zurew

So again, I agree with the point you wrote above, but that alone doesn't prove your argument. I can accept that piece of information above and say that "yes IQ can be defined, measured, tested, replicated but there are environmental factors that can affect IQ, so I am not sure if the reason why Jew's IQ is higher than other groups is mainly because of their genetics". Yes, and I say it again, that I am not married to the explanation that environment is the main reason why, there is a difference between Jews and other groups of people when it comes to IQ. So, again we can't argue on points if you don't accept certain underlying points. Most scientist agree, that the quality of study and how much you study can affect your level of IQ, but if you don't accept that, then we can't argue on further points. On this case, I don't see why can't you accept that piece of information, what I wrote above. Why is the case, that you blindly believe certain pieces of information (that the Jews IQ is 112) when you have never measured it yourself, you just take that for granted, and when I show you a different peice of information that is pretty much widely agreed upon, you can't accept it. In order for you to accept that the Jews actually have 112IQ you would have to take for granted many things, because you haven't validated any of these things yourself, so you just blindly believe in all these: That there is such a thing as IQ That IQ can be measured That IQ can be precisely measured That IQ actually correlates well with good grades and good performance in school That the study that you are using to inform you about Jews having 112 IQ measured their IQ correctly and that they didn't do any mistake intentionally or unintentionally That data that was used to conclude that an average Jew has 112IQ So lets get back to your "observation" regarding those points above and tell me: What did you observe about any of those? How can you possibly observe that there is such a thing as IQ? How can you observe on your own, that the reason why certain students will be good in school is because they probably have high IQ? How do you know, that an IQ can be measured in the firstplace, when you have never built an IQ test and you don't even know how it should be built and why, How can you observe what method(s) and test(s) need to be used to properly measure IQ? How can you observe that Jews really have 112 IQ or not, when you didn't do the measuring yourself, and you didn't collect the data yourself So this is not a good argument either. Yes, scientist changed their positions on many many topics, but that doesn't mean that there were other people who were doing better sensemaking and a more reliable epistemic process compared to them. Most people who didn't agree ,they didn't have a good reasioning why they didn't agree with those scientist and they couldn't prove their points they just believed in the opposite what the scientist said or they were just simply religious. So its not just about whether you are right or not at that time or in the current times, its about whether your epistemic process is more reliable than the scientific method when it comes to specific subjects. My claim is that your own observation is much more unreliable and problematic on many occasions and instances. There are several reasons why: Everyone has their own biases and those could be called blindspots because you can't see them in many cases. More people can see more things because most people have different biases, so why not let more people do an analysis compared to you doing just everything on your own with biases you can't see? In most of the cases, to get to your consclusion just on your own: you would have to have emourmous amount of knowledge in specific fields, you would have to have all the measurements, all the data, all the neccesary equipment to do the calculations and the measurements with. So if you don't have any of those, you have to accept the fact, that you need to rely on outside information and that you can't validate everything just on your own. Even if you have the first two parts in place, you would still need to validate a thousand more points on your own, so for istance, if you ever want to use any source to inform your reasoning, then you have to either validate every piece of information from that source, or you have to take certain pieces of information from that source for granted, that you have no way to validate or to measure. Now, that being said does that mean, that you have to hold in every instance the positions that most scientists hold? No, especially not, when it comes to philosophical and spiritual questions, but when it comes to scientific fields there will be information that you cannot possibly validate on your own, so you will have to take certain things for granted and you have to be aware of that and you have to accept that. You have never observed the Earth from space, so you can not be sure how it looks. You try to use the reason that the reason why you don't believe the Earth is flat is because you don't see the edge, but that doesn't prove your point. It could mean that you haven't been close to the edge, or "some models propose that the Earth’s edges are surrounded by a wall of ice holding in the oceans. Others suggest our flat planet and its atmosphere are encased in a huge, hemispherical snow globe from which nothing can fall off the edges" Good luck properly debunking with your layman knowledge all the flat earth claims. So to conclude the Earth is not flat because I can't see the edge is not as good of a reasoning as you think it is. Also you not being able to see the edge doesn't prove that the Earth shape have to be an ellipsoid, because there are many geometric forms that have round edges and just from your reasoning there is a possiblity that the Earth's shape could be any of those. So just to be clear, I am not a flat earther, I just wanted to show you, that debunking certain information is really hard, and sometimes you have to be an expert to properly debunk certain claims and information. In most cases, you would have to be a physics phd to be able to properly explain to a flat earther everything in a coherent way with no mistakes or inconsistencies. There is a difference between letting others to reason for you vs letting others to inform you. In this specific instance, I let scientist to inform me about this topic, and the "informing" in this case means me accepting that the environment has a significant impact when it comes to IQ. If I accept that information, then of course I won't automatically accept your reasoning that "it must be mainly because of their genetics" without you giving proof that the environment is not that significant or proof that even if we count most environment factors Jews still have higher IQ-s or proof that young Jew kids have higher IQ-s than other kids - thats 3 different ways to prove your point or to strengthen your point. In the case of you visiting doctors, why do you drop your observations and why let doctors to outsource your thinking?

