Why are Jewish people so successful?

[Bobby_2021]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

What classes are you reffering to?

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-schools-to-eliminate-controversial-gifted-talented-classes/3313300/

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

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 iq difference. 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 kids education and learning ability

Teaching methods useless in my opinion, assuming that the teacher is decently good, and knows the subject and they are talking about. Not some bum.

I personally payed money to some teacher online because my college classes were taught by dumb teachers who couldn't even clear my doubts. So I do understand the value of having good teachers. But there is a limit to how good you can teach. 

A 130 IQ student with an Internet connection will outsmart someone who is 15 points lower than them even if they had a private tutor. 

I am sure that other variables do have a significant impact, like living standards, stress and nutrition.

But once those are controlled you don't see too much difference in the results. There are plenty of examples from which groups of people having high IQ but grew up in poverty outsmart their privileged peers. 

Talking about all of these factors without losing its essence in a single thread is hard.

I am always for equal opportunities.

I am also for unequal results. 

[Carl-Richard]

@Bobby_2021 I just think you're dealing way too much in hypotheticals and not any actual data.

[zurew]

26 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

But once those are controlled you don't see too much difference in the results.

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".

26 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

A 130 IQ student with an Internet connection will outsmart someone who is 15 points lower than them even if they had a private tutor. 

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.

Edited October 8, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

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".

1. All studies have limitations and the manipulate the data to fit their presumption. So a perfectly controlled study dosen't exist.

2. That's why you have to rely on your own observations and come to conclusion while also taking into account the studies and statistics that are occurring in the area. 

3. There is high chances that someone will misinterpret and accuse me of stuff because of comparing between classes of people. [Vibe of this forum is tending to woke]

4. You do not need to take into account 29 variable and control for them.

Classes of people from less privileged backgrounds can outperform people from more privileged backgrounds. 

One quick "study" is this:

Indian American women earn money equally or comparable to white men in US. 

Now think about this. Despite being women of color, doing all the housework and catering to kids, they earn just as much as privileged white men who do not have to worry about household work.

This is why controlling for environments is crap. If there were equal opportunities, then Indian American women should have been earning more than privileged white men in US.

IQ is the best predictor of academic success, which translates into more earnings and high career growth.

Denying the above statement is like denying the entirety of psychology.

Notice that the less privileged background of women didn't stop them from earning more than people who were extremely privileged. 

And IQ is largely driven by genetics.

(Refer to studies in psychology)

Environment factors exert only minimal influence on IQ. 

Jews should have IQs way higher than Indian American women in my opinion. That is simply genetics. 

These observations prove my point that controlling for environments is futile. 

Control for genetics and everything makes sense. 

[zurew]

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

1. All studies have limitations and the manipulate the data to fit their presumption. So a perfectly controlled study dosen't exist.

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. 

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's why you have to rely on your own observations and come to conclusion while also taking into account the studies and statistics that are occurring in the area. 

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.

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You do not need to take into account 29 variable and control for them.

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.

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

One quick "study" is this:

Indian American women earn money equally or comparable to white men in US. 

Now think about this. Despite being women of color, doing all the housework and catering to kids, they earn just as much as privileged white men who do not have to worry about household work.

This is why controlling for environments is crap. If there were equal opportunities, then Indian American women should have been earning more than privileged white men in US.

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.

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

IQ is the best predictor of academic success, which translates into more earnings and high career growth.

Denying the above statement is like denying the entirety of psychology.

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.

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

And IQ is largely driven by genetics.

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?

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Environment factors exert only minimal influence on IQ. 

No. 

Quote

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479093/

Conclusions:

In the present study, we found that various environmental factors such as place of residence, physical exercise, family income, parents' occupation and education influence the IQ of a child to a great extent. Hence, a child must be provided with an optimal environment to be able to develop to his/her full genetic potential.

 

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

These observations prove my point that controlling for environments is futile. 

None of those things proved your conclusion and you still haven't provided any study that would prove or strengthen your argument.

Edited October 8, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

14 hours ago, zurew said:

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.

Studies make way more assumptions and have biases than I do. The problem is that it's harder to find such assumptions in a technically rigorous study. 

