Yale Removes Name of White Male From Building and Renames After A Woman
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
- Status
[/quote]
Do you have an inability to understand what I posted to you? Try to read the links first before commenting.
IQ is not a single number denoting intelligence, it is made up of 3 different areas, verbal, visual-spatial, mathematical.
Azkenazis only outperform in 2 of those 3 and Asians only in 1 of those 3.
I don't know why you think this matters though?
AB claimed that whites had been intellectually dominated or something along those lines by jews, while that is patently false, since not only can a cursory glance at philosophy, art, science and inventions disprove this easily, so can reading literature up until 1945.
[/quote]
There you go again.
If a group outperforms another group in 2 out of 3 criteria for something, I'm pretty sure that's a huge advantage for that group.
And as the alt-right believes, IQ is everything. According to Charles Murray, IQ is the single most important determinant for success. As the old expression goes, "the cream rises to the top." It is quite clear that this "cream" is the Ashkenazi. They have always been overrepresented in important fields wherever they have gone. (By the way, this also applies to the Chinese and the Germans. The same thing has happened with them wherever they go.) They always will. And a major factor why this is so is simply because they're smarter than everyone else.
Do you have an inability to understand what I posted to you? Try to read the links first before commenting.
IQ is not a single number denoting intelligence, it is made up of 3 different areas, verbal, visual-spatial, mathematical.
Azkenazis only outperform in 2 of those 3 and Asians only in 1 of those 3.
I don't know why you think this matters though?
AB claimed that whites had been intellectually dominated or something along those lines by jews, while that is patently false, since not only can a cursory glance at philosophy, art, science and inventions disprove this easily, so can reading literature up until 1945.
[/quote]
There you go again.
If a group outperforms another group in 2 out of 3 criteria for something, I'm pretty sure that's a huge advantage for that group.
And as the alt-right believes, IQ is everything. According to Charles Murray, IQ is the single most important determinant for success. As the old expression goes, "the cream rises to the top." It is quite clear that this "cream" is the Ashkenazi. They have always been overrepresented in important fields wherever they have gone. (By the way, this also applies to the Chinese and the Germans. The same thing has happened with them wherever they go.) They always will. And a major factor why this is so is simply because they're smarter than everyone else.
scorpion said:
I feel the need to nitpick here. When you say "our ancestors" it is important to note the scale of slavery when it was legal. According to google, who would lean towards too high a number if anything, 1.4% of whites owned slaves at the peak of American slavery.
This is important because if one is to accept the notion that you need to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for your ancestors sins, your ancestors probably had nothing to do with slavery.
Personally there's some dispute if one of my ancestors was a slave owner, and I'm not going about life supplicating to blacks over it or feeling "genetic remorse" or whatever one would call it.
Tex Cruise said:
Godwin's law states that the first person to mention Hitler loses an argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
I am thinking you are onto something here along similar lines.
You could call it Tex Cruise's law.
Or maybe Calhoun's law.
No, not Calhoun's law.
You would have to change it.
Many of you don’t sufficiently appreciate the impact of an average IQ difference of 15 points between two populations.
This is common—many people don’t really “get” the effects of normal distributions at the tails—and Yale is a tail (har har, it rhymes). Tail effects are why the average man may only run a bit faster than the average woman, but there are thousands of men who can run a 100m dash faster than the women’s world record of 10.49 seconds.
IQ, by construction, is normally distributed—with a mean of 100, and standard deviation of 15. Cognitive ability is not perfectly normally distributed, but the normal distribution generally works quite well to model it (same deal with traits like height). Among large population groups, IQ appears to have a standard deviation of roughly 15, as well.
If we go with a standard deviation of 15 for each group, and if the mean US black IQ is 85, US gentile whites 100, and US Ashkenazi Jews 115—only .003% of blacks will have an IQ over 145, but .135% of gentile whites will, and 2.28% of Ashkenazi Jews—since for blacks, a 145 IQ would be 4 standard deviations above average. For whites, it would be 3 standard deviations above average, and for Ashkenazi Jews, 2 standard deviations above average.
On a per capita basis, there would be about 42.6 whites to every black with an IQ over 145, and 16.9 Ashkenazi Jews to every gentile White.
