Why are Jewish people so successful?

[Carl-Richard]

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

See what @Leo Gura has to say about it.

My claim is simple and clear: Successful people has better genetics. And without such genetics, your hardwork and "smartwork" is worth dogshit.

It does not mean that everyone with good genetics will acheive everything in their lives. You have to look at successful people and identify the most distinguishing factor in their lives. Which is obviously that, they are fucking smart. Smart = Higher IQ. You cannot make it to the top of any hierarchy without having a great IQ. 

Yeah because success is highly coorelated with IQ. You should look at the top billionares list and infer their IQ. Average IQ of self made billionares is said to be 133 while for self made millionares it is 110, close to the average IQ of jews. It's an incredible coorelation if you ask me. Elon Musk has it somewhere around 150, Zukerberg and bill gates around 160, which is the reason why the latter two got near perfect SAT scores. Jeff Bezos was in the gifed kids class. 

Self made = Didn't inherit the wealth from parents.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/

The main study:

wai-americas-elite-2013.pdf

Here you need to note that SAT, ACT or any other standardised tests are equivalent to IQ tests or have close coorelations. These are basically IQ tests with extra steps. You need IQ and a little bit more to excel in standardise tests.

Again, there are tons of sources validating relationship between IQ and income/wealth. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/09/24/the-scary-smart-have-become-the-scary-rich-examining-techs-richest-on-the-forbes-400/?sh=2d5f9e2138cc

It is not merely a hypothetical assumption. Google exists for a reason. Go use it. I don't have to teach and prove the basics of psychology to you.

lol for thinking that the link between success and IQ is an assumption. Go check my sources. I am not going to spoon feed you. Research and make up your own mind.

I am not a hipocrite. There exists evidence for saying that IQ and success is coorelated. I thought you would already know it. I have posted a few of the articles up above. And proofs are complicated. And discussing them is going to make m posts needlessly technical and long. I admit that I haven't completely studied the inside out of the sources I have provided here. But it is pretty conisitent with my assertions about IQ and success. 

You simply have no case of real world evidence. All you have is hypotheticals. Did you think that this was a hypothetical arm chair debate? I was going to ask for evidence once the hypothetical scenario was clear. But now it is clear that there is no evidence to substantiate your claims.

Status is linked to survivability. A dork who is sitting inside his room reciting Torah all day has poor scope for survival. He may be able to barely provide for himself let alone his chicks. On the other hand some guy who could accumulate recources and money could easily provide for him and his chicks. Also note that this literacy was an extremely costly resource drainer. 

Status is associated with economic power, not intellectual ability. Jews have mandated literacy long before it started paying economic dividents. It was fairly recently that intellectual power could make money and translate into better scope for survival. Selection is not even plausible, unless you can come up with direct proof that it happened in the past. But it is certainly possible. Did it actually happen? I don't think so. Because it is not easy to pull off.

I don't exactly know what redpill means, although I have heard the term before.

This is sort of like the chicken and egg problem. Think about what came first. Merely mandating literacy simply won't turn into success unless they were high IQ to begin with. If they were not already high IQ to begin with, artificial/natural/environmental selection, increased their average IQ, for which there is no evidence.

Yes, for the 5th time, in a random sample of people, individuals with a higher IQ are statistically more successful. That doesn't mean IQ is necessarily the explanation for the success of a specific ethnic population.

What you're doing is essentially this: "the size of a fish correlates with the amount of predators it can avoid, and therefore, a species of salmon in a specific river will necessarily avoid more predators than a small fish in a freshwater pond." You're then forgetting about the potential group differences, e.g. the insane amount of bears that eat salmon vs. the relative lack of predators in a tiny pond.

Yes, individual fish are generally more likely to avoid predators if they're big, but you have to justify why size is particularly relevant for that specific group of fish, or else you're not talking about that group. When you're referring to a statistic about individuals, you're only talking about individuals.

 

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

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. 

