Bobby_2021

Here is a better way to reframe this statement because it is self contradictory: Literacy obligation is the main cause of *jews having better genetics*, which in turn, is the cause of their success in the real world. Saying that literacy obligation is the cause for their success and not genetics, when literacy obligation is what literally caused better genetics, is self contradictory. As a matter of fact, anyone or any group that succeeds in the modern world has genetics directly working in their favour. Jews are no exception. You can trace the success of jews to high average IQ, first. There is no direct evidence Linkin literacy obligation and selection pressure. Literacy obligation leading to a selection pressure for high IQ, is an assumption. Do you have any records showing that 18 years old jews who couldn't study and recite Torah, was not given a chance to reproduce? The article you posted admits that there is little evidence for literacy obligation exerting some kind of selection pressure. It is merely a presumption based on the fact that their population didn't expand quite as much as the others during the 18th century. Exerpt from the text: The first scenario explores the possibility that the mandate was a pain in the ass to finance. It was so expensive at the time that many jews left jewish culture so that they don't have to put up with this. The pressure was economic rather than selection for IQ. People who were weeded out of Jewish culture were not low iq jews who couldn't keep up with the education, but those who didn't have the money to keep up with the mandatory education. This also explains the second scenario why the population of jews didn't explode like others. There is no direct evidence for selection pressure caused due to the mandate. I agree that it's a possibility. But you need evidence that it actually happened among jews with some historical records and not presumptions and possibilities. Remember the Occam's razor. The side with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct. I don't make any assumptions. I am saying that jews have better genetics (evidently from their success) and have had them for a long time. The simplest explanation. For the sake of argument let me accept that selection pressures exerted by literacy obligation did infact, increased the IQ of jews. Let me ask you, what kind of people tend to obsess with manipulating words and symbols in the first place. The culture had to be high IQ to value something as abstract like literacy. Apologies in advance if my post is too long. I tried my best to condense it. If you make a wrong statement, I cannot deconstruct your statement in one sentence. It will definitely take more to unravel it. Anyway here is a summary for your convenience: In summary: 1. There is no direct evidence for selection pressure exerted by literacy obligation. 2. A culture that is obsessed with literacy and mandate it to their youth is already most likely high IQ to begin with. Low IQs do not value literacy and abstract thinking because they are not capable of it. 3. If literacy obligation did exert a sufficient selection pressure, it still doesn't invalidate the possibility that they were already high IQ in the first place, purely due to genetics. On top of that selection pressures may have further increased the average IQ, although there is little evidence for it.

Okay. There were subtle things that I found annoying about your style that I choose to ignore. I just like to stick to the topic at hand. Also, some people find spaced text more easy to read. Either of them is not an absolute standard by the way. A dense block of text is easy to ignore. You stated that eye colour is genetic while IQ isn't, with respect to natural/artificial selection. What is the fundamental difference? Isn't it reasonable to assume that both are genetic?

Question for men above 25 years of age. If you have an option to date a virgin girl and a 20 body count girl, which one would you choose, given that everything else being equal, more or less?

Noted @Carl-Richard I would personally prefer to keep it super short and sweet. But I value deep long explanations and nuanced reasoning. It takes more work from my side. Others clearly understanding my position is my absolute priority. I don't expect you to respond to all my points. Some are merely explanations to strengthen my side. I realise that it's making it harder for you to filter out the specific points relevant to the conversation. But plenty of relevant points do exist. Complaining about writing style is just weak. Just respond to points with apt reasoning. I may summarise everything I said in this thread later.

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.

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.

@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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

Taking notes just dosen't work for me. I like to watch and contemplate the things that stick to me.

There is no need to avoid anything. All of the video show a progression of growth of the individual. You should worry more about missing out on the insights in the videos that you have already watched.

Nope, in any kind of significant levels. Quickly after you jerk off you will notice a decrease, but it isn't enough to affect you on any significant level. Overall, not important. What's important is how you feel about it. If you feel guilty about it, then you may feel sad and depressed which in turn affect your T level. Obsessing about jerkin off isn't a good thing overall. Do it and forget about it. Thinking about it takes away even more of your time.

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

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

You may misunderstand his expert manipulations of people and systems as tier 2. He is capable of that. Apart from that there is nothing that he displays is even close to tier 2. He clearly says that there is nothing more to life than women, cars and money. He is on peak survival mode. Not the being mode that is in tier 2. He presents himself as if he has done everything and now he is sharing the news of his awakening to the whole world. Also he has shit political Takes like endorsement of Trump and rigging the system in favour of rich people. This aspect of Tate is something I didn't like even when I was following him so ardently

Imma graduate of chadistans University.

