I could just as easily say that for your claim to hold true, you'd have to say that stars are generally bigger than planets.
No, because as the speaker, they are my words, and I am able to make a less-precise statement without adding qualifiers and caveats. Then, if challenged with an unreasonable interpretation, all I have to do is say "you are wrong, your interpretation is foolish" instead of taking some sort of blame for your absurd misconstruction.
You have fallen prey to the fallacy the endless qualifiers and caveats are necessary in the English language. This is false, and unworkable. I do not need to be excessively precise in my language in order to idiot-proof my words against unreasonable and idiotic interpretations. The interpreter is wrong in such cases, not me. I have already supplied this information in an implicit fashion through context. You might not like it, but this is how English functions 99% of the time. It would be too tiresome and tedious to constantly be on guard against stupid and absurd readings, even if those readings could be argued as a possible interpretation divorced from context.
The REASON you are wrong here is that you are forcing a particular interpretation on my words, when, at best, you can argue that my words are open to possibly multiple interpretations, some absurd. I am not required to be on guard against absurd interpretations. You know I'm a lawyer and i don't even have to do that as part of my legal work outside of narrow situations in contracts.
Why do you always choose the dumbest hills to die on, asks my FSB colleague sitting next to me.
You're here on the same hill, and the difference is that you're wrong. No, I am not required to put dumb shit like "ON AVERAGE" in a statement that men are taller than women. The fact that I am talking about averages is implied by the context. People make that statement in the context of averages quite commonly. People do NOT make that statement in the context of absolutes, THEREFORE if your intention was to do the counter-intuitive thing and mean absolutes as on "even the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman", THEN the burden would be on you to add the extra words to clarify that unusual position.
And yes, this is 100% an issue with english not being your 1st language and you not having been immersed in native english speaking society. Perhaps in your 1st and 2nd languages, the rules are different and context has no place. Your perspective is marred by the rules of other languages and your arrogant proclamation that you know english better than some americans is irrelevant, because you sure as fuck don't know english better than I do.
On average, it will absolutely work like that.
False. Genetics is not linear. You don't even understand the concept of recessive traits. Intelligence is extremely complex and there is absolutely no reason to believe that if you take an IQ 110 person and an IQ 100 person, you'd get an IQ 105 child. It could very well be that black DNA is stupid because of genes that are deactivated even with only 1/8th white DNA intermixed. You have no idea, nobody does, which is why your whole line of reasoning is just a non-starter.
I think it's true for women, but not for men. I have seen black men who are regarded as attractive (but not by me) who are rather dark. This case is about men.
It's still true of men, it is just that all things based on looks are exaggerated for women, because women are judged more on their looks. The #1 black male model, Tyson Beckford, is mixed race. All the top black celebrity men like Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel Jackson, James Earl Jones, Laurence Fishburne, Jamie Foxx, Dwayne Johnson etc are on the lighter skinned side. When you look at darker skinned men you see mainly comedians & "thugs" which aren't successful for their looks.
Are white inferior to Jews and Asians? Or are you going to BS yourself out of it by saying: actually, we're not less smart.
No, because AMERICAN Jews and Asians are not a representative sample, they are self-selected elites. Most whites came to the US as poor refugees, most Jews and Asians who made it to the US were the elites of their respective groups. A perfect example of this is Indians. Are Indians superior to whites? HAH. Fucking street shitters, are you KIDDING me? But what about Indians, IN AMERICA, who are largely doctors and programmers? Absolutely, they run circles around the median whites.
Now, are AMERICAN Jews and Asians on average superior to whites? Absolutely. You can say that about any immigrant group in a system where the US is "brain draining" the other country.
It's a Christian point. All men are equal in the eyes of God.
Men might be equal in the eyes of God in the sense of going to Heaven or Hell, but that means nothing about every other sense. Nothing in Christianity suggests some communistic principle that men cannot be smarter, or stronger, or more noble, or virtuous, than others. In fact, the Bible is full of stories about how great men who were not equal to their peers did great things: Samson, Job, David, etc.
Jesus didn't pretend that everyone was equal, he just suggested that those at the bottom of society be treated a little better.
Socialism is an economic idea, it's got nothing to do with human equality.
