Jewish IQ and Wasted Talent

[Anonymous No.9705406]

VoxDay did a pretty good rebuke of Jordan Peterson here: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-myth-of-jordan-petersons-integrity.html

This is like 90% valid. Vox does present rules-of-thumb that aren't accurate like averaging populations IQs when they interbreed, but overall it is a good breakdown on why it is preposterous to believe that American jews have 115 IQs.

This situation is quite interesting. The Left denies IQ research. The Right embraces bad IQ research because if you convince people jews have high IQs it is easier to convince them that blacks have low IQs. The whole thing is distorted.

I also want to discuss what can be done about the decreasing returns to IQ. Far too many high IQ people (almost always nerdy men) basically give up on life and play video games. It is tragic, and we must find a solution both for them and for society as a whole. The amount of wasted brainpower in the US is staggering.

[Anonymous No.9705437]

>>9705406
Very good post. Unfortunately brainlets will still keep spouting the lie that their jewish masters are the most intelligent, the master race, and are therefore justified in their parasitic subversion of Western countries.

[Anonymous No.9705443]

>>9705437
The person who made this image has talent. I don't care about Jordan Anderson's IQ I just clicked the picture and was impressed.

[Anonymous No.9705445]

Yikes. I'm basically a race realist, but Vox Day's analysis is too sloppy to be taken seriously. No doubt 115 is too high for Ashkenazim, but 105 is way too low. It's somewhere around 110. And the idea that entering high-IQ professions becomes harder at the top of the bell curve is simply empirically false (see the Anne Roe study, the Terman Study, and the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youths; the chances of getting into elite occupations increases as far up the bell curve as has been studied; see also Steve Hsu's writings for a nice breakdown of this). Peterson's essay is basically bullshit, but so is Vox Day's. You have to actually dig if you want a good sense of what's going on here.

[Anonymous No.9705448]

I think a big reason why many high IQ men drop out of society is the basic structure of 99% of US schools. Your teachers don't like you if you are both smarter than them and know it. You don't like your teachers either. Programs like GATE are great for many kids, but someone with an IQ over 145 will still not fit in in a gifted classroom. Furthermore, I think any man with a dominant personality is fucked by the current educational climate. We need to bring back "boys will be boys" at least for the very intelligent.

[Anonymous No.9705455]

>>9705445
There is pretty good data on decreasing returns to high IQ. The only recent study you mentioned is the last one, and that was a fairly narrow study just looking at kids who took the SAT at a very young age and did phenomenally well. That study has severe selection bias.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-excluded.html

[Anonymous No.9705457]

>>9705445
>No doubt 115 is too high for Ashkenazim, but 105 is way too low.
Just trust me, goy.

[Anonymous No.9705460]

>>9705445
>It's somewhere around 110.
We need a current statistically valid sampling of US jews. I really doubt it is 110, which comes from Lynn. That estimate is about a generation old, and jews keep getting dumber.

[Anonymous No.9705466]

>>9705455
Decreasing returns, but still returns. Almost all of the gentile self-made billionaires in the U.S. who've taken IQ tests are in the genius range: Bill Gates (165+/untestable), Paul Allen (165+/untestable), Warren Buffet (150), Peter Thiel (140s), Elon Musk (unknown but scored highest of all time on a g-loaded IBM aptitude test). If you know of self-made billionaires who've scored lower than 140, I would like to know about them.

[Anonymous No.9705476]

>>9705466
All of those are tech or finance guys. Almost all of their non-trivial employees have IQs over 140 too.

[Anonymous No.9705479]

>>9705406
IQ does not directly measure intelligence. It's a measure of position in rankable tests. It's really robust in that it is repeatable and can be measure quite easily. You take 1000 people give them a test with a number of questions and you rank them according to how well they did. IQ says that if you rank high, you stay ranked high across all rankable test no matter what subject. If you rank low you stay low.
Although its a good measure of "success" in that if you are at the "top" of your field, by definition you have a high IQ. The problem is that IQ cannot measure creativity, the test questions have to have a correct answer, i.e. the tests have to be rankable. Creativity by definition is unrankable. Creativity means doing things that have not been done before. IQ correlates with creativity only up to 120.