My observations are not personal. It's scientific. IQ is central to psychology. 

Plus I have also given my reasoning behind my explanations. You can call them out if they are flawed. 

Here are my assumptions:

1. IQ is a real and it can be measured.

2. People with high IQs earn more and are successful in life, in the long run. 

3. High IQ students do well in academia.

Academia is an IQ test. 

4. Standardised test scores are functionally equal IQ scores. 

This is central to the concept of IQ. 

With that said, if some groups of people exhibit better performance in academia, it's because they have high IQ, particularly in STEM/LAW/FINANCE.

So jews performing well in academia, is the proof of their high IQ. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

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.

I am afraid you don't quite understand how IQ works.

Winning 20% of all nobel prizes is the IQ test. So this should be obvious from your own personal experience, if you understand how IQ works. 

Getting high SAT scores is a sign of high IQ since SAT is the IQ test. A test that involves sufficient intellectual abstractions to solve could only be solved by a high IQ individual.

Asians have higher IQs and Asians routinely top the SAT tests and Indian American women out earn white men in the US as a consequence. 

(As I have explained in my previous thread)

AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Here is an article which states that the average jew iq is 112. Insane numbers. 

Life sucess is highly coorelated with IQ. Because success in academia translate to success in real life. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

None of those things proved your conclusion and you still haven't provided any study that would prove or strengthen your argument.

You don't need a study to prove that snow is white or sky is blue.

And accounting for the 1% of the time when the sky is green or red isn't significant.

It's just an observation.

Just because a study or a source exists, dosen't means it's true.

Also something can be true and a study may not exist to prove it.

Moreover discussion of Differences in IQ of races is banned on this forum. So you can do your own research. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Conclusions:

In the present study, we found that various environmental factors such as place of residence, physical exercise, family income, parents' occupation and education influence the IQ of a child to a great extent. Hence, a child must be provided with an optimal environment to be able to develop to his/her full genetic potential.

As I said studies like this are extremely misleading.

High IQ parents are much more likely to be educated and conscientious They will generate weath more than average person. Their kids are of course likely to be high IQ because their parents are high IQ and IQ is genetic. Not because the parents are wealthy.

Your "studies" do not take into account these inner dependencies. 

Tell me what you want to believe and I will show you a study that confirms that. It all depends on what data you choose to include and what data you choose to deny. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

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?

"Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Early twin studies of adult,for late teens and adults.

Here you go.

Heritability of IQ is a well established fact in psychology. You shouldn't be asking for articles or sources to explain the obvious. I expected you to already know these stuff. It's all a google search away. 

14 hours ago, zurew said:

None of those things proved your conclusion and you still haven't provided any study that would prove or strengthen your argument.

I didn't say and run. I gave my reasoning as well. You are free to tell me where I went wrong and discuss about this rather than outright denying my observations. 

My assertion was that IQ matters more than environment or culture or privilege in the long run. This is the reason why Indian American women perform not only well in academia but also in earnings compared to "privileged" white men. This itself is a topic worthy of discussion on its own. 

[Carl-Richard]

59 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

My assertion was that IQ matters more than environment or culture or privilege in the long run. This is the reason why Indian American women perform not only well in academia but also in earnings compared to "privileged" white men. This itself is a topic worthy of discussion on its own. 

People generally underestimate how much nurture matters. If your environment and culture is shit enough, you'll be born mentally retarded no matter your genes. Genes ("genotype") are always embodied in an environment and produce the "phenotype". You can't separate the two.

If you look at cultural factors like the literacy obligation in Judaism, it's certainly the case that this affected the genetics of Jews. But does that mean that the literacy obligation was determined by genes? You have to look at what causes what and weigh each statement.

It's obvious that when you look at differences in a diverse set of people, genes will be a big determining factor for the extremes, but when you look across ethnic groups, culture will generally be a bigger determining factor, because that is mainly what you're controlling for.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Studies make way more assumptions and have biases than I do.

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.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You don't need a study to prove that snow is white or sky is blue.

Just because a study or a source exists, dosen't means it's true.

Also something can be true and a study may not exist to prove it.