Socialism is enforced "equality" by stealing from the winners to subsidize the losers. The whole principle of socialism is that the government is going to pay the poor to keep them as an army to use to eat the rich if the rich do not agree to be eaten slowly. No wonder socialist countries all crash their economies.
The Nordic "big welfare" states are not literal socialism, but at soft socialism that can only be maintained through having a homogenous high quality population, so just wait until they muddy up their countries with poor refugees and ruin their little paradises.
No, because as the speaker, they are my words, and I am able to make a less-precise statement without adding qualifiers and caveats.
Res ipsa loquitur. How'bout you parse that, Mr. Lawyer?
I do not need to be excessively precise in my language in order to idiot-proof my words against unreasonable and idiotic interpretations
See, you're banging the table, because neither the law nor the facts are on your side. It's not going to impress me though.
You know I'm a lawyer and i don't even have to do that as part of my legal work outside of narrow situations in contracts.
Oh please. If you mean "on average", you should say it.
Lawyers are stupid, corrupt and immoral.
Does this mean that they are "on average" stupid, corrupt and immoral? Does it mean that they are more so than others groups? Does it mean any number of other interpretations that you can make up? No, it means all lawyers are. Adding 'all' just makes it more emphatic.
People make that statement in the context of averages quite commonly.
Even if it were true, I care not for what "people" do. "People" use the supposed word "irregardless". "People" are stupid and irrational.
And yes, this is 100% an issue with english not being your 1st language and you not having been immersed in native english speaking society. Perhaps in your 1st and 2nd languages, the rules are different and context has no place. Your perspective is marred by the rules of other languages and your arrogant proclamation that you know english better than some americans is irrelevant, because you sure as fuck don't know english better than I do.
Some? Nearly all, you mean. And I'm pretty sure I do know it better than you do. See, all you do is pound the table and talk about 'hills'. There was no context that you could appeal to. There was none in your statement. There was just "blacks are dumber than whites". Well, that's just plain wrong, because you are not smarter than Thomas Sowell.
False. Genetics is not linear. You don't even understand the concept of recessive traits. Intelligence is extremely complex and there is absolutely no reason to believe that if you take an IQ 110 person and an IQ 100 person, you'd get an IQ 105 child.
See? That's why people say "on average". For any given product of 110 and 100, you cannot assume that the result is 105, but for large numbers it most certanly will be. This has nothing at all to do with 'recessive' traits, you're just throwing that out there in the hope that I don't know what it is. Bad luck.
You play expert at all sorts of things that you know very little to nothing about.
It could very well be that black DNA is stupid because of genes that are deactivated even with only 1/8th white DNA intermixed. You have no idea, nobody does, which is why your whole line of reasoning is just a non-starter.
What wild speculation (also not what 'recessive' genes are). My ideas did not rely on wild speculation, so we're going to go with them, thank you very much.
It's still true of men, it is just that all things based on looks are exaggerated for women, because women are judged more on their looks. The #1 black male model, Tyson Beckford, is mixed race. All the top black celebrity men like Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel Jackson, James Earl Jones, Laurence Fishburne, Jamie Foxx, Dwayne Johnson etc are on the lighter skinned side. When you look at darker skinned men you see mainly comedians & "thugs" which aren't successful for their looks.
You just leave out all the darker blacks. However many of them there are in America anyway. Morgan Freeman is dark, and while he's not exactly my type, he's pretty good-looking.
No, because AMERICAN Jews and Asians are not a representative sample, they are self-selected elites. Most whites came to the US as poor refugees, most Jews and Asians who made it to the US were the elites of their respective groups.
Dude, pogrom-fleers are not the "elites" of their respective society. They started in menial occupations and scored so low on IQ tests that one IQ test advocate proclaimed that the results proved the falsity of the widely held belief that the Jew is intelligent.
Are Indians superior to whites? HAH. Fucking street shitters, are you KIDDING me?
I can just as easily take one moment in time when whites were not highly civilized and make a judgment based on that. In fact, many did. One Arabic traveler to Europe wrote that the more you travel north, the paler people get, and the dumber they get.
Nothing in Christianity suggests some communistic principle that men cannot be smarter, or stronger, or more noble, or virtuous, than others.
Nor do I believe that, nor anyone probably. Even communists butchered their opponents because they believed - or at least used as an excuse - that those were not as noble as the communists.