Not if he is running actualized.org

Thank you so much. This is the only place on the internet where you get to talk about controversial topics and dig deeper, while also doing it respectfully. Absolutely. Infact you could make a case that the most rash drivers are also men. But that's another claim. Lewis Hamilton probably crashed more cars than you or me. But still he is a better driver than you or me. Excellence is a double edged sword The real claim should be that women are *safer* drivers than men, not better. I thought the talking point of younger women having less expensive with women was more *attractive* and not exploitable. I haven't yet watched the whole Tate Morgan interview yet. Just a few clips. I would have furiously defended him a couple of months ago. I am kinda growing out of Tate to be honest.

Yeah then what about Bill Gates who used to hang around with Epstein and possibly have had a hand in those nefarious activities. Who will risk their lives investigating those? Plenty of extremely powerful people in society felt like Epstein was too much to a threat so that's why he was "suicided" in custody. His death is the literally the reason to protect the interests of a greater number of devils. Also why is the media silent about Ghislaine Maxwell trial? She is guilty of sex trafficking. Where is her clients list. Why is it not public? All to protect the interests of devils who did devilry along with Epstein. And the media and judiciary is playing along with it. Truly scary. Their silence is payed for by the devils. You are looking at a handful of devils like Johnes who is obviously a fucking idiot who should fuck up. Epstein was extremely clever although he went too far with his devilry and things got out of hand. But there are plenty of crony capitalist CEOs that manages to escape the radars leading peaceful and calm life with the millions they grifted from the public. Look at bankers who make decisions that will crash the economy and live their life with no consequences. They are in the majority, when you compare with those devils who got what they deserved. Like how many bankers were held accountable for the 2008 economic crisis? Where is their karma? They have all managed to escape. It's hard to calculate net worth. Especially celebrity networth. But Buggati posted his car on his official Instagram account with the name Tate 16. He definitely has money. Hustler University brings in close to 5 mill/month. Just by calculation. Enough to buy cars and pay for private planes. Private planes require around $30k for a flight. Anyway none of those are important. He is definitely not putting up a show for what I am saying. Dan Bilzerian has obviously rented cars and models to make up for his poor social skills. Fair enough. Iam sure if you confront Tate with this he would correct himself as this is something he said when he had small number of followers. If he doesn't, that's genuinely sexist. But is that all? Is that all the outrage is about? Piers Morgan called him sexist because he said that a 19 year old woman is more attractive than a 25 years old woman. Watching this I am like, yeah that's true lol, like most of the time. So what? I think what's more important is how people *feel* about an argument versus what exactly the argument says. Ok. Gather 50 men and 50 women at random. Now make them compete in a formula one race. Make it as rigorous and difficult as possible. Record the results. Redo the experiment with different samples. Now look at the results and there is your scientific study. There is a reason why only a handful of women compete in top racing events. Men have higher Testersterone levels so that they can regulate stress more easily, be clam, take risks and drive in perilous and risky conditions. They also have better sense of direction, calculation and judgement of roads, dimensions of vehicles etc. Men are. More logical which helps in these areas. (Another possible sexist claim). Again this is on AVERAGE. I am sure that there are better woman drivers who are far better than many male drivers. But on *average*, men are better drivers. Just like men are taller than women. Some women exist who are taller than men. But on average men are taller. Number of times of cars crash isn't a good metric for determining excellence. https://youtube.com/shorts/4FL5uGbU_FA?feature=share I mostly agree with everything else @Leo Gura mentioned in the quoted post.

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.