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. 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

High IQ parents are much more likely to be educated and conscientious They will generate weath more than average person. Their kids are of course likely to be high IQ because their parents are high IQ and IQ is genetic. Not because the parents are wealthy.

Your "studies" do not take into account these inner dependencies. 

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.

Quote

However, members of the same family also tend to differ substantially in intelligence (by an average of about 12 IQ points)

Malnutrition during the early part of life (1–5 years) results not only in the delay in physical growth, motor development, and cognitive developmental disorders, but also a reduction in their IQ by 15 points.[6,7,8,9] Deficiency of micronutrients, lack of breastfeeding, and presence of environmental toxins are associated with impaired neuropsychological development and classroom performance.

Another major influence on intelligence is the level of cognitive stimulation the child receives at home. In addition, the ratio of encouraging comments made to children versus reprimands seems to have an influence on IQ. Here, the quality of mother–child interactions is most relevant in determining the development of intelligence in infancy and early childhood

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. 

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Heritability of IQ is a well established fact in psychology. You shouldn't be asking for articles or sources to explain the obvious. I expected you to already know these stuff. It's all a google search away. 

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.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

"Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Early twin studies of adult,for late teens and adults.

Here you go.

If you bother to read two more sentences after that then you can see this point: 

Quote

 However, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease are known to have lifelong deleterious effects.

Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis.[11][12][13][14] The scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain average differences in IQ test performance between racial groups.

 Your own source disproving your point.

Edited October 9, 2022 by zurew

[Shawn Philips]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Studies make way more assumptions and have biases than I do. The problem is that it's harder to find such assumptions in a technically rigorous study. 

My observations are not personal. It's scientific. IQ is central to psychology. 

Plus I have also given my reasoning behind my explanations. You can call them out if they are flawed. 

Here are my assumptions:

1. IQ is a real and it can be measured.

2. People with high IQs earn more and are successful in life, in the long run. 

3. High IQ students do well in academia.

Academia is an IQ test. 

4. Standardised test scores are functionally equal IQ scores. 

This is central to the concept of IQ. 

With that said, if some groups of people exhibit better performance in academia, it's because they have high IQ, particularly in STEM/LAW/FINANCE.

So jews performing well in academia, is the proof of their high IQ. 

I am afraid you don't quite understand how IQ works.

Winning 20% of all nobel prizes is the IQ test. So this should be obvious from your own personal experience, if you understand how IQ works. 

Getting high SAT scores is a sign of high IQ since SAT is the IQ test. A test that involves sufficient intellectual abstractions to solve could only be solved by a high IQ individual.

Asians have higher IQs and Asians routinely top the SAT tests and Indian American women out earn white men in the US as a consequence. 

(As I have explained in my previous thread)

AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Here is an article which states that the average jew iq is 112. Insane numbers. 

Life sucess is highly coorelated with IQ. Because success in academia translate to success in real life. 

You don't need a study to prove that snow is white or sky is blue.

And accounting for the 1% of the time when the sky is green or red isn't significant.

It's just an observation.

Just because a study or a source exists, dosen't means it's true.

Also something can be true and a study may not exist to prove it.

Moreover discussion of Differences in IQ of races is banned on this forum. So you can do your own research. 

As I said studies like this are extremely misleading.

High IQ parents are much more likely to be educated and conscientious They will generate weath more than average person. Their kids are of course likely to be high IQ because their parents are high IQ and IQ is genetic. Not because the parents are wealthy.

Your "studies" do not take into account these inner dependencies. 

Tell me what you want to believe and I will show you a study that confirms that. It all depends on what data you choose to include and what data you choose to deny. 

"Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%,[6] with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#:~:text=Early twin studies of adult,for late teens and adults.

Here you go.

Heritability of IQ is a well established fact in psychology. You shouldn't be asking for articles or sources to explain the obvious. I expected you to already know these stuff. It's all a google search away. 

I didn't say and run. I gave my reasoning as well. You are free to tell me where I went wrong and discuss about this rather than outright denying my observations. 