Socialism is enforced "equality" by stealing from the winners to subsidize the losers.
You wouldn't need to enforce it if it were true to begin with.
Does this mean that they are "on average" stupid, corrupt and immoral? Does it mean that they are more so than others groups? Does it mean any number of other interpretations that you can make up? No, it means all lawyers are.
No, it means generally. It's a general statement, not a specific one. Take your L already.
"People" are stupid and irrational.
I'll take that as an admission.
Some? Nearly all, you mean. And I'm pretty sure I do know it better than you do.
LOL.
You play expert at all sorts of things that you know very little to nothing about.
Wrong, I'm actually very knowledgeable, and if you were capable of laying a glove on me, you would. You're just frustrated you can't. I get that a lot.
Morgan Freeman is dark, and while he's not exactly my type, he's pretty good-looking.
Bro if Morgan Freeman is your proof that dark blacks are seen as just as good looking as lighter skinned ones, you took the L. Dude is Steve Buscemi levels of ugly.
Dude, pogrom-fleers are not the "elites" of their respective society.
Getting all the way to the distant United States was not easy. The jews who got here were not a representative average of european jews.
They started in menial occupations and scored so low on IQ tests that one IQ test advocate proclaimed that the results proved the falsity of the widely held belief that the Jew is intelligent.
So here we go where I need to educate you again:
"Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).... Ashkenazi Jews are just as successful as their tested IQ would predict, and they are hugely overrepresented in occupations and fields with the highest cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards".
This high IQ and corresponding high academic ability have been long known. In 1900 in London Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes and scholarships in spite of their poverty (Russell and Lewis, 1900). In the 1920s a survey of IQ scores in three London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and non-Jewish student bodies showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their schoolmates in each of three school, one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor... The Hughes study is important because it contradicts a widely cited misrepresentation by Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of the tests (Seligman, 1992).
Took me 5 minutes to pull that up and read through it to find the relevant text and quote it to you. I did all this without you even citing your source. I'm pretty good at this lol. This is basically just practice for me for what I do IRL.
I can just as easily take one moment in time when whites were not highly civilized and make a judgment based on that. In fact, many did. One Arabic traveler to Europe wrote that the more you travel north, the paler people get, and the dumber they get.
Cool story bro. Totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. The fact that various ethnic groups might have done better in the distant past doesn't mean anything now. Italians ruled the known world at one time. Now they're below average Euros. Obviously things changed in the last 2000 years, including in genetics.
You wouldn't need to enforce it if it were true to begin with.
Socialism and leftism in general begin with the premise that their false ideology is reality. Then, when the rubber meets the road and their ideology is contradicted by reality, they just start using mass murder to try to bend reality to conform to their ideology. It's a truly sick mental illness.
No, it means generally. It's a general statement, not a specific one. Take your L already.
It means no such thing, and your bravado isn't going to change a thing about that. When making a statement, you have to say what you mean, not say random stuff, and then insist (as you think you can never be wrong) that someone else is in error for not reading your mind.
Wrong, I'm actually very knowledgeable, and if you were capable of laying a glove on me, you would. You're just frustrated you can't. I get that a lot.
Eh, you've yet to get the better of me in any discussion. You're knowledgeable in some areas, like military history and tactics, and law. On all the other ones, I'll take you on and beat you with ease.
Bro if Morgan Freeman is your proof that dark blacks are seen as just as good looking as lighter skinned ones, you took the L. Dude is Steve Buscemi levels of ugly.
I don't know who that is, but I did dispute your claim based on arbitrary examples.
Getting all the way to the distant United States was not easy. The jews who got here were not a representative average of european jews.
This is an empirical claim, which you shouldn't just assert, but demonstrate. Eastern European Jews were not wanted in most of Europe. It was less bad for them in the US. That may have been.
So here we go where I need to educate you again:
Looks like you're the one who needs it.
These differences are not set in stone. Back during the First World War, low mental test scores among Jewish soldiers in the U.S. Army led one mental test expert to declare that this tended to "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent."Sowell
I'm pretty good at this lol. This is basically just practice for me for what I do IRL.
Surely, you can lose debates even without practice.