For someone who's net worth exceeds a few hundred millions, does it really matter in the long run? His social media presence is not completely zero. He still continues to have a voice among young men, although not as much he had earlier. The idea that devilry boomerangs to yourself is absurd to me. The devils live among us and hell is empty. If I have to give up all my social media accounts for a few hundred millions, I would gladly take it. I don't see a problem with any events happening. I want someone like Tate to exist. I also want angry feminists to exist. Cancelling him was going a bit too far, but that's also necessary in some kind of twisted way, although I am against cancelling anyone, on a personal level. Terms like "Toxic masculinity" are only exacerbating the problem. It's well understood that too much of anything is toxic. So calling anything Toxic is meaningless unless something is so explicitly toxic, which isn't the case with masculinity. Ultra right wing figures like Tate & Trump, although they are entirely different in their own rights, are a reaction to stifling and suffocating men for who they are. If you criticize white men for the killing and raping their ancestors did some 300 years ago, they will repress all those emotions and let them go in the polling booth after 4 years. Somewhat the same is happening with Tate. Not a single woman has come forward saying Tate has misbehaved with them despite him hanging around with thousands of women. This is an impressive record for the most famous man on the planet. Just a bunch of allegations with zero evidence and zero victims. You can literally see plenty of Joe Biden videos where is found kissing and touching underage girls on Camera, saying creepy stuff no one shows outrage for it, even though he made lots of women uncomfortable. https://youtu.be/DAUOurZIVfI And Tate will be called a sexist for saying that Men are stronger than women or that men are better drivers than women, even though they are scientific and factual claims. It's just that different standards for different people, and people react based on how they feel with their knee jerk reaction without giving any serious thought. I don't feel too much compassion for Tate either since he also took advantage of the same triggering mechanisms to gain popularity within a short period of time and managed to monetize it and rake in huge profit. So in some sense it did backfire, but he already made the Lion's share prior to cancellation, and still continues to do.

A lot of things that we do is bad for the environment. Our task is to balance and minimise the loss of environment while maximising the benifits we get from the damage we do to the environment. The net forest area in US has only been growing despite being the largest producer of beef. Which means that the loss of forest is not that great as the environmentalists want you to believe. Maybe you should try to find methods to implement more effective strategies like work form home which helps to reduce emissions, instead of focusing our efforts to cut down beef consumption which may not be that big of a deal when it comes to climate change.

The whole foundation of this vegan discussion is centred around advanced economies. Almost half of the worldwide deforestation occurs in two countries, Brazil and Indonesia. These people really don't have much choice. Beef production will not have contributed to deforestation, if they had access to superior technology and methods of agriculture that is in US. The US produces 18% of the world's beef. The amount of forest area in the US has only been slightly increasing not decreasing. It's because they can feed on grass, take shit in the grass, and the whole carbon cycle continues. They can eat the waste from crop production factories. All of those are converted into food in the form of meat. Beef production has been ultra efficient in the US if you compare it to these "tropical countries", who may not have the tech or infrastructure to reach such levels of efficiency. Beef production can work in sync with plant production, if you can organise the whole process systematically. This conversation could be interesting if you could pull up stats just from the united states. Worldwide stats are misleading. Brazil may give you 1 kg of beef by clearing some area of forest land. The same 1 kg of beef may come form a cow who has been grown besides a factory that produces plant waste. No forest has to be cleared at all, if you can make the production efficient.

You didn't say artificial selection. You merely stated "literacy obligation" as the explanation for the high IQ of jews. Those are entirely different claims. Artificial selection means breeding a population for a certain trait by eliminating those without such traits. Again the reason traits for any reason at all is genetics. The environment is not actively increasing the IQ. Environment is just letting them survive. The reason why Albert Einstein's IQ is 160, is genetics. The reason why a child is retarded (Iq 60) is also genetics. By eliminating the retarded child (artificial selection), although you can put forth a claim that the average IQ of the sample is increased, by "some historical occurrence", therby citing and environmental factor, the fact that someone has an IQ of 160 itself is pure genetics. Scientists may not be wrong. But I can't comment on it since I don't know the context of the study. You can observe slight increases in IQ depending upon how you conduct the test. There are many restrictions to be laid down before conducting IQ tests. You cannot take the same test over and over again and report that you have increased the IQ simply because you have increased the scores. You are supposed to take the test with zero preperation. You can also device tests where preperation is involved (like SATs) but now scores will appear more variables due to variance in preperation and amount of time dedicated to study. None of these are actual IQ tests but tests that gives close correlation to actual IQ tests. What an IQ test essentially does to Guarantee replicability is to eliminate factors that induce variations like preperation and study time. When all candidates have zero study time, and they all take the same test, they all will get different scores. That is the actual IQ. You can manipulate the scores to get them higher or lower by violating how you conduct IQ tests. The score merely dictates the speed at which you learn intellectually rigorous topics. You cannot increase the speed at which you learn, really. You can optimise your surroundings and it will surely impact you speed. But environment has it's limits. The fact that you want to sabotage an informative conversation, conducted politely & respectfully, says a lot about you. ok. What is the main reason for the difference then? I want to hear your explanation completely. Forget about everything else. @zurew

It could be healthy if you can dedicate lots of energy into making it that way. I am simply not in a position to dedicate my time into it. The original idea of supplements is to supplement your body with what your food cannot. Supplementation is fine. Supplements are not a replacement, which is the way vegans see it. It a cope to make up for the lack of meat.