Just because it looks complex today doesn't mean it started out at that level of complexity. Reading the Torah is not that complex. Becoming a banker or a merchant 2000 years ago wasn't that complex. Maybe over the course of 2000 years of competition and innovation, it looks complex, but the population who mostly did that for a living would have gradually tracked that development of complexity. No need to start off with a massive IQ.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Bobby_2021 I read a recent review of a study from PISA showing that through the introduction of conservative values IQ scores have been dropping in Sweden. Many schools in scandinavian countries force basically their parents by paying taxes for schools and to create equal playground therefore there is a higher incentive for intrinsic learning. By providing toys that are not instrumentalized. I dunno this smells like bias and disrciminatory psychology and testing. As if it is not possible to train for an IQ test, nothing against high iq etc and gifted classes and so to speak "extra stimulatory feeding of information" the sheer arrogance of schools and their mindsets and psychology also about sexual subjects and this includes genetics, is very bad. So yeah it's kinda obvious.

Calling people low iq looser and dorks publically is discriminatory and should pratically be punished with some sort of fee, to incentivize more equality again lol. Bullying people calling them low iq and having an over-demanding and none self-discriminatory attitude is rather unauspicous in terms of creating a more harmonious discourse in science. This winner looser mentality of pride is what makes a looser a looser and a winner a winner. I find it hilarious how far good cooperation can take you. 

Class stereotypes should be abolished and people appreciated for who they are intrinsically.

https://psmag.com/education/women-math-and-the-addition-of-stereotypes-41287
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19025250/

Legit get an EEG or smth, this is horeshit what I am seeing and please analyze a set of genes. 

If your perception to not become proficient in a task does not matter, I am unsure what so called "rational humans" are, seems more like a predator and reptile lol. Clearly evident. This is very close to racism. So I dunno why you are allowed to do science, it should be illegal. 

I tell you one thing I will errdicate your science 100%. Get a feeling for objectivity once, I can play you better any day than you could, that is the joke.

Edited October 22, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Carl-Richard Just by looking at what I am doing I don't think you need to have the patience to deal with this person and credibillity is questionable at least where I would do science, but okay. This should be a self-study and there certainly is effort involved in studying biology and looking at paradigms within biology and asking biologists lol. Maybe it helps him again, thank you for having the patience to discuss this subject with the guy and letting me chime in with my two cents . 

Speaking from a psychologists perspective I think the guy has some issues being a predator and he is asking his prey for an innocent discussion in his favour. I wonder if he eats vegetables. For some irony. 

Which cluster of genes cause high IQ and how do you modulate that tell me? With this I mean everyone included in this conversation.

It is an optimization problem lol. What about creativity ideas and diversity? 

Edited October 22, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Bobby_2021]

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That doesn't mean IQ is necessarily the explanation for the success of a specific ethnic population.

Yeah so Ashkenazi jews having an average iq of 112, which is also close to the average iq of self made millionaires, was merely a coincidence, and has little to do with their success according to you?? 

Average IQ is a good predictor of the success of any population. Average IQ of a population is the IQ of the average individual. Notice that 50% of the individuals have IQs more than than the average. That's a lot of individuals packed with potential for success.

High IQ = More work done in less time. The average jewish person literally has to work less to get the same amount of work done compared to an average asian, say, or any other ethnic group for that matter. So the average jew is more likely to succeed than an average, member of other groups. Pretty simple and straightforward if you ask me. 

There is absolutely zero confusion between populations & individuals.

As far as IQ is concerned, the findings are pretty consistent enough to explain the success of both of them. 

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're then forgetting about the potential group differences

Please don't make this more hard than it needs to be. I am not forgetting any group difference, while you are trying to forget about the main group difference about IQ. 

The most fundamental group difference is that their group has an average IQ way higher than that of other groups.

Let's say that height is an advantage when it comes to running fast. So the fastest sprinters are usually taller than average. When a group of people are taller than some other group of People, the group with the higher average height is at a huge advantage when it comes to succeeding in a race. The most distinguishing factor that exists within the group is the differences in their average height. It explains why they will dominate the race compared to other groups. 

Simple. 

You are essentially ignoring the height, while looking for other things to explain why they win the race. Average height is the main group difference. 

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What you're doing is essentially this: "the size of a fish correlates with the amount of predators it can avoid, and therefore, a species of salmon in a specific river will necessarily avoid more predators than a small fish in a freshwater pond." You're then forgetting about the potential group differences, e.g. the insane amount of bears that eat salmon vs. the relative lack of predators in a tiny pond.

Yes, individual fish are generally more likely to avoid predators if they're big, but you have to justify why size is particularly relevant for that specific group of fish, or else you're not talking about that group. When you're referring to a statistic about individuals, you're only talking about individuals

The most important group difference is the IQ differences of the groups. 