The fact that various ethnic groups might have done better in the distant past doesn't mean anything now. Italians ruled the known world at one time. Now they're below average Euros. Obviously things changed in the last 2000 years, including in genetics.
If you can't grasp the relevance of what I said, then that really is on you. The point is that you can't take any moment in time and make judgments about the alleged inherent intelligence of a people on that basis, like you did about Indians, as a similar 'method' would have led you to conclude that the Anglo-Saxons, or whatever ethnicity you're a part of, were extraordinarily stupid in the 6th century.
You're wrong on your semantic nonsense and I'm not wasting any more time on it. You're acting like an autist.
These differences are not set in stone. Back during the First World War, low mental test scores among Jewish soldiers in the U.S. Army led one mental test expert to declare that this tended to "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent."
Even if true, smart jews would have gotten out of service. Army jews are not a representative sample.
Your quote doesn't refute my evidence and extensive source at all. My source details multiple studies showing that jews were smart even 100 years ago.
Brigham was a eugenicist, and pushing an agenda, so he is not a trustworthy source: "In 1923, Brigham published his influential book, A Study of American Intelligence. Analyzing the data from the World War I army mental tests, Brigham concluded that native-born (Caucasian) Americans had the highest intelligence out of the groups tested. He proclaimed the intellectual superiority of the "Nordic Race" and the inferiority of the "Alpine" (Eastern European), "Mediterranean", and "Negro" races and argued that immigration should be carefully controlled to safeguard the "American Intelligence"." Harvard Professor E.G. Boring suggested that Brigham was not collecting data with scientific purpose which biased his results in favor of his ideas (1923).
I saved the best for last: "In his 1930 paper "Intelligence Tests of Immigrant Groups", Brigham recanted his 1923 analysis of the results of the Army Mental Tests." Due to having used prejudicial test administration and analytical techniques in his original research (he had not taken into consideration that the first language of some of the people he studied was not English), he acknowledged that his conclusions were "without foundation" and stated "that study with its entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely."
Sorry about your sore asshole, bro. Better shepardize your sources next time. [since I know you like legal terms]
No, because as the speaker, they are my words, and I am able to make a less-precise statement without adding qualifiers and caveats. Then, if challenged with an unreasonable interpretation, all I have to do is say "you are wrong, your interpretation is foolish" instead of taking some sort of blame for your absurd misconstruction.
You have fallen prey to the fallacy the endless qualifiers and caveats are necessary in the English language. This is false, and unworkable. I do not need to be excessively precise in my language in order to idiot-proof my words against unreasonable and idiotic interpretations. The interpreter is wrong in such cases, not me. I have already supplied this information in an implicit fashion through context. You might not like it, but this is how English functions 99% of the time. It would be too tiresome and tedious to constantly be on guard against stupid and absurd readings, even if those readings could be argued as a possible interpretation divorced from context.
The REASON you are wrong here is that you are forcing a particular interpretation on my words, when, at best, you can argue that my words are open to possibly multiple interpretations, some absurd. I am not required to be on guard against absurd interpretations. You know I'm a lawyer and i don't even have to do that as part of my legal work outside of narrow situations in contracts.
You're here on the same hill, and the difference is that you're wrong. No, I am not required to put dumb shit like "ON AVERAGE" in a statement that men are taller than women. The fact that I am talking about averages is implied by the context. People make that statement in the context of averages quite commonly. People do NOT make that statement in the context of absolutes, THEREFORE if your intention was to do the counter-intuitive thing and mean absolutes as on "even the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman", THEN the burden would be on you to add the extra words to clarify that unusual position.
And yes, this is 100% an issue with english not being your 1st language and you not having been immersed in native english speaking society. Perhaps in your 1st and 2nd languages, the rules are different and context has no place. Your perspective is marred by the rules of other languages and your arrogant proclamation that you know english better than some americans is irrelevant, because you sure as fuck don't know english better than I do.
False. Genetics is not linear. You don't even understand the concept of recessive traits. Intelligence is extremely complex and there is absolutely no reason to believe that if you take an IQ 110 person and an IQ 100 person, you'd get an IQ 105 child. It could very well be that black DNA is stupid because of genes that are deactivated even with only 1/8th white DNA intermixed. You have no idea, nobody does, which is why your whole line of reasoning is just a non-starter.