The purpose of "ifs" and hypotheticals is to test whether you would be willing to change your position or not if certain aspects and criteria would be in place. Thats the first part that have to be in place, because its not reasonable to try to argue on a point if there is no way to change your mind. The second part would be about arguing on those points whether or not a vegan or a vegetarian diet would really meat your criteria(s). So we go from abstract to tangible. If you don't even agree on an abstract level (in principles, in certain criteria) you sure as hell won't agree on a tangible level.

Good share, thanks!

I am not a vegetarian or a vegan, but they are superior when it comes to morality. If I were to test the consistency of your moral system regarding this topic, more than likely you would either have to take a ridiculous position or your morality wouldn't be consistent. - So trying to dunk on their morality is stupid, imo. I don't think anyone is using the same logic you are suggesting here. If you try to point to contradictions in positions, then ask for positions and then point to contradicitions, don't make up hypothetical positions on your own, that no one takes.

Regarding to your wikipedia link, yes, there are and there were problems regarding to that, but its nowhere near as bad as you want to make it look like. If you want to compare the reliability of your own observations to scientific papers, then you must be incredibly narcissistic to always choose your own "observation" in scenarios, where basically most scientist are disagreeing with you and you have almost no data in your hand and you have no process to properly or reliably process any data. Regarding you trying to dunk on my reasoning is very funny, because you clearly don't see the logical jump that you are making ,when you try to "reason". "Jews have higher IQ than others, therefore it must be because of their genetics, because I just assume that the environment don't have any significant impact on IQ levels" --> "I assume that the environment don't have any significant impact on IQ, regardless of most scientist and expert not agreeing with me on this, but I don't care, because my observation is more reliable than the vast majority of research that was done by experts" You think this is a good or strong point, right? Let me test your epistemic process by asking you this question: Do think the Earth's shape is flat or that it is an ellipsoid? Will you tell me, that you proved and used mathematics on your own to prove , that the Earth shape is an ellipsoid, or will you tell me, that you are blindly believing scientist and organisations that are providing the knowledge, and the pictures to you about the Earth's shape? Or will you tell me, that regarding to every topic and every belief and opinion you hold ,none of those will ever be replaced by any outside opinion, or stats or hypothesis, but only by you testing everything on your own, and thats the only way that you will ever take an action or will trust anything? If the answer is no, because that must be the answer, then you can realise, that your attempt of trying to dunk on people (including me) when it comes to specific topics, just because we trust science on those topics, is not necessarily that dumb or bad, as you first suggested . That has little to do with the topic at hand. I don't know if its suprising to you or not, but even Leo is trusting science on many instances, where he doesn't have the time nor the capability nor the capacity nor enough knowledge to test everything on his own.

Why would betaing anyone at anything would have anything to do with health? I can use PEDs and I can beat you at most things, but that doesn't mean I am more healthy than you. Lets get into specifics, what a vegan or a vegetarian is missing when he/she is not eating meat?

Thanks for the share!

Yes. There are multiple reasons could be given why it will possibly happen. It seems others already gave the 'lab meat' reason. Other reason will be about the environment, because its less harsh on the environment. Other reason is the basic one (morality). From these, probably the lab meat and the environment will be the biggest motivating factors.

There is another way to try to prove or to strengthen the theory if someone really want to, that Jews have superior genetics when it comes to intelligence, and this could be done by measuring the g factor between jewish children and not jewish children and then see the averages. The same could be done with IQ. Measuring IQ or the g factor in early stages of life could exclude most of the environmental factors that could effect IQ or g factor results later in life.

