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]
You're wrong on your semantic nonsense and I'm not wasting any more time on it. You're acting like an autist.
I'm used to you never admitting that you're wrong. It's a known issue with you. That's not on me though. You never admitted that you were wrong about the 'secret rule' which you denied either...
Even if true, smart jews would have gotten out of service. Army jews are not a representative sample.
This is an empirical claim, for which you provide no empirical data.
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.
Correct. But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further. I don't expect that to happen with blacks, at least not to the extent that happened with those groups.
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".
Well, his heart was in the right place, even if his arguments and methods weren't...
Sorry about your sore asshole, bro. Better shepardize your sources next time. [since I know you like legal terms]
Why do you insist so much on me hating you? I don't, I'm actually quite happy that you post here. It's mostly Russiabots here, so it's nice to have someone defending the other side. Only thing I find obnoxious about you is when you blindly defend Republicans and you make it sound like they can do nothing wrong.
You never admitted that you were wrong about the 'secret rule' which you denied either...
The admins never told you that there is a secret rule which you're not even allowed to explain what it is. IIRC it was that you can't say trans are mentally ill, but I'm not even sure because KIA or KIA2 ban all mention of trans or mental illness at all, even if not combined together. You just made this up for yourselves based on your own personal conjecture from removals. I say shit on r-4chan all the time that violates your claims of secret rules without getting my comments removed. You think I should or would get banned for lots of my comments, but I don't. In fact, the bans are very sporadic and inconsistent. You can't distill any rules from the bans other than "it depends on what retard tranny in a cubicle in san francisco is looking at it", because all my bans are for things that do not violate TOS, but rather because they're offensive to libs, and yet 95% to 99% of my comments that are offensive to libs do not result in bans.
Another thing is that reddit uses an algo to try to automate bans, and keeps fucking with it and changing it all the time, so that results in a lot of haphazard bans.
This is an empirical claim, for which you provide no empirical data.
The sample was not representative. Simple as. You just want to believe that IQ can be improved through education or something. It can't. The whole point of IQ is that it is innate and has nothing to do with education or knowledge.
The paper I linked makes a strong and convincing case that a particular group of jews had strong selection pressures that favored higher IQs between 800-1600AD, and there is various evidence of this such as clusters of genetic diseases among these jews. Also, there were many pogroms, expulsions, and massacres, so the jewish population was cut down many times and then rebounded from the survivors. This greatly speeds up evolutionary processes.
But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further.
I don't believe this is true at all on a macro level. "IQ test scores are highly heritable, almost always greater than 0.5 when adult scores are studied. Lower heritability estimates are found for children’s IQ: the IQ of children does seem to reflect in part environmental influences like the social class of the home in which the child is reared, but these influences disappear as the child matures and are essentially gone in adulthood."
But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further. I don't expect that to happen with blacks, at least not to the extent that happened with those groups.
The only way this would happen is if you IQ tested all the blacks and sterilized the lowest scores, every generation. This would cause an evolutionary selection pressure in favor of higher IQs, so the IQs would go up. But you can't raise someone's IQ merely by spending more money on public schools or some nonsense.
Why do you insist so much on me hating you? I don't, I'm actually quite happy that you post here.
You have been talking a lot of shit lately and acting condescending. I take fat shits on people when they get pretentious or condescending. I don't start that kind of thing with you and generally act respectfully towards you despite extreme disagreements in some areas like "America bad" which normally would cause me to be a lot more insulting.
Only thing I find obnoxious about you is when you blindly defend Republicans and you make it sound like they can do nothing wrong.
Not at all. I criticize republicans all the time. I just shit all over Trump regarding his Afghanistan policy in recent comments with you. Thing is, I recognize that we are fighting a war for the future of humanity, and there is a Left, and Right, and the Republicans are the team for the Right in the US. So yes, I'm going to fight for the success of Republicans and against the Democrats, but at the same time I am going to fight within the Right to keep standards on the Republicans so they don't devolve into sellout liberals like Mitt Romney.
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]
I'm used to you never admitting that you're wrong. It's a known issue with you. That's not on me though. You never admitted that you were wrong about the 'secret rule' which you denied either...
This is an empirical claim, for which you provide no empirical data.
Correct. But there are other instances as well of people who initially score low on IQ tests, and then develop further. I don't expect that to happen with blacks, at least not to the extent that happened with those groups.
Well, his heart was in the right place, even if his arguments and methods weren't...
Why do you insist so much on me hating you? I don't, I'm actually quite happy that you post here. It's mostly Russiabots here, so it's nice to have someone defending the other side. Only thing I find obnoxious about you is when you blindly defend Republicans and you make it sound like they can do nothing wrong.
The admins never told you that there is a secret rule which you're not even allowed to explain what it is. IIRC it was that you can't say trans are mentally ill, but I'm not even sure because KIA or KIA2 ban all mention of trans or mental illness at all, even if not combined together. You just made this up for yourselves based on your own personal conjecture from removals. I say shit on r-4chan all the time that violates your claims of secret rules without getting my comments removed. You think I should or would get banned for lots of my comments, but I don't. In fact, the bans are very sporadic and inconsistent. You can't distill any rules from the bans other than "it depends on what retard tranny in a cubicle in san francisco is looking at it", because all my bans are for things that do not violate TOS, but rather because they're offensive to libs, and yet 95% to 99% of my comments that are offensive to libs do not result in bans.
Another thing is that reddit uses an algo to try to automate bans, and keeps fucking with it and changing it all the time, so that results in a lot of haphazard bans.
The sample was not representative. Simple as. You just want to believe that IQ can be improved through education or something. It can't. The whole point of IQ is that it is innate and has nothing to do with education or knowledge.
The paper I linked makes a strong and convincing case that a particular group of jews had strong selection pressures that favored higher IQs between 800-1600AD, and there is various evidence of this such as clusters of genetic diseases among these jews. Also, there were many pogroms, expulsions, and massacres, so the jewish population was cut down many times and then rebounded from the survivors. This greatly speeds up evolutionary processes.
I don't believe this is true at all on a macro level. "IQ test scores are highly heritable, almost always greater than 0.5 when adult scores are studied. Lower heritability estimates are found for children’s IQ: the IQ of children does seem to reflect in part environmental influences like the social class of the home in which the child is reared, but these influences disappear as the child matures and are essentially gone in adulthood."
The only way this would happen is if you IQ tested all the blacks and sterilized the lowest scores, every generation. This would cause an evolutionary selection pressure in favor of higher IQs, so the IQs would go up. But you can't raise someone's IQ merely by spending more money on public schools or some nonsense.
You have been talking a lot of shit lately and acting condescending. I take fat shits on people when they get pretentious or condescending. I don't start that kind of thing with you and generally act respectfully towards you despite extreme disagreements in some areas like "America bad" which normally would cause me to be a lot more insulting.
Not at all. I criticize republicans all the time. I just shit all over Trump regarding his Afghanistan policy in recent comments with you. Thing is, I recognize that we are fighting a war for the future of humanity, and there is a Left, and Right, and the Republicans are the team for the Right in the US. So yes, I'm going to fight for the success of Republicans and against the Democrats, but at the same time I am going to fight within the Right to keep standards on the Republicans so they don't devolve into sellout liberals like Mitt Romney.