It's still true of men, it is just that all things based on looks are exaggerated for women, because women are judged more on their looks. The #1 black male model, Tyson Beckford, is mixed race. All the top black celebrity men like Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel Jackson, James Earl Jones, Laurence Fishburne, Jamie Foxx, Dwayne Johnson etc are on the lighter skinned side. When you look at darker skinned men you see mainly comedians & "thugs" which aren't successful for their looks.
No, because AMERICAN Jews and Asians are not a representative sample, they are self-selected elites. Most whites came to the US as poor refugees, most Jews and Asians who made it to the US were the elites of their respective groups. A perfect example of this is Indians. Are Indians superior to whites? HAH. Fucking street shitters, are you KIDDING me? But what about Indians, IN AMERICA, who are largely doctors and programmers? Absolutely, they run circles around the median whites.
Now, are AMERICAN Jews and Asians on average superior to whites? Absolutely. You can say that about any immigrant group in a system where the US is "brain draining" the other country.
Men might be equal in the eyes of God in the sense of going to Heaven or Hell, but that means nothing about every other sense. Nothing in Christianity suggests some communistic principle that men cannot be smarter, or stronger, or more noble, or virtuous, than others. In fact, the Bible is full of stories about how great men who were not equal to their peers did great things: Samson, Job, David, etc.
Jesus didn't pretend that everyone was equal, he just suggested that those at the bottom of society be treated a little better.
Socialism is enforced "equality" by stealing from the winners to subsidize the losers. The whole principle of socialism is that the government is going to pay the poor to keep them as an army to use to eat the rich if the rich do not agree to be eaten slowly. No wonder socialist countries all crash their economies.
The Nordic "big welfare" states are not literal socialism, but at soft socialism that can only be maintained through having a homogenous high quality population, so just wait until they muddy up their countries with poor refugees and ruin their little paradises.
Res ipsa loquitur. How'bout you parse that, Mr. Lawyer?
See, you're banging the table, because neither the law nor the facts are on your side. It's not going to impress me though.
Oh please. If you mean "on average", you should say it.
Lawyers are stupid, corrupt and immoral.
Does this mean that they are "on average" stupid, corrupt and immoral? Does it mean that they are more so than others groups? Does it mean any number of other interpretations that you can make up? No, it means all lawyers are. Adding 'all' just makes it more emphatic.
Even if it were true, I care not for what "people" do. "People" use the supposed word "irregardless". "People" are stupid and irrational.
Some? Nearly all, you mean. And I'm pretty sure I do know it better than you do. See, all you do is pound the table and talk about 'hills'. There was no context that you could appeal to. There was none in your statement. There was just "blacks are dumber than whites". Well, that's just plain wrong, because you are not smarter than Thomas Sowell.
See? That's why people say "on average". For any given product of 110 and 100, you cannot assume that the result is 105, but for large numbers it most certanly will be. This has nothing at all to do with 'recessive' traits, you're just throwing that out there in the hope that I don't know what it is. Bad luck.
You play expert at all sorts of things that you know very little to nothing about.
What wild speculation (also not what 'recessive' genes are). My ideas did not rely on wild speculation, so we're going to go with them, thank you very much.
You just leave out all the darker blacks. However many of them there are in America anyway. Morgan Freeman is dark, and while he's not exactly my type, he's pretty good-looking.
Dude, pogrom-fleers are not the "elites" of their respective society. They started in menial occupations and scored so low on IQ tests that one IQ test advocate proclaimed that the results proved the falsity of the widely held belief that the Jew is intelligent.
I can just as easily take one moment in time when whites were not highly civilized and make a judgment based on that. In fact, many did. One Arabic traveler to Europe wrote that the more you travel north, the paler people get, and the dumber they get.
Nor do I believe that, nor anyone probably. Even communists butchered their opponents because they believed - or at least used as an excuse - that those were not as noble as the communists.
You wouldn't need to enforce it if it were true to begin with.
No, it means generally. It's a general statement, not a specific one. Take your L already.
I'll take that as an admission.
LOL.
Wrong, I'm actually very knowledgeable, and if you were capable of laying a glove on me, you would. You're just frustrated you can't. I get that a lot.
