Why are Jewish people so successful?

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Tahuti 

Quote

Welcome to the general public!

I love Adolfian Tactics, there should be a chess moves named after Hitler . Gosh sometimes I wish he would have won the war, so this stupidity finally ends. 

Never seen so much obvious arrogance this shit will never fly  I've seen enough correction . Especially, in this timeline. 

Imagination is also forbidden apparently .

Edited October 14, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Tahuti I am just beign non-rational. For fun nothing serious lol. I am half German, so I just love to see how toxic something can be won't make sense I know. 

I am surprised by what standards people can do science today, and I saw someone in class today, that acted like OP. I don't think these people have a bright future. It's just a personal opinion. Who knows what will happen. I find it amusing that people seemingly try to revive race science and skew results into their favour to create some bias and to push their personal egoic agenda. 

I'd rather be interested to know which gene pairs etc. cause an increase in IQ and if it is possible to what degree to change that and not to argue about cultures and why jews are succesful in that way. The more interesting question would be imo what external factors / internal increase the gene "cluster" that caues IQ in the first place

And to not link it to cultures, yet to the cluster of genes themselves. I find this so hypocrtically to just frame everything into one culture, as if other cultures don't have that pair of genes? Well, then at least show evidence. I don't know why I should believe a single word of OP, even when these people have higher IQ. 

The more interesting question is what cluster of genes causes high IQ to what degree are they changeable and not also why can't they be changed at age 80 for example? To what degree have they been analyzed.

I dunno I am sitting in classes with medicinal physicist currently I don't really care that much about op opinon, as it's very narrow-minded imo. Just googled a bit I am still setting myself up for science, I dunno how much D.N.A is changeable, I find it funny I could start to do a PH.D in this area and I see this ignorant post. It gives me more motivation to corret "stupidity" in that sense...

Please don't take my post "rationally seriously" like the nazi scientist I hate. Some just care about their dogma, and ego instead of researching for truth and actual causality. That is why I wrote the pissed and not so serious comment.

With Adolfian Tactics I mean nothing lol, imagine my Grandpa was named Adolf because of WW2. I find social phenomena so interesting it's crazy. Sorry if I am misleading. Don't take it seriously, at best it's good food for thought. Not interested to skew people into Hitlers direction if you get now more what I mean lol. 

Who knows the 0.1% of genes that differ between humans are caused 100% by my intuition by either random mating of pre-existing genes and mutation. As well as enviromental influneces possibly over 10,100 years even shorter who knows exactly? Science seems to change rapidly at least computer science.

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics#:~:text=All human beings are 99.9,about the causes of diseases.

It's funny I legit could do this now and disproove everything possibly that OP has done. I do think our institue is also better and more open. It's kinda funny how far bias will go... Anyway. 

Again I am writting this light heartedly. I am not an expert/authority. Just a guy with a path ahead of me and an opinion like op. Anyway.

Even then what about artifical digital enviroments? Will they change gene expression also? How much does the enviroment impact my gene health in that sense? 

Will using AR change my D.N.A? If I am exposed to it over periods of time? How much does internal perception matter?
Will thinking I can grow and become smarter and more intelligent pay of for families/progeny of my family for example?

How can I measure the affects even of a mindset in terms of gene expression for example in a given culture? If for example people in Canada believe we can become taller and smarter and act accordingly and others just act accordignly how much will that impact the genes that modulate height? 

I dunno to see everything as a deterministic event is myopic imo. Anyway. I bet there are smarter takes on this, I am just painfully aware of my intellecutal humility at times, maybe so much that I become arrogant at seemingly ethnocentric science...

Edited October 14, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[ValiantSalvatore]

@Tahuti No I don't lol. I don't know what I am supposed to make out of this comment. 

3 hours ago, Tahuti said:

Hahahahs I think you have adhd like myself lmaoooo.

Listen, IQ cannot be tested for. As Jordan pererson said, with IQ tests we are testing fluid IQ. Fluid IQ = the executive functions. Adhd fucks the executive functions of the individual to various degrees. 

You can become more intelligent absent of its colloquial definition as well and its relationship to IQ.  I hope this makes sense.

So then, what is intelligence? 

Most people hyper-focus on IQ. Focus rather on controlling the True Will (like aleister Crowley speaks of) to get the things you want. Genius is relative. Become conscious of the absolute!