When you say the average IQ of jews is 112, the sample size is not merely the jews. The sample size includes people of other ethnicities as well.  IQ is a relativistic measure that allows you to compare your scores against other who took the test with you. 

The example you have given above has two samples. Fishes in ocean water and fishes in ponds. And they are evaluated according to different standards. There are no huge predators in ponds, while that's not the case with oceanic fishes. So the coorelations breaks down if you include many big fishes from ponds. Every single person taking the IQ test is evaluated according to the same standard. And you can't compare the results from two samples. 

That makes it unnecessarily complicated like the example you have given. 

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

When you're referring to a statistic about individuals, you're only talking about individuals.

You cannot seperate individual and groups so simplistically because individuals make up groups.

Success and IQ is individualistic. When you look at the list of nobel prize winners, you only see individuals, not groups. Then you start to wonder why many individuals in the winners list come from the same group. 20% of the nobel prize winners are jewish people. Jews are over-represented in the top of the hierarchy. At the same time you are also talking about individuals only, while making the observation that some individuals come from a specific groups.

Then the logical question is: what makes that group special? What is their distinguishing factor that seperates them from other groups? Obviously it's a higher average IQ. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Yeah so Ashkenazi jews having an average iq of 112, which is also close to the average iq of self made millionaires, was merely a coincidence, and has little to do with their success according to you??

We all have roots in Africa 200 000 years ago. At what point did Jews gain a higher IQ and why?

[Bobby_2021]

8 hours ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

I read a recent review of a study from PISA showing that through the introduction of conservative values IQ scores have been dropping in Sweden

Adoption of woke values have been proven to decrease IQ according to the latest research and studies.

Source: Trust me bro. 

[Epikur]

@Bobby_2021

One way to see it is Judaism selects for IQ. It is as far I know much more difficult intellectually to become a Jew than a Christian or Muslim. 

It is if Mensa would be a religion and had to marry each other. The Mensa people would become their  own tribe and ethnicity.

[Bobby_2021]

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

We all have roots in Africa 200 000 years ago. At what point did Jews gain a higher IQ and why?

We all started as amoeba some four billion years ago. At what point did we become humans? 

The only thing I can say for sure is that, the reason you are a human and not a cow is because of genetics. That's a real World observation. It's okay to admit that we don't know how we got here. 

The thing is, genetics is extremely complicated, murky and also random. They both influence each other so intimately to produce what we have now. Especially when you are talking about eons of time, the genetic/environment duality begins to break down. It's correct to say that environment influences genetics. 

That's why we have to base our conclusions on what we can know for sure. That's all what I wanted to discuss. 

I am absolutely open to the possibilities being true as well. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

We all started as amoeba some four billion years ago. At what point did we become humans? 

The thing is, genetics is extremely complicated, murky and also random. They both influence each other so intimately to produce what we have now. Especially when you are talking about eons of time, the genetic/environment duality begins to break down. It's correct to say that environment influences genetics. 

That's why we have to base our conclusions on what we can know for sure. That's all what I wanted to discuss. 

I am absolutely open to the possibilities being true as well. 

Humans in Africa had roughly the same environment, roughly the same genetics and roughly the same IQ. What caused Jews to have a higher IQ? Just give me your best guess. You don't need to cite anything.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Epikur]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Humans in Africa had roughly the same environment, roughly the same genetics and roughly the same IQ. What caused Jews to have a higher IQ? Just give me your best guess. You don't need to cite anything.

Try this one:

 

Quote

One way to see it is Judaism selects for IQ. It is as far I know much more difficult intellectually to become a Jew than a Christian or Muslim. 

It is if Mensa would be a religion and had to marry each other. The Mensa people would become their  own tribe and ethnicity.

 

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Bobby_2021 Wow as credible as you. You are a think-tank. What woke values? What happend to liberty? You have an explanation?

Edited October 22, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Danioover9000]

   Good example of healthy stage blue, looking after your own first before another from some other community.

 

[ValiantSalvatore]

4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

We all started as amoeba some four billion years ago. At what point did we become humans? 

I don't know I am practicing my intellectual humility as much as I can while reading about genetics and health factors. When did we become human? Can you explain? Assuming you can handle a simple question and the abillity to remain unassuming? Any opinions on theory of mind? Or this to expansive of a conversation for you?