There is surely some correlation between survival and intelligence, but I don't know how much weight it holds, because survival and intelligence definitely not goes hands in hand. There are plenty of people that are good at survival, but they couldn't necessarily be considered above average intelligent, or highly intelligent. But yeah there is a standard level of intelligence you need to hit, to be able to survive above that I don't know how hard the relationship is between survival and intelligence.

Its not about him not being open to the possibility of porn being harmful. He is right about his criticism about the paper you cited. It doesn't prove causality. You still have the opportunity to prove your point with a different study.

Don't just tell me, that I'm wrong, show me exactly how I'm wrong and whats wrong with the study i linked. I told you what was the problem with you trying to use your second study to prove your point. Firstly, its funny that you are accusing me of not reading every page of all your sources, when your own source disagreed with you on one of you major point (which implies that you didn't read more than a few sentences from your own source). You sent me two sources, the first source is saying the opposite what you are saying , the second source is about Ashkenazi Jews and their intelligence . I already told you, that your source about Ashkenazi Jews won't be enough to prove your point , because it doesn't take into account the environmental factors and you still haven't been able to disprove, that environmental factors are insignificant. Thats why there is this thing called peer review. Other scientists will test your hypothesis using their own data and see if your conclusion is true or not. Its not like you can pass randomly any idea to be accepted by the general scientific consesus. So far, the scientific consensus seem to disagree with environment not being significant and with your study, (that IQ difference between groups is explained mainly by genetic difference.) Most researchers disagree with you, most study disagree with you. So knowing all that, why do you still have a strong confidence in your narrative? Notice, that I am open to the possibility, that your narrative is right, but I don't sense the same from your side. I already told you a way how to prove your point, or at the very least how to strengthen your point, but I think there is no way that I could show you, that would change your opinion on this matter. Whats that, if not motivated reasioning and ideological bias?

Thats one study, and even if I take that study for granted, that study didn't take into account the environment factors. Again, you either have to prove or show me a study that make the same point that you made (that the environment has no signifanct effect on one's iQ) or you need to show me a study, where that study takes into account the environment factors and still results in large IQ differences between an average jewish person and a person who is not Jewish. That study only proved that certain group of Jews have really high IQ, but didn't prove, that it must be because of genetical superiority. Also, the one who tries to prove a point is you, so the burden of proof is not on me , but on you. Thats a good caricature of the points, that your own source made, but it seems that you still don't think that environment can have a significant effect on iq , although your own source and mine doesn't agree with you. I could bring even more studies that would prove my point but its insignificant , because you don't even bother to try to learn how this topic works. No certain parts of your argument was not relevant, and I even told you how to construct your own argument, but you didn't do that. There is a way for you to prove your point at the very least to some degree even if you can't prove it totally, but your current way of doing it is not sufficient and I didn't just say that its not relevant, I told you what parts are relevant and why. The more study we do about this topic and the more variables are taken into account the clearer picture we can get. So for example if certain variables are high and we still don't see that much of a difference in IQ , then we can start to properly weight those variables , so we can find the significant variables. Its not just a random article , its a study where links are provided ,reasons are provided, sources are provided, methodology is provided etc. You can for example directly attack the methodology if you want to, but you have to give reasons why that particular study is weak or misleading or biased. Thats when we start to dig into those studies and look what methodology was used, what groups of people were involved in that study , and how it was done etc, and then we can attack those parts and decide which one is more reliable or if there is any study that reliable at all on this topic. I am open to the possibility, that the genetics part could be significant, but that part have to be properly established, and there is way to establish that, or at the very least to try to make that point more plausible or stronger. You don't need to listen to me, you can check the study, that I linked and attack it if you want to, then we have something to debate/talk about. Also, if two people disagree on a topic based on personal intuition, then the next step is to find a new way other than appealing to our own knowledge about a certain field or problem and that is when the discussion/debate should shift to studies. Our disagreement is a factual disagreement, and obviously just from our own observations and intuitions we don't have access to all the data and we don't neccesarily know how to properly process that data, so its reasonable to try to find some studies about it, where experts can have a say about it and hopefully properly gather and process the data. The only way to test our biases and assumptions on this topic, is to find studies that are taking into account our assumptions. The good part is that you don't have to blindly believe in those studies, you can analyze them, and you can maybe find contra studies and you can analyze where they disagree, and hopefully you can figure out why they disagree

Sure, I won't disagree that it is indeed a good tool to develop the "fighting spirit" , I am just saying that thats not the only tool to develop that aspect and we have to also keep in mind what fighting is capable giving(hard work, discipline, learn how to fight) and what not (an ability to fight most of your insecurities)

Getting punched in the face is just one option from the many ,that you can use the "put yourself under adversity". You can challenge yourself in many ways, also keep in mind that its not just about putting yourself under adversity, but more about challenging your insecurities. Even the best professional fighters have certain things that they avoid, and for them its much easier to endure getting punched in the face than to face their fears.