Then let’s consider the respective U.S. population size estimates of 38.9, 197.9 (maybe this could be 197.9 – 5.5 = 192.4, but shouldn’t make a big difference), and 5.5 million for blacks, gentile whites, and Ashkenazi’s, respectively (each from Wikipedia, I got 5.5 by averaging the 5-6 million range they gave).
Out of Americans who are black, gentile, or Ashkenazi Jews with an IQ over 145 (so not including Asians, etc.), blacks would only be 0.31% of said over-145 IQ group, whites 67.89%, and Ashkenazi Jews 31.80%. Almost no blacks, and about 2/3 gentile whites and 1/3 Ashkenazi Jews.
Now we can see why that in the absence of affirmative action, blacks would have very small percentages in any arena that selects for high IQ, and why Ashkenazi Jews would have a large presence—like at Yale.
However, if Ashkenazi’s really are 27% of the Yale population (as posted by someone) and whites overall are 62% (72% from the Yale site divided by the sum of all the percentages, since as noted they went over 100% because of Yale double-counting), this would mean a 35% gentile white population.
This seems like there’s more Ashkenazi’s Jews at Yale than you would expect based upon IQ figures, especially since an “IQ cutoff” to model Yale would probably be a bit lower than 145.
If we went with a 145 cut-off for Yale and we accept the numbers of 27% for Yale Ashkenazi’s and the figures on Yale’s site, A 27% to 35% ratio of .77 is higher than the 31.80% to 67.89% ratio of .468. This may suggest that Yale favors Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites—the ratio of Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites is .77/.468 = 1.65 times higher than we expected. The 1.65 number is conservative, since the 145 IQ cut-off for Yale is probably a bit too high. However, for context, the ratio of blacks to gentile whites at Yale is apparently 8.5%/35% = 0.24, whereas we would expect 0.31%/67.89% = 0.0046 based on the above IQ calculations. This means a ratio of blacks to gentile whites .24/.0046 = 52.56 times what we expected. Weirdly enough, if gentile whites really indeed only are 35% of Yale’s population, this would mean blacks might be over-represented vis a vis whites as 8.5%/35% = .242 > 38.9/197.9 = .1965 even if we pretended the blacks and whites have equivalent IQs—a .1965 ratio is what we would expect if we just randomly selected people with no regard to IQ. This would be pretty egregious.
Repeating the exercise with IQ over 160 leads to per capita ratios of 110.5 gentile whites to every black, 42.6 Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites, and factoring in population numbers we have .08% blacks, 45.74% gentile whites, 54.18% Ashkenazi Jews—Ashkenazi’s would now outnumber gentile whites in the above 160 range.
Now we can see why it seems like every other historically eminent scientist is Ashkenazi Jewish (e.g. Einstein, Feynman, Von Neumann).
To the extent that low-IQ is associated with violent crime, repeating the exercise yet again for low-IQ would illuminate why violent crime rates by race of perpetrator are the way they are.
The above calculations are not meant to be law (for example, the US population figure are not age-adjusted, we can quibble about the average IQ estimates, cognitive ability is not perfectly normal, colleges select on things like conscientiousness in addition to IQ, etc.), but they help illustrate the general principle—the impact of differing mean IQs between population groups at the tails.
This is common—many people don’t really “get” the effects of normal distributions at the tails—and Yale is a tail (har har, it rhymes). Tail effects are why the average man may only run a bit faster than the average woman, but there are thousands of men who can run a 100m dash faster than the women’s world record of 10.49 seconds.
IQ, by construction, is normally distributed—with a mean of 100, and standard deviation of 15. Cognitive ability is not perfectly normally distributed, but the normal distribution generally works quite well to model it (same deal with traits like height). Among large population groups, IQ appears to have a standard deviation of roughly 15, as well.
If we go with a standard deviation of 15 for each group, and if the mean US black IQ is 85, US gentile whites 100, and US Ashkenazi Jews 115—only .003% of blacks will have an IQ over 145, but .135% of gentile whites will, and 2.28% of Ashkenazi Jews—since for blacks, a 145 IQ would be 4 standard deviations above average. For whites, it would be 3 standard deviations above average, and for Ashkenazi Jews, 2 standard deviations above average.
On a per capita basis, there would be about 42.6 whites to every black with an IQ over 145, and 16.9 Ashkenazi Jews to every gentile White.