I do find you interesting. The best thing though is when you destroy and hide sources, and purport exoteric ad hoc scientific racism, you are beautiful . Maybe you can pay me to buy these journals  my Institute is better most likely and still has not as much money as yours . 

Might as well burn it, I do like your hair color. I still don't think this guy has common sense and I bet he likes incel forums. I visted one today for the first time out of recommendation from a friend, reminded me of you . Sorry for these associations. I don't like toxic hyper-masculinity and denial. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Danioover9000]

@ValiantSalvatore

2 hours ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

I don't know I am practicing my intellectual humility as much as I can while reading about genetics and health factors. When did we become human? Can you explain? Assuming you can handle a simple question and the abillity to remain unassuming? Any opinions on theory of mind? Or this to expansive of a conversation for you?

I do find you interesting. The best thing though is when you destroy and hide sources, and proport exoteric ad hoc scientific racism, you are beautiful . Maybe you can pay me to buy these journals  my insitute is better most likely and still has not money than yours . 

Might as well burn it, I do like your hair color. I still don't think this guy has common sense and I bet he likes incel forums. I visted one today for the first time out of recommendation from a friend, reminded me of you . Sorry for these associations. I don't like toxic hyper-masculinity and denial. 

   A few syntaxes and semantics issues:

   *Institute, *visited, *ability *Incel (a) between 'of' and 'recommendation' in the third paragraph. Also, when writing paragraphs indent.

   Inappropriate and excessive use of laughing emoji, and in second paragraph, in line 5 you need a full stop after 'journals '.

   

[Danioover9000]

@Max_V

On 2022-10-07 at 2:23 PM, Max_V said:

@Leo Gura Why do you find using the cracker slur ok? I get that it might be different from the n-word, because the n-word has all the history behind it, but I feel like slurs in and of themselves are a moral bad, if you want a good and kind society.

   Wait, when I read that, my mind immediately thought Chinese crackers, and other crisps and doing a parade of some kind. Is the word 'cracker' an actual slur for some other context? I really didn't know that until now if that's the case.

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021    Honestly, all you had to say is an over simplified argument and claim: all genetics determines the shape and edges of the bell curve, and the majority of your automatic and unconscious/instinctual behaviors. That it. Genetics determines the millions of subtle changes in behavior, physicality and shape and brain modulation and hard wiring. Genetics largely determines body composition and brain shape from the beginning.

   After that comes eugenics and how those genes are expressed generationally, and other complicated modals of psychological development and other factors.

   The main problem is that on average people here in the forum are not into or interested in black pill ideology, they're here to learn other resources and improve their lives in some ways, no matter how small from resources other users have shared. Or teatime before going back into real-life. So, other than trying to increase the heat of this discourse, I don't see why you keep on harping on about genetics?

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Danioover9000 I usually think underlining stuff helps for you, as I question functionality. I mean I can start with the classism. In the U.K they were offended by my abillity to subliminate language. Although I prefer a more pragmatic approach to language . Symbols do help. Unfort-tuna-tely. Apparently to this guys worldview I communicate like this —◡◡. I am unsure what I am supposed to say when he burns the books lol. Like how can this guy even survive without his discriminatory behaviour? Does he even notice it? Am I rude? I am beign ironic I stopped reading and learning, as I legit go above&beyond for these people I don't what to call this dude besides. Disgust and yeah intellectual humility is hard. I do like irony and sarcasm, maybe he can teach me sexology and I get rid of the cambodian in-group references, about dactyl booty attraction . I am unsure what is genetics& D.N.A he did not even explain any chemical inferences you could include, because he seems so myopic about science, and his culture is illustrated in "my books" as holistic and I see this "chad". Acting like a hyper-incel on clean air. Purity beautiful. 

What happend to humour? Is there a scientific explanation for that?  Sorry I think this guy is very funny. Also about grammar I don't think people as myopic as him understand the impact of bias, and why academia and people are revolting against such stupid agendas. Like openly admitting to fake papers about such a hot topics. Is beyond stupid in my opinion, yet he trust his science brothers and sisters. So who knows. To address him as human with a public personality on a public forum is quiet intersting to observe simulated behaviour already, through tipping?  