Haha. Bobby is the most trustable and unbiased source on Earth, academics and scientists should rely on his observation, instead of gathering data and trying to make a study about complex topics. This doesn't strengthen your argument, and it seems that you want to attack the validity of studies, because you have nothing really to refute the points my linked study makes. You don't know that, you just assume that. It seems that you haven't read the study that I linked here, because it goes against your narrative. Read the actual study instead of making assumptions about what it does or doesn't do. Your point about environment having a small impact one one's IQ is false, and multiple studies are showing that. You make confident claims without bothering to read and to look at actual studies. There are like 20+ sited links in the study I linked, and you can read and look through all of those and you can read the methodology and everything. You are making points that are not relevant to the discussion and things that no one refutes. It seems you have a hard time sensing what arguments and points you have to prove in order to prove your consclusion. You have to show that the impact of enivronmental factors on IQ are really insignificant, or if you concede that they are significant , then you need to show a study, where all the environmental factors are taken into account and with similar environmental factors and an average Jew will have a significantly higher IQ than any other average person. If you bother to read two more sentences after that then you can see this point: Your own source disproving your point.

If you are that confident ,then go for it, but don't bullshit yourself with high confidence, if you haven't validated things yourself. You do you, but you don't have to be a professional fighter to improve those aspects. Only you can know what you want to do, however be conscious of what things you are relying on. Check if those things are just assumptions, or are things that were directly validated by you.

Healing might be possible via some spiritual technique / power, however why would you count on it, and why not prevent the damage in the firstplace? Also, I would assume that most healing techniques would either require talent or enourmous amount of practice, so I wouldn't assume that its just an easy given that you can safely count on.

I agree with that, my point was that it would be much harder to detect and trace back in a decentralised system. And any system that involves markets and provides the ability to individuals to engage in a market and the right to own some things sounds very capitalistic to me, but labels doesn't matter here, what matter here is to see whether or not certain socalist changes would provide the necessary solutions to the problems it wants to solve in the firstplace. Depending on how serious of a legal case we are talking about,,making up a random reason isn't necessarily sufficient if evidence is not provided. Thats not the argument, the argument was artificial demand, which would mean, that you make stuff addictive and by the result of that, you take away peoples agency from being able to properly participate in the market. They wouldn't waste any manpower because if they make stuff addictive, then they can sell more shit. The exact same dynamic goes down in a capitalist system. The Boss doesn't ask himself (why the fuck would I waste my manpower and resources and money on shit people don't need and don't demand in the moment?) he rather ask himself this: "how could I make my service or item more addictive?" But they can't, because they are living on the edge, because they are earning exactly as much money as much the production cost is. You can't build something from nothing. Its not a baseless assumption. You can't build new shit from nothing. If you have a constant income and no profit you can only go so far, so this is actually an argument you have to provide a solution for if you have that type of socialist system. You can't grow the economy if there is no profit. So again in that system, that government couldn't do these things: What does that mean "you can start a business whenever", you wouldn't own the business, at the very best you would give an idea for a business. So you say the government would be involved as well, so ultimately the government would be the gatekeeper to decide how the market would go and transform and what new demand it would want to create. Not necessarily, there are things that can go unnoticed for a long time, and because of the decentralized structure, people wouldn't even be suspect that there would be people changing and editing stuff with a corrupt incentive, because they would just assume that in a decentralized system its impossible to make it corrupt. But again I concede that from the bottom-up it would be harder to do corrupt things, however that wouldn't necessarily be the case from the top-down.