Bro if Morgan Freeman is your proof that dark blacks are seen as just as good looking as lighter skinned ones, you took the L. Dude is Steve Buscemi levels of ugly.
Getting all the way to the distant United States was not easy. The jews who got here were not a representative average of european jews.
So here we go where I need to educate you again:
"Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).... Ashkenazi Jews are just as successful as their tested IQ would predict, and they are hugely overrepresented in occupations and fields with the highest cognitive demands. During the 20th century, they made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards".
This high IQ and corresponding high academic ability have been long known. In 1900 in London Jews took a disproportionate number of academic prizes and scholarships in spite of their poverty (Russell and Lewis, 1900). In the 1920s a survey of IQ scores in three London schools (Hughes, 1928) with mixed Jewish and non-Jewish student bodies showed that Jewish students had higher IQs than their schoolmates in each of three school, one prosperous, one poor, and one very poor... The Hughes study is important because it contradicts a widely cited misrepresentation by Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of the tests (Seligman, 1992).
https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
Took me 5 minutes to pull that up and read through it to find the relevant text and quote it to you. I did all this without you even citing your source. I'm pretty good at this lol. This is basically just practice for me for what I do IRL.
Cool story bro. Totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. The fact that various ethnic groups might have done better in the distant past doesn't mean anything now. Italians ruled the known world at one time. Now they're below average Euros. Obviously things changed in the last 2000 years, including in genetics.
Socialism and leftism in general begin with the premise that their false ideology is reality. Then, when the rubber meets the road and their ideology is contradicted by reality, they just start using mass murder to try to bend reality to conform to their ideology. It's a truly sick mental illness.
It means no such thing, and your bravado isn't going to change a thing about that. When making a statement, you have to say what you mean, not say random stuff, and then insist (as you think you can never be wrong) that someone else is in error for not reading your mind.
Eh, you've yet to get the better of me in any discussion. You're knowledgeable in some areas, like military history and tactics, and law. On all the other ones, I'll take you on and beat you with ease.
I don't know who that is, but I did dispute your claim based on arbitrary examples.
This is an empirical claim, which you shouldn't just assert, but demonstrate. Eastern European Jews were not wanted in most of Europe. It was less bad for them in the US. That may have been.
Looks like you're the one who needs it.
These differences are not set in stone. Back during the First World War, low mental test scores among Jewish soldiers in the U.S. Army led one mental test expert to declare that this tended to "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent." Sowell
Surely, you can lose debates even without practice.
If you can't grasp the relevance of what I said, then that really is on you. The point is that you can't take any moment in time and make judgments about the alleged inherent intelligence of a people on that basis, like you did about Indians, as a similar 'method' would have led you to conclude that the Anglo-Saxons, or whatever ethnicity you're a part of, were extraordinarily stupid in the 6th century.
You're wrong on your semantic nonsense and I'm not wasting any more time on it. You're acting like an autist.
Even if true, smart jews would have gotten out of service. Army jews are not a representative sample.
Your quote doesn't refute my evidence and extensive source at all. My source details multiple studies showing that jews were smart even 100 years ago.
Brigham was a eugenicist, and pushing an agenda, so he is not a trustworthy source: "In 1923, Brigham published his influential book, A Study of American Intelligence. Analyzing the data from the World War I army mental tests, Brigham concluded that native-born (Caucasian) Americans had the highest intelligence out of the groups tested. He proclaimed the intellectual superiority of the "Nordic Race" and the inferiority of the "Alpine" (Eastern European), "Mediterranean", and "Negro" races and argued that immigration should be carefully controlled to safeguard the "American Intelligence"." Harvard Professor E.G. Boring suggested that Brigham was not collecting data with scientific purpose which biased his results in favor of his ideas (1923).
I saved the best for last: "In his 1930 paper "Intelligence Tests of Immigrant Groups", Brigham recanted his 1923 analysis of the results of the Army Mental Tests." Due to having used prejudicial test administration and analytical techniques in his original research (he had not taken into consideration that the first language of some of the people he studied was not English), he acknowledged that his conclusions were "without foundation" and stated "that study with its entire hypothetical superstructure of racial differences collapses completely."
Sorry about your sore asshole, bro. Better shepardize your sources next time. [since I know you like legal terms]