Maybe he can explain solipsism also, yet now I am making fun of him. His F1 seems to be functioning quiet well, to negate negative input. Happy Happy.

Nobody can escape the drama&maya. I wonder which kayak he is driving . Sorry I really don't like it that the guy is allowed to do science that way. Wonder what he did to scared to show his paper and results? 

Edited October 22, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Epikur]

56 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Bobby_2021    Honestly, all you had to say is an over simplified argument and claim: all genetics determines the shape and edges of the bell curve, and the majority of your automatic and unconscious/instinctual behaviors. That it. Genetics determines the millions of subtle changes in behavior, physicality and shape and brain modulation and hard wiring. Genetics largely determines body composition and brain shape from the beginning.

   After that comes eugenics and how those genes are expressed generationally, and other complicated modals of psychological development and other factors.

   The main problem is that on average people here in the forum are not into or interested in black pill ideology, they're here to learn other resources and improve their lives in some ways, no matter how small from resources other users have shared. Or teatime before going back into real-life. So, other than trying to increase the heat of this discourse, I don't see why you keep on harping on about genetics?

Why should somebody care what the average user is interested in? You make much more simplified generalisations without arguments. Because it looks like Blackpill does not mean it is. Even if it is black pill if it is part of the truth it can be worth something.

[Bobby_2021]

On 10/22/2022 at 10:33 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Humans in Africa had roughly the same environment, roughly the same genetics and roughly the same IQ. What caused Jews to have a higher IQ? Just give me your best guess. You don't need to cite anything.

 No one knows clearly. I can only give a generic answer that merely explores the possibilities, just as any other evolutionary biologists would explain why differences exist despite all people originating from Africa 200,000 years ago. 

1. Pure genetic randomness. Although you cannot boil down IQ to a single gene, or mutations of it, there could have been a mutation which release a certain chemical which creates more grey matter in brain. This possibility itself sounds silly, but something along those lines could be real. We know little of neurology or neuroscience to know the mechanisms of the brain of a high IQ person compared to a low IQ person. I am sure there are real physical difference, perhaps in the way neurons are wired or they may have some neuro transmitter that accelerates the development of new neural connections.  Genetics can create random stuff without having any survival value or survival pressure. For example eye colour. 

2. Environment exerts a strong selection for IQ all the way from the beginning. You need a certain level of abstraction to think into the future to plan for your hunger or to make a spear. Cows do not have that capability for abstraction. It could have been the case that the earliest differentiable unique ancestors of jews had to endure more pressure and undergo natural selection that killed off the low IQ jews. In general, selection pressure in ancient times were much more stronger than that of today. 

3. Differences and varities are fundamental to evolution.

What's truly impossible and remarkable is if two individuals or groups have the exact same making. This is even harder to happen in reality than them being different. 

It's not the case that all africans had to endure the same environment. They could have simply moved out to different places and endure different survival pressures. For evolution to work you only need small differences and that can compound over time. 

The question "why"  become significant only if you feel there ought to be a certain way for things. Evolution dosen't have to justify anything to you. So if you have two different populations, it doesn't have to be equal. No two things in the universe is equal. And add to this the sheer variety of "things" in the universe. To make things even more complex, add to this the sheer amount of time you can play with. It's impossible for the human mind to comprehend the things that can happen over the course of a century. Evolution has hundreds of thousands of years to play with.

Maybe a drunken monkey with a paint brush can paint Mona Lisa, if given enough time. It all has to do with time, differences in environments, and genetic varities. All of these three variables are a perfect cooking ground for differences among individuals and groups to compound over and over again.

That's how we end up with people of different skin colour, IQ, height, tonality, etc. Notice that cows and dogs have the same Ancestors as you and still there are enormous differences between you and them. 

 

All the hypotheticals aside, the reason why jews do better, in my opinion, is because of their good genetics. All the intellectual drama we are playing is to explain away genetic differences. If there are differences among groups in 2022, then there could have been differences 200,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago. I am siding with it because it is the simplest explanation. Genetics which facilitates intellectual power is allowed to have Differences.

You certainly won't be surprised when Jamaicans top the Olympic sprints in record numbers compared to Indians, say. They are simply genetically better when it comes to sprinting. Period. As a result they obviously value participating in athletics events because they can easily excel in it compared to Indias, say.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[zurew]