclusion, but there’s a lot of indirect evidence. First, it makes sense: People do tend to run away from expensive obligations. Second, we can look at population trends: While the world population increased from 50 million in the sixth century to 285 million in the 18th, the population of Jews remained almost fixed at just a little over a million. Why were the Jews not expanding when everyone else was? We don’t know for sure, but a reasonable guess is that a lot of Jews were becoming Christians and Muslims.

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. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

21 hours ago, vindicated erudite said:

This is bullshit. Maybe 50 years ago but not today.

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. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

Lmao. So success = genetics now?

 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

Let's get something straight here: you're the one who invoked IQ and substituted it for success so you could pigeon-hole it into your claim about it being due to genetics. The only reason I'm talking about IQ is because you kept butchering concepts from evolutionary biology, so I conceded to the IQ thing and worked from there.

 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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?

How is that so hard to imagine? Aren't you a redpill guy? Do you actually think low-status losers got more chicks in the past? ?

 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

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. 

...listen, you absolute hypocrite. You haven't given direct evidence for anything at all either. When I conceded to the IQ frame, I also conceded to the frame of only giving hypotheticals (which is something I've criticized you for doing in the past). You created this. I guess I'm sorry for forcing myself down to your level.

 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

You don't make any assumptions?! ??? Right... except "success = IQ = genetics". An explanation being simple does not protect it from being wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

...or maybe they just had a very particular religious code that happened to involve reading the scriptures a lot which translates well into education and success.

 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Apologies in advance if my post is too long. I tried my best to condense it.

Yeah no.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[StarStruck]

@Leo Gura do you think there is any use in studying the jewish kabbalah? It corresponds with the chakra system. And I think this consciousness model is a big factor why Jews are so successful: they have esoteric knowledge of consciousness.

https://glorian.org/learn/courses-and-lectures/kabbalah-1-the-world-of-klipoth/klipoth-introduction-pt-1

[ValiantSalvatore]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

Even then through globalization every idiot in every country can learn about the same topics. This already shows if someone is an idiot and/or not stupid... so academia still works as an intelligence test as a whole. Who ever wants to hire a shitty employee with 0 work ethic? In a sense it makes testing for IQ easier as every idiot as access to it and those are weeded out relatively quickly. As intelligence certainly exists, the point is people want to leverage the enviroment for growth as a whole and abolishing class type thinking as this benefits the culture.

See northern countries and PISA tests etc. Egaliterian principles do have their value. I dunno so many papers I read have the most idiotic rigid testing procedures. I hope stage orange science finally comes to an end. Anyway progress is already there lol social engineering is quiet real with the topic of HCI, so dunno why there needs to be 0 respect towards people from liberal arts. But okay. I presume there is to much bias.

[ValiantSalvatore]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't really know what you're asking. The trait arose in one individual 6000-10000 years ago due to genetic mutation. All people with blue eyes stem from that one individual. Whatever caused the mutation, it was still a genetic mutation.

Do all random mutations stem from one invidiual so to speak? So saying a random mutation (variance) diversified height for example as a property of an individual in a population as the result of one individual having that genetic mutation. 

Said with less complexity and to be a bit more paradigmatic... All varations in a population stem from genetic mutation so there needed to be that one individual that had X height for X height to exist. There needed to be one individual with green eye colors to diversify green eye colors? There needed to be one individual with red hair to diversify red hair? There needed to be one guy with thicker more curly hair for more invidiuals (populations) with thicker and more curly hair. Does this also account for intelligence so one high IQ individual must needed to exist in order for the population to diversify in high IQ?

[Bobby_2021]

On 10/21/2022 at 0:10 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Lmao. So success = genetics now?

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. 

On 10/21/2022 at 0:10 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Let's get something straight here: you're the one who invoked IQ and substituted it for success so you could pigeon-hole it into your claim about it being due to genetics. The only reason I'm talking about IQ is because you kept butchering concepts from evolutionary biology, so I conceded to the IQ thing and worked from there.

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/

Quote

The relationship between IQ and income is somewhat correlated; in general, people with higher IQs make more money:

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.

Quote

 

Billionaires are among the world’s cleverest people, according to new research. In “Investigating America’s Elite,” Jonathan Wai, 33, a research scientist in psychology and member of Duke University’s Talent Identification Program, looked at the correlation between wealth and brains — or at least, brains as measured by education. Some 45% of billionaires rank among the smartest 1% of people in the U.S., the study found. Other groups with high representation in the smartest set: U.S. Senators (41%), federal judges (40%), and Fortune 500 CEOs (39%).

 

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

Quote

The most recent edition of The Forbes 400, which ranks the 400 richest people in America, includes 48 tech billionaires. From this list, I have assessed whether the following people are in the top 1% of intellectual ability simply based on the school that they were admitted to as an undergraduate or graduate student.

On 10/21/2022 at 0:10 AM, Carl-Richard said:

..listen, you absolute hypocrite. You haven't given direct evidence for anything at all either. When I conceded to the IQ frame, I also conceded to the frame of only giving hypotheticals (which is something I've criticized you for doing in the past). You created this. I guess I'm sorry for forcing myself down to your level.

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.

On 10/21/2022 at 0:10 AM, Carl-Richard said:

You don't make any assumptions?! ??? Right... except "success = IQ = genetics". An explanation being simple does not protect it from being wrong.

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.

On 10/21/2022 at 0:10 AM, Carl-Richard said:

..listen, you absolute hypocrite. You haven't given direct evidence for anything at all either. When I conceded to the IQ frame, I also conceded to the frame of only giving hypotheticals (which is something I've criticized you for doing in the past). You created this. I guess I'm sorry for forcing myself down to your level.

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.

On 10/21/2022 at 0:10 AM, Carl-Richard said:

How is that so hard to imagine? Aren't you a redpill guy? Do you actually think low-status losers got more chicks in the past? ?

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.

On 10/21/2022 at 0:10 AM, Carl-Richard said:

...or maybe they just had a very particular religious code that happened to involve reading the scriptures a lot which translates well into education and success.

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. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by Bobby_2021