The solution to low IQ population is technology and the developement of custom a.i. Basically you offload all mental task to your smartphone so you don't have to think. Everyone gets an a.i.
Productivity is another problem in itself.

[Anonymous No.9705487]

>>9705479
>Creativity by definition is unrankable. Creativity means doing things that have not been done before. IQ correlates with creativity only up to 120.
Creativity is one of those vague things we know is real but don't know any way to measure. Another is drive or ambition. Another is confidence. And all these vague terms are probably related.

We need to incentivize our cognitive elite better. I don't think they are responding well to society at the moment.

[Anonymous No.9705489]

>>9705479
The threshold/Gladwell effect (IQ tracks creativity up to 120) sounds nice but is empirically false. The Terman and SMPY show that even kids who score in the 99.9th percentile solely on math questions have a far greater probability of publishing fiction in their lifetimes than someone in the 99th percentile.

[Anonymous No.9705500]

>>9705489
You quite frankly don't need any IQ to be creative. For example evolution is extremely creative and it's stupid as hell. And we also have those "artists" types. Its probably the memory measurement component of IQ that allows people to do things that haven't done before simply by keeping track of your trials.

[Anonymous No.9705526]

>>9705489
Anecdotally, it's worth noting that many eminent fiction writers have been tested in the 99.9th percentile (IQ testing was bigger in the old days, especially in the army). Updike's IQ, according to a letter, was about 150. Isaac Asimov scored 160+ (the score ceiling) on multiple tests, including an army one. Thomas Pynchon's IQ according to the New York Times was tested at 190 at one point, but that may have been a ratio IQ (his adult adjusted IQ would be in the 160s or so). Many writers are or were formally in Mensa (Google it), such as Joyce Carol Oates and Roger Zelazny. Rex Stout had a ratio IQ of 190 (also putting his adult IQ in the 160s). John Kennedy Toole was a National Merit Scholar (140s). Keep in mind, there are only about 10,000 people in the U.S. with IQs of 160 or higher. If 160 IQ were a town, every block would have some eminent figure on it, which is exactly what you would expect in a free market society that runs on intelligence.

[Anonymous No.9705533]

>>9705500
I never said that you "need" intelligence to be creative, only that intelligence increases your probability of success in creative fields as high up the bell curve as has been measured.

[Anonymous No.9705534]

>>9705526
>which is exactly what you would expect in a free market society that runs on intelligence.
No, you would expect a greater proportion of geniuses, and you certainly wouldn't expect half of the population to be NEETs.

[Anonymous No.9705540]

>>9705534
>you certainly wouldn't expect half of the population to be NEETs

Where are you getting this?

[Anonymous No.9705545]

>>9705526
Yeah, but most people don't want to believe I.Q. is a thing or that it measures something important. Probably best to let them have their fantasy honestly.

[Anonymous No.9705552]

>>9705406
>Jews are not overrepresented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ, because a) IQs over 145 do not tend to help, but rather tend to hinder, an individual's ability to attain such positions,
The mean IQ of Jews was claimed to be 115, not 145, so even if it was true that IQ over 145 is a hindrance, this is a non-sequitur.

>and b) their higher mean IQ is not high enough to compensate for their much smaller population.
If Jews were x% of the population, we would expect that x% of the positions would be held by Jews if they have the same qualifications as the general population, regardless of how small the population is. If more than x% of the positions were held by Jews, that means Jews are over-represented.

This guy can't into logic.

[Anonymous No.9705556]

>>9705540
Miraca Gross has done a long-term longitudinal study of 60, 160+ D15IQ Australian children. 17 of the children were radically accelerated, 10 were accelerated one or two years and the remaining 33 were mainstreamed. The results were astonishing with every radically accelerated student reported as educationally and professionally successful and emotionally and socially satisfied. The group that was not accelerated she characterizes as follows: 'With few exceptions, they have very jaded views of their education. Two dropped out of high school and a number have dropped out of university. Several more have had ongoing difficulties at university, not because of a lack of ability but because they have found it difficult to commit to undergraduate study that is less than stimulating'. These children have IQs similar to Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, etc., so the loss from unrealized potential is enormous.
https://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html
There is a lot more there.

[Anonymous No.9705573]

>>9705556
That's interesting. Actually, now that you mention it, that does accord with an article I read a while back on 160+ geniuses having social difficulties: "Outliers," by Grady Towers. So, even though the study is a bit small, I'm happy to grant there are plausibly social problems that come with an ultra-high IQ. On balance, though, that doesn't cut against my overall claim that creativity tracks IQ to a striking degree, and in fact your "da Vinci" comment seems to agree. But maybe you're a different poster.

[Anonymous No.9705592]

>>9705552
Vox Day is not an intelligent man. His absolutely godawful fiction shows that pretty clearly.

[Anonymous No.9705603]

>>9705445
>race R E A L I S T

why are conspiracy theorists so insecure?

[Anonymous No.9705610]

>>9705552
>This guy can't into logic.
Both of your objections are literally logically fallacies. There is a handy chart pinned at the top of /pol.

[Anonymous No.9705614]

>>9705603
wut

[Anonymous No.9705634]

>>9705406
pretty sure Lynn estimated jewish IQ at around 109. the average white IQ in some areas is around 104 in parts of the US too, so the levels of Jewish over-representation we see are pretty silly.

[Anonymous No.9705635]

>>9705610
How are they fallacious?

[Anonymous No.9705644]

>>9705635
The first is a non-sequitor (you don't seem to grasp his point at all and/or you don't understand distributions). The second is a straw man.

[Anonymous No.9705648]

>>9705635
I was just trolling honestly. People who defend Jews are scum in my opinion, even if they're in the right.

[Anonymous No.9705664]

>>9705466
>Warren Buffet (150)
where did you read this?

[Anonymous No.9705668]

vox day is a crank, not science.

[Anonymous No.9705672]

>>9705648
Antisemites should ask themselves why so many people hate them.

[Anonymous No.9705686]

>>9705644
>The first is a non-sequitor (you don't seem to grasp his point at all and/or you don't understand distributions).
How is it a non sequitur? He even states the point he is attempting to make:

>Jews are not overrepresented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ

Their higher mean IQ is allegedly 115. Then he states a non-sequitur:

>because a) IQs over 145 do not tend to help, but rather tend to hinder, an individual's ability to attain such positions,

The claim he was supposed to be disproving is that Jews are over-represented because they have a higher mean IQ, not because Jews have IQs over 145. Even if we assume that IQs higher than 145 hinder the ability to attain such positions, this does not keep Jews' higher mean IQ of 115 from helping them attain such positions.

>The second is a straw man.
How? The second point is:

>and b) their higher mean IQ is not high enough to compensate for their much smaller population.

This is a non-sequitur since the small size of the population does not make over-representation less likely. If Jews had the same ability to attain these positions as the general population, we would expect that they would have the same percentage of those positions as their percentage of the population. The size of the population doesn't change that.

[Anonymous No.9705698]

>>9705664
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/giving-dorris-buffett-story-michael-zitz/story?id=10827641

>Much later, she discovered that the woman who had administered an IQ test to Bertie, Warren and Doris when they were eight, ten and twelve, respectively, was still alive. Doris checked the results: her IQ test result was 150, a couple of points lower than Warren's and a couple higher than Bertie's. "I don't know that I believed it, but I immediately joined Mensa because I could get in on that score," she said with a chuckle.

[Anonymous No.9705728]

I recommend readers of >>9705686 independently read Vox's article >>9705406

[Anonymous No.9705746]

>>9705728
I would recommend that you back up your bullshit claims of fallacies with an argument.