Then let’s consider the respective U.S. population size estimates of 38.9, 197.9 (maybe this could be 197.9 – 5.5 = 192.4, but shouldn’t make a big difference), and 5.5 million for blacks, gentile whites, and Ashkenazi’s, respectively (each from Wikipedia, I got 5.5 by averaging the 5-6 million range they gave).
Out of Americans who are black, gentile, or Ashkenazi Jews with an IQ over 145 (so not including Asians, etc.), blacks would only be 0.31% of said over-145 IQ group, whites 67.89%, and Ashkenazi Jews 31.80%. Almost no blacks, and about 2/3 gentile whites and 1/3 Ashkenazi Jews.
Now we can see why that in the absence of affirmative action, blacks would have very small percentages in any arena that selects for high IQ, and why Ashkenazi Jews would have a large presence—like at Yale.
However, if Ashkenazi’s really are 27% of the Yale population (as posted by someone) and whites overall are 62% (72% from the Yale site divided by the sum of all the percentages, since as noted they went over 100% because of Yale double-counting), this would mean a 35% gentile white population.
This seems like there’s more Ashkenazi’s Jews at Yale than you would expect based upon IQ figures, especially since an “IQ cutoff” to model Yale would probably be a bit lower than 145.
If we went with a 145 cut-off for Yale and we accept the numbers of 27% for Yale Ashkenazi’s and the figures on Yale’s site, A 27% to 35% ratio of .77 is higher than the 31.80% to 67.89% ratio of .468. This may suggest that Yale favors Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites—the ratio of Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites is .77/.468 = 1.65 times higher than we expected. The 1.65 number is conservative, since the 145 IQ cut-off for Yale is probably a bit too high. However, for context, the ratio of blacks to gentile whites at Yale is apparently 8.5%/35% = 0.24, whereas we would expect 0.31%/67.89% = 0.0046 based on the above IQ calculations. This means a ratio of blacks to gentile whites .24/.0046 = 52.56 times what we expected. Weirdly enough, if gentile whites really indeed only are 35% of Yale’s population, this would mean blacks might be over-represented vis a vis whites as 8.5%/35% = .242 > 38.9/197.9 = .1965 even if we pretended the blacks and whites have equivalent IQs—a .1965 ratio is what we would expect if we just randomly selected people with no regard to IQ. This would be pretty egregious.
Repeating the exercise with IQ over 160 leads to per capita ratios of 110.5 gentile whites to every black, 42.6 Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites, and factoring in population numbers we have .08% blacks, 45.74% gentile whites, 54.18% Ashkenazi Jews—Ashkenazi’s would now outnumber gentile whites in the above 160 range.
Now we can see why it seems like every other historically eminent scientist is Ashkenazi Jewish (e.g. Einstein, Feynman, Von Neumann).
To the extent that low-IQ is associated with violent crime, repeating the exercise yet again for low-IQ would illuminate why violent crime rates by race of perpetrator are the way they are.
The above calculations are not meant to be law (for example, the US population figure are not age-adjusted, we can quibble about the average IQ estimates, cognitive ability is not perfectly normal, colleges select on things like conscientiousness in addition to IQ, etc.), but they help illustrate the general principle—the impact of differing mean IQs between population groups at the tails.
Biology does not control behavior like many of you chose to believe. Here is a great post, talking about this scholarly article: "Parenting behaviors associated with risk for offspring personality disorder during adulthood."
See how antisocial PD starts out at zero but avoidant PD starts out at about 3 percent? That is because you can be born shy, but not antisocial. The nature versus nurture debate is all but dead in psychiatry. You don't need a high IQ to develop a superego -- which is what is relevant when considering violence and impulse control, not intelligence.
See how antisocial PD starts out at zero but avoidant PD starts out at about 3 percent? That is because you can be born shy, but not antisocial. The nature versus nurture debate is all but dead in psychiatry. You don't need a high IQ to develop a superego -- which is what is relevant when considering violence and impulse control, not intelligence.
Kabal.
I think it is wrong to assume Ashkenazi IQ is normally distributed as historically, they are just the high end of the general Eastern European population who were sufficiently smart to do finance instead of assimilating for easier but less rewarding work.
I think it is wrong to assume Ashkenazi IQ is normally distributed as historically, they are just the high end of the general Eastern European population who were sufficiently smart to do finance instead of assimilating for easier but less rewarding work.
2Wycked said:
Come on, don't be silly--I expect better of you. Your opening statement is a strawman and the authors did not control for genetics in their study, and they disclaim as such. I almost feel Poe's Law'd.
Many psychiatric traits are highly heritable. Additive effects of genetics alone are estimated to explain a substantial of amount of the variation in traits such as Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, Major depressive disorder, ASD, and ADHD, at 81%, 75%, 37%, 80%, and 75%, respectively, from family studies.
The authors of that paper were able to recover 17-29% of the heritabilty with SNPs--SNPs are tough to work with, as you often have many more SNPs than observations (n >> p), making the statistics difficult. Hence, the SNP-based heritability is a floor on the actual heritabilty.
For example, although the first paper only got 27% for bipolar, a newer paper, with a different data set, focused more on statistics and captured over 60% of the heritability of Bipolar disorder using SNPs through 3 different statistical techniques (each of the 3 came within 60% and 65%)--closer to the family-based estimate of 75%.
So for Bipolar, additive genetics explains at least 60-65% of the variation in the phenotype of Bipolar disorder, and perhaps up to 75%. Thus only leaving 35% to 40% of the variation, at most, due to items such as genetic dominance effects, genetic interaction effects, peer groups, schooling, parenting, measurement error, developmental error, etc. combined.
Clearly, parenting can have an effect--if you hit your kid in the head with baseball bat, that probably wouldn't bode well for his future IQ. However, overall, parenting explains little variation relative to additive genetics (heritability).
In a multitude of cognitive traits, heritability alone explains a substantial amount of variation in phenotype--including the bulkload of variation in traits such as IQ and bipolar disorder.
For many cognitive traits, such as IQ, "nature" trumps "nurture" in countries like the United States. Even if we restrict "nature" to additive genetics and dump stuff like peer groups, schooling, parenting, measurement error, developmental error, and other sources of error people wouldn't think of as "nurture" into the "nurture" term.
frenchcorporation
Kingfisher
rw95 said:
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance in this forum. It deserves its own thread, but I dont think there would be any constructive discourse, due to aforementioned cognitive dissonance.
Also:
frenchcorporation said:Atlanta Man said:
Large swathes of the alt-right in a nutshell:
When black people underperform against white people - ah, its because they have low iqs compared to us, look at these charts
When jews outperform white people - conspiracy!
scorpion said:
The Myth of American Meritocracy is a must-read to get a sense of how elite universities make admission decisions. It is written by Ron Unz, who is Jewish.
There is no conspiracy.
Not only is Kanal correct to state that many psychological traits are heritable, it's also true that general intelligence (IQ) is one of the most heritable traits. Furthermore, if you look at the demographics of countries, the highest IQ countries (like Singapore, Japan, and South Korea) are at least 95% racially homogenous. So, too, are the lowest IQ countries like Mozambique, Yemen, and Equatorial Guinea.
Once any country becomes extraordinarily racially homogenous, (and once you can prove that it's been that way for a very long time), you can settle the "nature versus nurture" debate by declaring that nature is nurture.
Once any country becomes extraordinarily racially homogenous, (and once you can prove that it's been that way for a very long time), you can settle the "nature versus nurture" debate by declaring that nature is nurture.
@ Lucky
Thanks for excerpt. I had read about Unz's musings on possible gentile white discrimination vis a vis Ashkenazi Jews in college admissions, but was kind of indifferent and forgot about it, a bit.
I've never believed in a "Jewish Conspiracy" and still don't. US Ashkenazi Jews consolidate on many on opinions; it's because they're overwhelmingly liberal. Especially because the overwhelming majority of them have no skin in the game.
Since they generally live in nice areas (by virtue of their higher IQs and thus SES), it's statistically not them or their daughters getting blown-up, raped, assaulted, murdered or whatever by "vibrant" minority groups.
Jews have gentile whites to absorb that--if they're not God's Chosen people and white, they're basically asking for it.
To the extent that one may want to counter the viewpoints of PC-Lefitism, that means countering the opinions of many U.S. Jews.
In aspects such as IQ, differences in race far surpass differences in sex in terms of effects (men do not appear to be smarter than women on average; men just appear to have higher variance). If one is to be against PC-lefitsm, racial and sexual egalitarianism are both destructive--with racial egalitarianism more egregious from a statistical standpoint.
There was mentioning of some possible cognitive dissonance with regard to the Black/White IQ gap on this forum, and the Gentile/Ashkenazi Jew IQ gap. I agree with that sentiment.
However, any cognitive dissonance on this forum on the Black/White vs. Gentile/Ashkenazi gap would be paltry compared to that when it comes to racial gaps versus male/female gaps. Men only differ from women when it comes to variance in IQ (if that), but different racial groups often differ from each other in mean.
And when it comes to roughly normally distributed traits such as IQ, differences in mean are much more impact-ful than differences in variance, especially on tails (as I have covered multiple times on this forum).
It takes a lot of hamstering to believe in cognitive differences in distribution between men and women, especially when it comes to IQ, but not between "racial" groups. If this forum treated cognitive differences between races like it did cognitive differences between men and women, many of ya'll would complain it's Worst Than Stormfront. In other words, the forum is already relatively PC when it comes to racial differences, and exceedlingly polite--especially in comparison to any discussion on male vs. female differences.
Lastly, obviously I meant (p >> n) and not (n >> p) in my previous post.
Thanks for excerpt. I had read about Unz's musings on possible gentile white discrimination vis a vis Ashkenazi Jews in college admissions, but was kind of indifferent and forgot about it, a bit.
I've never believed in a "Jewish Conspiracy" and still don't. US Ashkenazi Jews consolidate on many on opinions; it's because they're overwhelmingly liberal. Especially because the overwhelming majority of them have no skin in the game.
Since they generally live in nice areas (by virtue of their higher IQs and thus SES), it's statistically not them or their daughters getting blown-up, raped, assaulted, murdered or whatever by "vibrant" minority groups.
Jews have gentile whites to absorb that--if they're not God's Chosen people and white, they're basically asking for it.
To the extent that one may want to counter the viewpoints of PC-Lefitism, that means countering the opinions of many U.S. Jews.
In aspects such as IQ, differences in race far surpass differences in sex in terms of effects (men do not appear to be smarter than women on average; men just appear to have higher variance). If one is to be against PC-lefitsm, racial and sexual egalitarianism are both destructive--with racial egalitarianism more egregious from a statistical standpoint.
There was mentioning of some possible cognitive dissonance with regard to the Black/White IQ gap on this forum, and the Gentile/Ashkenazi Jew IQ gap. I agree with that sentiment.
However, any cognitive dissonance on this forum on the Black/White vs. Gentile/Ashkenazi gap would be paltry compared to that when it comes to racial gaps versus male/female gaps. Men only differ from women when it comes to variance in IQ (if that), but different racial groups often differ from each other in mean.
And when it comes to roughly normally distributed traits such as IQ, differences in mean are much more impact-ful than differences in variance, especially on tails (as I have covered multiple times on this forum).
It takes a lot of hamstering to believe in cognitive differences in distribution between men and women, especially when it comes to IQ, but not between "racial" groups. If this forum treated cognitive differences between races like it did cognitive differences between men and women, many of ya'll would complain it's Worst Than Stormfront. In other words, the forum is already relatively PC when it comes to racial differences, and exceedlingly polite--especially in comparison to any discussion on male vs. female differences.
Lastly, obviously I meant (p >> n) and not (n >> p) in my previous post.
Aurini
Ostrich
Why is it that whenever they find some woman to celebrate as a genius, it's inevitably in some sort of obscure field where you need a PhD to even begin to understand her contributions?
And for that matter, why is it that White people either roll over whenever Jews complain, OR turn into toxic "Gas the Kikes, Race War Now" idiots? Actually I suppose that's just people in general; binary thinking.
Kabal said:
I don't believe in a Jewish conspiracy.
In a previous post I shared Roosh's review of Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald.
He advances a persuasive theory that Jews are simply working toward beneficial ends for themselves and their group. There is no secret illuminati ensuring Jews get the best positions. That's silly.
Jews have tribal loyalty to one another. They help each other out, even if they don't know each other. Compare this with white gentiles, who feel no intrinsic loyalty to other gentiles. It is easy to see why Jews outnumber gentiles in elite universities and top professions.
If a group is cognitively gifted and loyal to other members of that group, that group will rapidly ascend in an individualist society where other groups don't have such strong tribal loyalty.
I am not making any value judgments for Jews or anyone else. For some, tribalism and loyalty are good. For others, individualism and merit are good.
- Status