My assertion was that IQ matters more than environment or culture or privilege in the long run. This is the reason why Indian American women perform not only well in academia but also in earnings compared to "privileged" white men. This itself is a topic worthy of discussion on its own. 

The jewish supremacy is not about IQ, stop the mental masturbation. The Kabbalah, hebrew words and symbolism has a real effect in the world we live in, because of the mental and symbolic nature of reality!

While we, gentiles use a manipulated disempowering language (and others the latin derived languages) that has been twisted from the real meaning... jewish use the power of sounds, meaning of phonetics and simbolism to manifest the reality they want. Don't fall into the mistake of underestimating the power of words.

Just the name or surname of an individual can make your life a great success or a total disaster, that's why some top successful people changed his names and got mindblowing results:

-Tiger Woods

-Bill gates

-_____ King

-Lion Guru

-Goldman, Goldberg = manifesting richness

The dumbing down society in schools is systeminc for goyims/gentiles.

While jewish in schools are taught the opposite, to create abundance and understand how this world works, meanwhile we don't have a clue.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Shawn Philips

[Bobby_2021]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Your own source disproving your point.

Yes of course, if you don't eat food and drink clean water, you will suffer from dehydration and lack of energy and won't be able to perform well in IQ tests.

You think I don't know that? 

Also, if someone points a gun to your head while you take IQ tests, scores will significantly decline. 

Of course. 

Include all of that in your "environmental" factors. 

4 hours ago, zurew said:

You don't know that, you just assume that

It's basics of psychology.

Listen man, you are really not qualified to speak with authority on this.

I didn't really make claims.

I provided substantial reasoning behind them. All you did is to outsource your reasoning to some random 1000 page study which I am not going to read.

I could also do the same. It's a waste of time. 

I am sure you haven't read all the pages of the study that I put up saying the average IQ of jews is 112. 

You didn't even comment on it. 

When I provided my own reasoning you did is to say that they are not relevant. You simply don't see the connection.

No study could ever properly isolate wealth, IQ, education, earning capacity. All of those are dependent on IQ which is dependent on genetics.

So when a study says, "high IQ students because they come from wealthy families"I know they simply do not see where they are wrong.

Plus: google can give you studies that supports both your and my conclusion. That's why I don't see a point in studies. 

4 hours ago, zurew said:

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.

You are literally making the same claim bro.

Why should I listen to you when you say I should read random articles on the internet? ?

Are you the most trusted source on planet earth to decide which studies should I read out of the millions of trash studies, out there?

Direct experience and apt reasoning is how we arrive at truths.  

You are making claims to authority just like religious dudes say

 "oh so you think you are better than what the Bible says" lol 

Scientists are dudes no better than you or me who make tons of biases and assumptions.

Why is this so hard to get lol? 

 

 

[zurew]

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I am sure you haven't read all the pages of the study that I put up saying the average IQ of jews is 112. 

You didn't even comment on it. 

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.

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Yes of course, if you don't eat food and drink clean water, you will suffer from dehydration and lack of energy and won't be able to perform well in IQ tests.

You think I don't know that? 

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.

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

When I provided my own reasoning you did is to say that they are not relevant. You simply don't see the connection.

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.

 

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

No study could ever properly isolate wealth, IQ, education, earning capacity. All of those are dependent on IQ which is dependent on genetics

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.

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You are literally making the same claim bro.

Why should I listen to you when you say I should read random articles on the internet?

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.

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Plus: google can give you studies that supports both your and my conclusion. That's why I don't see a point in studies. 

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.

 

48 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You are literally making the same claim bro.

Why should I listen to you when you say I should read random articles on the internet? ?

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

Edited October 9, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

37 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats one study, and even if I take that study for granted, that study didn't take into account the environment factors

1. You didn't even read it Fully. 

2. You can't deconstruct the methodologies unless you have a degree in statistics bare minimum. 

I have some understanding of the numbers since I used to work in machine learning and published paper in this field depicting accuracy of various ML models.

I easily manipulated data to fit my conclusion and published my results in a reputed journal. There is almost no way anyone can spot the manipulations that I done even if they are PHD professors.

So understanding  the methodology is a joke. Don't even get me started on this. 