IQ can be tested why should IQ not be tested? Fluid intelligence as well as crystallized intelligence is testable. IQ is just not true intelligence, I had a peak experience during meditation of what omniscience can be with strong kriya elements. 

I don't think of crowley as well as people who like him very well. It's rather unscienfitic...following the advice of a stonemason and not using it as a tool to reflect is a bit delusional to me. Basically if you have ADHD and apparently your executive functions are inhibited, according to your logic and report it would definitely reduce fluid intelligence and IQ. IQ is relative. True intelligence is more of the absolute I had a good taste of it, if it was somewhat accurate, it's more like sheer intuition of a quality that resembles God/Omniscience. It's not really IQ and the usual problem solving and novel information processing concepts that are associated with IQ.

Most oranges and stage orange people hyper-focus on IQ as this is the only way they seemingly can satisfy their deficency needs for recognition and status. I am pretty sure IQ can be tested with standarized tests, I don't think it displays true intelligence. I meet many people who truely have ADHD and I am just gifted and the difference is very obvious. I am also HSP, so I don't like it sometimes to be around ADHD people as they emit sometimes not so good energy, especially if it is the impulsive and hyperactive type. This causes a lot of disorganization and even though I have worked succesfully with ADHD people, they have been on medication most of the time and did not even try natural alternatives like exercise and meditation because it is to exhausting apparently. I dunno I am a bit scattered as discursive tought (according to german pages about gifted kids) can be a sign of high iq/giftedness. So, I am always very open around people who seemingly have ADHD. 

Yes, it's a good question to contempate what is true intelligence. I once took LSD and meditated for hours and asked these questions, what is true intelligence, what is the nature of nature and I started to merge with the outside world very strongly. God/Omniscience is way beyond what humans can fathom. In that sense yes IQ is a hoax, on a relative plane it's absolutely real and relevant. Being obstructed by ADHD in terms of IQ beign inhibited in it's full expression is a survival threat and I bet there are gifts and curses so to speak about the condition of ADHD itself. So, I dunno not speaking from direct experience as I don't really have ADHD, yet I have ADHD like symptoms that are closely relateable to giftedness, I can understand some states, although I'd be more of the inattentive type as I am also highly introverted usually, I changed a lot. Again, full self-disclosure I've been tested and I don't have ADHD. There is also bias in how it's identified etc. So, I dunno. 

I even believe it's partially possible to increase the relative IQ with proper nutrition, exercise, social-enviroment etc. To some degree depending on genetic potential. There were some articles posted by the scientific american, yet I don't think this will sound credible to you.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/you-can-increase-your-intelligence-5-ways-to-maximize-your-cognitive-potential/

I followed most of these principles ever since I read the article and I definitely have become more intelligent in terms of surivial, I would also bet I increased my IQ through studying etc. There are some "studies" articles pinponting as to how many school years you have your IQ increases and stuff like this anyway. Hope this is not to much and makes sense somehow lol.

This is my personal anecdote tbh I notice partially I am still increasing my IQ believe it or not lol, even then just crystallized intelligence, street smarts etc.

OP has certainly valid points, it's just the frame that is horrible imo. I don't think this will continue for long the same for this Crowley stuff, it's not really good imo for academia. Most of these people are not doing well. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Bobby_2021]

18 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Cool. Finally something we both agree on. 

I called it artificial selection because the selection pressure is imposed due to a pressure for education which is imposed by their culture which is a social construct.

The artificial selection is not done by an individual, but a group of people.

Afterall it's the people who impose such pressures on other people, therby eliminating some genes from the gene pool.

Natural selection means that the environment is doing the selection.

Note that humans has outsmarted other animals because of our genetics and intellect.

Intellect makes your life comfortable and survival easier. So nature/culture will eliminate those without such favourable traits. 

I wouldn't call this a "historical happening" though.

The reason why you have high/low IQ is itself genetics, given a random sample of people with average IQ of 100.

[Carl-Richard]

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Cool. Finally something we both agree on. 

I called it artificial selection because the selection pressure is imposed due to a pressure for education which is imposed by their culture which is a social construct.

The artificial selection is not done by an individual, but a group of people.

Afterall it's the people who impose such pressures on other people, therby eliminating some genes from the gene pool.

You're just misunderstanding the concept. Artificial selection (a.k.a selective breeding) is when a human decides using their own volition exactly who breeds and who doesn't: "this specific dog right here gets to breed with this other dog". When nature or a mate decides who breeds, it's natural or sexual selection.

 

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Natural selection means that the environment is doing the selection.

Natural selection means the individuals with the highest evolutionary fitness survive and reproduce. Darwin posited a system (evolution by natural selection) and articulated the constraints of that system (variability in traits, finite resources, descent with modification). "Nature", i.e. the constraints posited by Darwin, does the selection. The environment does not do the selection. The environment plays into some of the constraints, but so does the organisms.

 

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The reason why you have high/low IQ is itself genetics, given a random sample of people with average IQ of 100.

Again, we're not talking about a random sample of people. We're talking about a group of people with shared cultural values, a shared history and shared selection pressures.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[integral]

@Bobby_2021 I dont think jews are doing anything cognitive that is all that special, if we look at there culture its clearly playing a huge role. My uncle is a successful business man and he made sure his kids where business minded while they where growing up, something i did not receive from my parents.

Its a HUGE advantage to have a parent who talks business opportunities to you as you grow up and encourages you to look at everything from a business opportunistic perspective. This wires the brain to be entrepreneurial. He also told his kids he will financially support any business ideas they come up with and are willing to pursue. 

I literally got 0 business communication from my parents and as a consequence i was just not thinking at all in that direction do to a complete lack of awareness. Instead my father took me to a steal manufacturing shop, sat me in a chair and told me to press a button for 8 hours a day to learn the value of a dollar and because "teenagers need to work". Ridiculous I was a genius, i was a chess master at 12 and he sits me down and makes me press a button. He could of sat me down and told me to solve literally any problem and i would of figured it out, i was a mule and my master was a fool. 

Edited October 16, 2022 by integral

[Bobby_2021]

On 10/14/2022 at 0:45 PM, ValiantSalvatore said:

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. 

You are mixing up stuff without knowing the context.

Yeah I manipulated results to have a publication under my name. That's the norm under science. That's also why I don't trust these studies. Including that of the race science studies.

I don't need the credibility of other scientists. Most of the studies fail to be replicated for the same reason. 

1. I am well aware of the fact that my observations could be used by actual racists to spread their racist propaganda. I myself have resisted these tendencies in RW circles where the only metric they seriously take into account is their IQ and nothing else.

2. Whether the findings feel racist or not has no bearing on the truthfulness of it.

3. Whether I am racist or not has no bearing on the validity of my findings.

If you are doing good science, the results and inferences speak for themselves.

On 10/15/2022 at 0:24 AM, ValiantSalvatore said:

am surprised by what standards people can do science today, and I saw someone in class today, that acted like OP. I don't think these people have a bright future. It's just a personal opinion. Who knows what will happen.

4. I can't think of anything more anti science than putting forth Ad hominem and wanting to ban science being done, because of your pre conceived notions.

I don't calim the truthfulness of the papers I published.

Publish or perish. A good scientist is one who cam manipulate the most and get more publications under their name.

I don't make the rules. I play the game.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. 

I am more truthful in the sense that I admit doing these manipulations. A double PHD may not admit this. 

I don't wish to stay long in academia anyway. 

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're just misunderstanding the concept. Artificial selection (a.k.a selective breeding) is when a human decides using their own volition exactly who breeds and who doesn't: "this specific dog right here gets to breed with this other dog". When nature or a mate decides who breeds, it's natural or sexual selection.

I have expanded my concept of artificial selection to include culture as well.

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

We're talking about a group of people with shared cultural values, a shared history and shared selection pressures

And shared genetics. 

Genetics is unique to them.

Cultural values may show some similarities with other cultures. For eg Asians value education extremely highly. Especially in STEM. 

[Bobby_2021]

15 hours ago, integral said:

@Bobby_2021 I dont think jews are doing anything cognitive that is all that special, if we look at there culture its clearly playing a huge role. My uncle is a successful business man and he made sure his kids where business minded while they where growing up, something i did not receive from my parents.

Its a HUGE advantage to have a parent who talks business opportunities to you as you grow up and encourages you to look at everything from a business opportunistic perspective. This wires the brain to be entrepreneurial. He also told his kids he will financially support any business ideas they come up with and are willing to pursue. 

I literally got 0 business communication from my parents and as a consequence i was just not thinking at all in that direction do to a complete lack of awareness. Instead my father took me to a steal manufacturing shop, sat me in a chair and told me to press a button for 8 hours a day to learn the value of a dollar and because "teenagers need to work". Ridiculous I was a genius, i was a chess master at 12 and he sits me down and makes me press a button. He could of sat me down and told me to solve literally any problem and i would of figured it out, i was a mule and my master was a fool. 

Great. Cognitive power alone isn't enough. Being business minded is also not enough on it's own. 

Look at Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. They have around 150 IQ and have had money to invest in as they were growing up.

Most people accept that you need both environment and genetics to succeed.

And talking about jews, it's hard to seperate these two. 

What's your Fide rating by the way? @integral

 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

 I have expanded my concept of artificial selection to include culture as well.

Artificial selection is a well-defined word used in mainstream evolutionary biology. You said "aritificial selection is this: (...)", implying that you were giving the mainstream definition, but then I corrected you, and now you're pretending that you didn't do that. 

Natural selection applies to culture. That is how it evolved in the first place.

 

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

And shared genetics. 

Genetics is unique to them.

Cultural values may show some similarities with other cultures. For eg Asians value education extremely highly. Especially in STEM. 

Unless you have concrete evidence, you can't claim genetics is the main culprit for their success. You can say genetics is the main culprit for something like eye color, but literacy and education is very different.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[ValiantSalvatore]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You are mixing up stuff without knowing the context.

Yeah I manipulated results to have a publication under my name. That's the norm under science. That's also why I don't trust these studies. Including that of the race science studies.

I don't need the credibility of other scientists. Most of the studies fail to be replicated for the same reason. 

1. I am well aware of the fact that my observations could be used by actual racists to spread their racist propaganda. I myself have resisted these tendencies in RW circles where the only metric they seriously take into account is their IQ and nothing else.

2. Whether the findings feel racist or not has no bearing on the truthfulness of it.

3. Whether I am racist or not has no bearing on the validity of my findings.

If you are doing good science, the results and inferences speak for themselves.

If that is the norm under science something should be done to prevent that, that is not the norm. I never heard of any of this. I mean I have nothing against it personally if you benefit as a human for survival, yet if it causes damage to other beigns I don't think a person like this should be allowed to do science, and should be held accountable for undertaking direct actions to skew and manipulate results. In a sense it is a crime as well as corrupt, if it is a mistake and made by accident that is something entirely different. Yet to deliberately and consciously fake results is not rational. It's basically an adhominem attack towards science, as well as the integrity of science. A good Prof once told me in science even a mistake can be a success, so to consciously fake information to ones own agenda is basically corruption of science. 

The perception of the person who has done science, certainly matters to neglect that entirely is also partially ignorant even if the results speak for themselves, the perception that went into the creation of the science done does matter, I am really curious as to what you did lol. So in an odd way I appreciate your stance towards an ethnocentric as well as possible racist viewpoints, that you seemingly adhere to. Or am I misconceiving that? The truthfulness of the science done by you should speak for itself, so if it causes racism and ethnocentric viewpoints. You also are part of that creation. How do you take responsibillity for that? Or do you simply not care enough to eliminate bias from your studies?

Enlighten me what context am I missing?

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

4. I can't think of anything more anti science than putting forth Ad hominem and wanting to ban science being done, because of your pre conceived notions.

I don't calim the truthfulness of the papers I published.

Publish or perish. A good scientist is one who cam manipulate the most and get more publications under their name.

I don't make the rules. I play the game.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. 

I am more truthful in the sense that I admit doing these manipulations. A double PHD may not admit this. 

I don't wish to stay long in academia anyway.

I never said science should be not done at all of these race scientist and explorers/pioneers had certainly their value, although from a holistic factual perception it's obvious that truthfulness was lacking and that many of these findings are utterly skewed by their cultural perceptions, as well as the cultural repercussions are horrific. What pre-conveived notions are you talking about, that I supposedly have? If you want fame and money I don't think science is the right way. 

I don't know which science you are doing so to speak to even claim a good scientist is one who can manipulate and get more publications, I bet there are more ethical ways to bend a paper into ones own agenda, that is not entirely selfishly derived out of seemingly questionable movitations. Just getting a good name out and publishing has 0 truthfulness to it. I don't know which game you are playing I bet you can get a good name as a scientist by doing projects normally for a longer period of time. To me this sounds like horrific self-management. For me it's clearly evident that there is an agenda to push ones own culture instead of creating equality. 

There is no way science and or anything can not be done and viewed from a personal "ad hominem" perspective if you look at the horros of history etc. I don't know dude this is a new level of ignorance not needed in science. I appreciate you beign honest about your manipulations, yet there are so many pre-conceived notions, there should be a prerequist test to test for bias. When I see how you conduct science and yes please take that personal, that should not be allowed and possibly be illegal. I would also appreciate it when you personally address me, so I become aware of my potential biases, yet that seems to be to advanced? 

Also to just view IQ as intelligence is very myopic. Human life is much broader even in academia they will use multiple intelligence test and they are looking for new ways to quantify intelligence? To boil down everything to genetics is quiet reductionistic. That is like saying I suck at dating because of how I look, and never address the problem. 

Then I could throwback the same argument, don't hate the player hate the game. Yet, I don't know if no one wants to even change the game, as well as how it's done. It's evident that there will be no fame and glory. It's rare imo to be a highly famously enamoured scientist. You'd basically need the personality of a champion?

Edited October 16, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Bobby_2021]

 

On 10/16/2022 at 10:46 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Unless you have concrete evidence, you can't claim genetics is the main culprit for their success. You can say genetics is the main culprit for something like eye color, but literacy and education is very different.

You can "select" for something only if the genetics already offers you  a variety of options to choose from.

The options having the maximum survival advantage respective to the environment gets to reproduce and other options slowly gets eliminated from the pool. 

The selection pressure may be induced by environment/culture/nature or whatever. 

When a culture introduces mandatory education and literacy, they are selecting for High IQ, if not they were high IQ in the first place. 

Let's say some culture in Africa, valued athleticism so much for some reason and rewarded heavily. All kids will be trained by people to run, jump, etc from a young age. 

Being tall is an advantage when it comes to athleticism. So short kids will be at a disadvantage in athleticism. Only tall kids would be able to win and rewarded for their actions. 

Over tens of generations, only tall kids would remain since the short ones won't get a chance to reproduce. 

On 10/16/2022 at 10:46 PM, Carl-Richard said:

You can say genetics is the main culprit for something like eye color, but literacy and education is very different.

It really is not that different.

If their culture valued blue colour eyed people, and those with black, brown eyes didn't get opportunities to reproduce, then they will end up exclusively with blue colour people over a few centuries later. 

Same is the case with height, IQ, or any other genetic trait. 

The fact any selection works at all implies that genetics offers a variety of options to choose from, in the first place. 

Selection Pressures can only weed out those without having such genetics.

Selection pressures cannot just "increase the IQ",or height or change eye colour directly. It kills those who don't have it, bluntly put. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[ValiantSalvatore]

20 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Being tall is an advantage when it comes to athleticism. So short kids will be at a disadvantage in athleticism. Only tall kids would be able to win and rewarded for their actions

How come? A lifter that has shorter arms can leverage more power because of physics and strength is not part of the concept of athletecism? The enviroment would need to favour tall people, so there is an evolutionary advantage to begin with, similar to giraffes?. This is not to myopic? Enviroment consistently changes also, so there will be a general baseline for most things or not? 

For example a hypothetical example some european culture values athletecism, altough the enviroment is designed to favour those who are small, have endurance and can run and hide in order to survive and produce progency. So there is selection pressure from the enviroment? That shape the decision making of the culture? As a whole they decide to mandatorily train in these aspects for the genetics of their progeny and for their survival as a group and individual.

Basically, causing some form of re-inforcement learning based on semi-supervised behaviour with "almost" labeld data? As reward and punishment behaviour, in short do or die?

• Oceans
• Forests
• Thicket
• Plains
• Animals
• Plants

Are all present in an ecosystem? Still the choice of the group and the selection pressure would create the genetic expression that based on the cause and effect the enviroment produces? Genetic expressions over periods of time changes? I dunno for example and it's a stupid one trust me.

Humanoid apes loosing their tail as a survival advantage for example swinging in the forest like a monkey? As speed would certainly be a part of athletecism for monkeys/apes? In general...

Why does genetics need to be the root cause for it not having the whole perspective? What about epi genetic changes? What about the brain?

For example a fat guy that trains himself in this day and age to a muscular guy and creates progeny as a musculur guy, his offspring will also have more of these genetics as far as I know from podcasts of scientists. (Dr. Rhonda Patrick) 

So how come dynamics and changes are not included and genetics is looked at as a fixed trait. When re-inforcement can consistently happen, especially when culture rewards it like athelecism and the guy who is fat turned into muscles, creates progeny. Is this to far-fetched?

I don't know why genetics need to be a fixed thing. Yes they are partially no? Do my genetics change when I workout? When I eat certain foods. Then how is anything fixed to beginn with? These are just stale observations no?

Maybe I am stupid, yes call me out please if I am stupid.

There certainly can be a weeding out proccess and also the agency of an individual can change the genetics of the entire group by sharing a specific trait? Then to progency sharing that specific trait. Although the likelyhood of survival would certainly decrease. Anway. Just here for some random cents.

Edited October 18, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The fact any selection works at all implies that genetics offers a variety of options to choose from, in the first place. 

The options being individuals with a high IQ relative to the population? Yeah, duh. That doesn't mean the population (Jews) had to have a higher IQ compared to another population (non-Jews) for the literacy obligation to have an effect. You can have two equal populations and then end up with differences based on the different selections pressures. Again, you're mixing up individuals and populations.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Bobby_2021]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The options being individuals with a high IQ relative to the population? Yeah, duh

Duhh.. you admitted that eye colour could be genetics.

That point means that IQ is genetic. By genetic, I mean that it's ingrained in your biological memory and wiring in the brain. Your IQ tends to be a good predictor of your childs IQ, means IQ can be selected and bread. 

The reason why some cultures don't have predominantly blue eye colour is because having such a trait didn't offer a survival advantage.

In the same way, IQ is also genetics, in any person, of any IQ, in any given sample.

Eye colour and IQ is exactly the same from an evolutionary point of view. 

Both are caused by genetics, eye colour has little more to do with genetics. 

It's not that hard to understand. 

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That doesn't mean the population (Jews) had to have a higher IQ compared to another population (non-Jews) for the literacy obligation to have an effect.

(Yes. That point dosen't mean that jews had a Higher IQ, initially l, before the mandate. The purpose of my point was to establish that IQ is genetic.)

The correct reason to argue for the fact that jews have a high IQ even before the mandate, is that only high IQ population are obsessed with advanced education.

The fact that they mandated literacy and valued fiddling with advanced complex concepts is a clear indication that they were high IQ.

It's sort of like saying Magnus Carlsen became the world chess champion because he came from a society that valued chess. That's true.

But you need to be above a certain level of intellectual competence even to appreciate the intricacies of something like chess, let alone be the world champion. Literally, your brain need to be wired differently in order for you to do complex stuff. 

You choose to conveniently ignore this point that ultimately end up as the elephant in the room.

Why did they mandate literacy and education when other tribes were busy hunting tigers? 

Selection pressure caused due to literacy mandates surely could have contributed to it. But that's not the sole reason. That's a small linear analysis which sheds light on one aspect. 

Think about this, Jamaican genetics are superior when it comes to sprinting. You need not sweat to explain whether the reason is caused by historical events or whatever.

The observation is that they have BETTER GENETICS due to whatever reason. 

The only thing I am saying is that they have better genetics. This is explained by their current performance. As a matter of fact any person who consistently obsessed with philosophy, academia and earns Money in tech, banking is genetically gifted. 

It could easily be the case that nature simply decided to give better genetics to a group of people which helps them excel in a particular domain. 

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can have two equal populations and then end up with differences based on the different selections pressures

You certainly can. But you are far from proving that this is the case in reality.

And it's a huge assumption to make that all cultures have the same starting points. No two culture is the same.

My arguments need not have to prove anything. It's self explanatory.

If Magnus Carlsen becomes the world champion, then it is undeniable that he has superb genetics.

If Einstein wins the nobel prize and does superb physics, it is undeniable that he has superb genetics.

When jews win 20% of the nobel prizes, it's also true that they have pretty good genetics.

It's self explanatory from their success in the modern world. 

Environment shapes gentics by natural selection. 

Or it could simply the case that they had better genetics all the way. 

The latter is more likely because dumbfucks do not want to study advanced stuff nor show interest in these stuff in the first place.

These literacy mandates could have simply collapsed for some random fucking reason. But it still kept producing bright people because they were already smart.

So there are good reasons to assert that they were too smart to begin with. 

[Bobby_2021]

@ValiantSalvatore bro just chill. It's just a case to prove a point. It's NOT meant to be rigorous.

You are going on a rant more than giving a valid reasoning or arguments 

I never said that IQ and intelligence is the same. It's just that intelligence cannot be quantified or tested by mechanisms deviced by humans. 