1997 Berserk is perfect.

Some parts of wikipedia are indeed corrupt and you don't necessarily have to be a highly influencial people to achieve it. People can pay money to people to edit some parts of the wikipedia for their benefit or for their bias. How would you know if the people who are participating in the voting process are not heavily influenced by any party at all? Capitalist organization are generally for profit and give less fuck about ideology. But again, if you really want to protect people from an injustice like that you could make some laws or rules that would prevent them from doing firing on unnecessarily reasons. Now, what do you think would be easier? To make a law that restricts a boss from doing this or to make a law that restricts a large group of people from doing this? It seems that you only focus on the negative effects and ignore all the positive effects. Bias and profit orientation doesn't exclude the fact that it can have a positive impact on the world. Perfect working condition part has no effect on the point I made. You can have perfect working conditions people would still aim to earn as much profit as possible even if that would make other peoples life worse. Most people don't give a fuck about other people. Socialism doesn't mitigate this part. People working at a company and making its service or goods more addicting would have no direct effect on their salary, so why would they care? Your reasoning was that if the government owns all the companies, then thats necessarily indicates, that there will be less artifical demand, but you haven't provided a reason why that would be the case. So you are telling me, that the government would sell everything at the price of production cost? If thats the case, then that system will have many problems. For example, what would the government do with the increase of population, or with the increase in demand if it doesn't have any profit at all? It wouldn't be able to create more business(es), it wouldn't be able to provide more jobs, It wouldn't be able to maintain any business or service(because if things crash or if things break down that requires unexpected costs), It wouldn't have any power to change things even if people vote to change things etc, It wouldn't be able to deal with any catashropes or any crisis at all, it would have no power over things and that government would necessarily fail. And how many people would have the right to vote on it? All the people in the whole country, or just local people or something else?

You don't need a perfectly controlled study, we don't want you to provide a perfect study, but at least provide any study on this topic, because I can't do anything with your observation. Generally speaking controlled studies are much more reliable than your personal observations, so if you want to say, that you personal observation and assumptions about this subject will be more reliable ,then I have to disagree. When we are talking about studies we can see what methodology was used, what was the experiment, how many people were involved etcetc. We can see all the data and then other researchers can try to replicate the data. If replication ends in similar results by many repeated studies, then the conclusion can get stronger and stronger. Personal observation in this context means nothing. You have no idea how high a normal Jews IQ is based on your personal observations, you have to measure it. You don't know what are the relevant variables that affects one's IQ or intelligence based on your personal observations, you have to measure those as well, once you have a hypothesis you don't just conclude that it is true, because it sounds true to you, you have to test it and let other people to test it and see if they get similar results to you. You don't know how many variables can affect one's success in school , you don't know how many factors can affect one's IQ or intelligence. Again here you just begging the question and your assumption is your conclusion. This part is not relevant to your argument, so even if what you say about controlled environment would be true, that still wouldn't make your argument true about Jewish people. Noone is denying that part, but you haven't established or shown any study or evidence that would conclude and show that an average level Jewish person indeed will have a higher IQ than other average people. Yes , but again you can't ignore the environmental parts if you want to be very precise about this. If you really want to make sure that you are right ,then why not do these experiments and studies rigorously? No. None of those things proved your conclusion and you still haven't provided any study that would prove or strengthen your argument.

I haven't seen any rigorous studies that would conclude this or studies that would take into account many variables at the same time and do very isolated and controlled experiments and conclude that "yes, the reason or the main reason why certain group of people outperform other groups of people intellectually, is because of their genetics". Maybe, but 15 point difference would be a big difference. First you would have to establish and show that there is actually that much of a difference in iq between Jewish people and not Jewish people. First you have to establish and show that Jewish people have higher IQ, If you can prove that, then we should look at a study, that take into account all the effects that are outside of one's genetic, that can have an effect on a person's IQ. If you could show a study like that, and show that Jewish people still have higher IQ, then you might start to strengthen your hypothesis, but even then we wouldn't be done. Basically you would have to do and show many studies, and exclude many other explanations and do studies for all those.

One thing that we know statistically, that people who learn in private schools are consistently outperforming students who learn in mainstream schools. I think given a normal level of IQ, and very effective methods of teaching most people could get through college. Yeah IQ definitely matters, however, I don't think we did enough experiments with effective teaching methods to conclude confidently , that the main drive is always about genetics. These experiments are very hard to do, because you need to control many variables at the same time. Many things can have an effect on a kid's education and learning ability What classes are you reffering to? Even if you want to go with IQ there are things that can affect your IQ at the very least negatively. if you don't get certain things or if you suffer certain things that might cause that your IQ won't be as high as it would have been otherwise. So if we would want to do a proper analysis of this issue, we would have to look at many many things.

Based on what would you filter people?