Reading the conclusion is not understanding the methodology. ?

3. The momma shaking her Belly during pregnancy will result in a retarded child of IQ 75. 

So next time you send me a study make sure you include that as an "environmental factors".

Because there exists many children with low IQ because there momma shaked her belly during pregnancy. 

37 minutes ago, zurew said:

The more study we do about this topic and the more variables are taken into account the clearer picture we can get

4. More variables don't mean more accuracy.

If 80% of the results is determined by a single variable, then adding any number of variables won't improve the accuracy of a variable. 

Access to food and water dosen't mean your child will have high IQ.

But parents with high IQ predict children with high IQ because of the heritability if IQ. 

And yes I know that improving access to clean drinking water and nutritional food will increase IQ. But that has a limit.

If you are claiming that jews have higher IQ because of nutritious food and water, then other people who also have access to the same, should also have high IQ. Which is not the case.

Which is why you drop silly variables with poor capabibiliy for predicting IQ. 

5. Wait till I send you 20 more articles each of them hundreds of pages long and requires you months to properly understand and finish, only to find that they didn't take into account some important variable and made hidden assumptions in the end.

46 minutes ago, zurew said:

The good part is that you don't have to blindly believe in those studies, you can analyze them,

You are honestly not ready for that kind of work. Don't kid yourself.

If you are honest you should admit that you don't understand shit about the studies you are reading.

You are blindly believing the experts. Just be real bro. I know you have taken things for granted that are mentioned in your studies and skipped straight to the conclusion. 

1 hour ago, zurew said:

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.

Iq is 80% heritable.

Proof: Wikipedia. 

49 minutes ago, zurew said:

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.

Listen, I don't care to read your studies just like you didn't read the ones I send you.  

I am just more honest.

56 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats when we start to dig into those studies and look what methodology

Don't just read the conclusion thinking that you understand the methodology lmao. ???

You are probably doing just that. 

A normal person do not posses the cognitive resources for understanding a study of that nature. 

You don't understand shit about how the study was conducted, their hidden agendas, the political nature of the organisation that funds the studies etc. You have no access to none of that. Just a bunch of complex math and numbers you don't understand. 

Do you see the level of delusion? 

If I am wrong, then let me know when you finished all the sources I send you. 

Anyway a discussion is not possible unless you read and properly understand research articles written by double PHDs, like you said. 

I will leave you to it. 

[zurew]

32 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You don't understand shit about how the study was conducted, their hidden agendas, the political nature of the organisation that funds the studies etc. You have no access to none of that. Just a bunch of complex math and numbers you don't understand. 

Do you see the level of delusion? 

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.

Quote

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.

33 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If I am wrong, then let me know when you finished all the sources I send you.

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. 

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I easily manipulated data to fit my conclusion and published my results in a reputed journal. There is almost no way anyone can spot the manipulations that I done even if they are PHD professors.

So understanding  the methodology is a joke. Don't even get me started on this. 

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.)

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. 

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?

[ValiantSalvatore]

Bro I can even get into Bioinformatics now. What are you talking about? If the culture enforced learning and hard work for a long-period of time it is clear that the people from that region/tribe have higher iq? 

The more objective critera would be what causes a decline of IQ overtime in other cohorts? As well as an increase for cohorts?

As well as the enviroment matters, for example if you want a personal anecdote. I smoked cigarettes when I was very young I am gifted I did not test it (psychologist and coach insisted on me being gifted and letting me test). I do well in academia and I meet so many intelligent people. Many intelligent people do drugs/smoke cigarettes and do harmful behaviour. That alone is a tell-tale sign IQ != success != health as this can ruin ones life. I believe for example my IQ would be up to 7 points higher if I did not smoke cigarettes as I was a teen, because of lack of emotional regulation from my parents?

Might use this better as an exemplar. 

I dunno reaching a state of omniscience left me to believe IQ is in a sense not really real especially at higher states of existence. 
I dunno the more you argue about this the more I am going to do a PH.D to disproove the bullshit I am seeing with my own eyes. 