Also due to your particular history you may perceive certain things to be racist because you live in a culture where extreme racism has happened in the past. You are most likely overcompensating for it. I don't share that history do I will be more free and open to talking about it without any stigma. 

Nothing around here is racist. 

 

On 10/16/2022 at 11:10 PM, ValiantSalvatore said:

Human life is much broader even in academia they will use multiple intelligence test and they are looking for new ways to quantify intelligence. 

If you are talking about multiple intelligence theory, then it has never been tested nor validated, or measured outside the context of IQ. 

The same is not true about IQ. 

[Carl-Richard]

49 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Duhh.. you admitted that eye colour could be genetics.

That point means that IQ is genetic. By genetic, I mean that it's ingrained in your biological memory and wiring in the brain. Your IQ tends to be a good predictor of your childs IQ, means IQ can be selected and bread. 

The reason why some cultures don't have predominantly blue eye colour is because having such a trait didn't offer a survival advantage.

In the same way, IQ is also genetics, in any person, of any IQ, in any given sample.

Eye colour and IQ is exactly the same from an evolutionary point of view. 

Both are caused by genetics, eye colour has little more to do with genetics. 

It's not that hard to understand. 

(Yes. That point dosen't mean that jews had a Higher IQ, initially l, before the mandate. The purpose of my point was to establish that IQ is genetic.)

The correct reason to argue for the fact that jews have a high IQ even before the mandate, is that only high IQ population are obsessed with advanced education.

The fact that they mandated literacy and valued fiddling with advanced complex concepts is a clear indication that they were high IQ.

It's sort of like saying Magnus Carlsen became the world chess champion because he came from a society that valued chess. That's true.

But you need to be above a certain level of intellectual competence even to appreciate the intricacies of something like chess, let alone be the world champion. Literally, your brain need to be wired differently in order for you to do complex stuff. 

You choose to conveniently ignore this point that ultimately end up as the elephant in the room.

Why did they mandate literacy and education when other tribes were busy hunting tigers? 

Selection pressure caused due to literacy mandates surely could have contributed to it. But that's not the sole reason. That's a small linear analysis which sheds light on one aspect. 

Think about this, Jamaican genetics are superior when it comes to sprinting. You need not sweat to explain whether the reason is caused by historical events or whatever.

The observation is that they have BETTER GENETICS due to whatever reason. 

The only thing I am saying is that they have better genetics. This is explained by their current performance. As a matter of fact any person who consistently obsessed with philosophy, academia and earns Money in tech, banking is genetically gifted. 

It could easily be the case that nature simply decided to give better genetics to a group of people which helps them excel in a particular domain. 

You certainly can. But you are far from proving that this is the case in reality.

And it's a huge assumption to make that all cultures have the same starting points. No two culture is the same.

My arguments need not have to prove anything. It's self explanatory.

If Magnus Carlsen becomes the world champion, then it is undeniable that he has superb genetics.

If Einstein wins the nobel prize and does superb physics, it is undeniable that he has superb genetics.

When jews win 20% of the nobel prizes, it's also true that they have pretty good genetics.

It's self explanatory from their success in the modern world. 

Environment shapes gentics by natural selection. 

Or it could simply the case that they had better genetics all the way. 

The latter is more likely because dumbfucks do not want to study advanced stuff nor show interest in these stuff in the first place.

These literacy mandates could have simply collapsed for some random fucking reason. But it still kept producing bright people because they were already smart.

So there are good reasons to assert that they were too smart to begin with. 

I can't be asked with this Gish gallop brain rot. I made one simple point in a short 3-line paragraph, and you respond with 30 spaced out seizure-inducing sentences. Condense your writing.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Bobby_2021]

44 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I can't be asked with this Gish gallop brain rot. I made one simple point in a short 3-line paragraph, and you respond with 30 spaced out seizure-inducing sentences. Condense your writing.

Nuances need more than 3 lines. Some others reading this may find it useful. That's why I give indepth explanations. 

Making a naive distinctions like

Is it environment or is it gentics, Is silly. 

Surely you can condense it that way. 

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Making a naive distinctions like

Is it environment or is it gentics, Is silly. 

Why are you writing this in separate lines? It's one sentence. You're a pain in the ass to read.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Bobby_2021]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why are you writing this in separate lines? It's one sentence. You're a pain in the ass to read.

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

It's different for different people I guess. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[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