Did you ever analyze genetics with a tool? 

https://www.psypost.org/2015/03/nature-vs-nurture-iq-of-children-in-better-educated-households-is-higher-study-of-twins-indicates-32733

I heard this study a lot in books/audiobooks etc. 

Personally, speaking meeting gifted people, they all received a lot of training/programms/were put into programms and activities, their parents are mostly from well-off families and they started to teach their kids early reading at the age of 2-4. Mostly, for example a friend of mines cousine was raised in a science family. Then when you put these people into the same condition, they increase their iq. Is that true or not? 

Also most miss the spiritual component. This so called free of bias science smells like horseshit to me, I've seen critiques about IQ test, tbh. It's a joke if someone wants to do something complex let him do it and see what happens, so he can learn. Instead of forcing false ideas about IQ's and Jew's. What does that have to do with Jews? It's their execution of life that makes them succesful, how they conduct their lives and execute on it. That is pretty evident, when someone does that he/her will become succcesful. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[ValiantSalvatore]

We need one-sized fits all racism  

Quote

Previous studies have found that educated parents are more likely to talk at the dinner table, take their children to museums and read stories to their children at night.

Not a big fan of testing for IQ, even when "gifted" or not. I don't like the race associations and the false equvalicency, because some lobbiest eugenics started researching this. There is so much bias in the history of measuring IQ. Just abort it. There are better modles that cause less friction imo and give more leeway. 

Even Blumenbach was smarter in that sense, at least he had the right perspective . 

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Leo Gura]

What you're really talking about is not IQ but g-factor, which is the factor for general intelligence. It is an important genetic factor and it's hard to compensate for if you lack it.

It is not out of the question that Jews simply have slightly more favourable genetics than other ethnic groups because historically they experienced some very strong selection pressures and culling.

If you systematically hunt down and execute all the dumbest white people, you will certainly increase the overall intelligence of all future whites. Like breeding dogs or horses. This is called artificial selection in biology.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

On 10/8/2022 at 9:31 AM, Tyler Robinson said:

Jews are known for nepotism and inbreeding. 

Although these practices aren't exactly cool, they help Jews stick together for each other, keeps their unity intact and it's a form of tribalism 

Inbreeding is dangerous and that's why a lot of Jews have genetic and birth defects. 

On one hand they're successful but on the other, too much inbreeding can die out a species. Unfortunate actually. 

Wait, first off, you just made a thread saying that you became convinced that inbreeding is not necessarily bad.

Second, I don't think there have been many Jews who have done a lot of inbreeding. If anything, I believe that a long time ago countless Jewish people have mated with many non-jewish people in different parts of the Middle East Europe, Africa, South America, Central America, North America, Asia, Australia, etc. because of how many places Jews dispersed to throughout the entire world.

 

 

[Girzo]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If you systematically hunt down and execute all the dumbest white people, you will certainly increase the overall intelligence of all future whites. Like breeding dogs or horses. This is called artificial selection in biology.

Edit, ah misread, you have talked about the dumbest, then it might have an effect. I have written a reply with selecting for the smartest in mind.

Yeah, but from what I have learned intelligence works by a different set of rules. It seems to be increasing overall in population, regardless of the outcome of any particular mating. Like there's a mechanism, deeply hardwired, that's been responsible for human brain's capacities development in the past, and still working within us, assuring that every generation of humans is more and more intelligent overall.

I don't know the details, I haven't studied evolution nor cognitive science seriously. But the existence of such mechanism adds many interesting dynamics, like for example that you need to measure progress over generations, because maybe by selecting the smartest individuals you have also chosen a lot of people with slowly working that aforementioned mechanism, so over 100 generations they are stupidier than a general population, because the effects of selecting of what is on the surface are slower than the underlying mechanism responsible for humans' and humanoids' boom in intelligence.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Girzo

[Leo Gura]

Don't forget the simple fact that stupid people naturally die before they can reproduce, thus getting weeded out from the gene pool.

But you could certainly breed humans for intelligence. No doubt about that. It would just be horribly politically incorrect.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Leo Gura

[ValiantSalvatore]

Leo hitting with da knowlegde hahaha, I am going to buy a biologie book for dummies for this hahah.

Edited October 10, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore