Jewish high IQ - 20 reasons why

[Daco Celtic]

My undergrad college was something like 70% Asian and Jewish.

[Joso]

High, but not higher than Jews.

Not on IQ alone but together with other inteligence factors, inclusive better ones, mongoloids are above Jews.

[Lioncourt]

Nope, it is impossible for Longbowman to be on the same level of Richard Feynman because they have different intellectual profiles but that is not shown by the single notion of IQ because IQ is a highly flawed mythical concept

Nope, Longbowman's inductive/deductive reasoning ability is inferior to what Richard Feynman's was but that does not show up on IQ because IQ averages out seperate levels of intelligence e.g. it conflates the three components into one averaged out number. So Longbowman could never be equal or superior to Richard Feynman at physics.

Since you are a fan of science, you'd have known claims should have been backed up by evidence - you use "never" and "impossible" in a sentence without putting Longbowman and Feynman under exactly the same conditions, making sure they put exactly the same effort, and making them pursue exactly the same goals. This is not even relevant to validity of IQ tests, which is a completely different story and I'm generally not very interested in the subject to start a prolonged discussion about them.

It'd have been ok if you said "It is highly unlikely Longbowman would have ever achieved what Feynman did" because it's obvious not many people win a Nobel prize and you still give room for doubt. Winning a Nobel prize requires a brilliant mind, hard work and dedication but also lots of luck to discover/invent something big in the right time (though luck itself plays a role in IQ tests too, that's why IQ score floats usually between two numbers, it's not always the same).

[JamesBond007]

Since you are a fan of science, you'd have known claims should have been backed up by evidence - you use "never" and "impossible" in a sentence without putting Longbowman and Feynman under exactly the same conditions, making sure they put exactly the same effort, and making them pursue exactly the same goals. This is not even relevant to validity of IQ tests, which is a completely different story and I'm generally not very interested in the subject to start a prolonged discussion about them.

It'd have been ok if you said "It is highly unlikely Longbowman would have ever achieved what Feynman did" because it's obvious not many people win a Nobel prize and you still give room for doubt. Winning a Nobel prize requires a brilliant mind, hard work and dedication but also lots of luck to discover/invent something big in the right time (though luck itself plays a role in IQ tests too, that's why IQ score floats usually between two numbers, it's not always the same).

Alright, dude, you are right I have no idea how smart Longbowman is since his high IQ is a myth but I find it highly unlikely he could compete on the same level of Richard Feynman in the field of physics . Are you happy now ? I exaggerated my statement because we were in a heated debate.

Also, if Longbowman is reading this I would just like him to know that I was not responsible for initially entering him into the debate and it is not my intention to speak badly about him.

[Aldaris]

IQ measures your capability of success in the academic field, so what you said isn't any proof of it being a bullshit.

That's not how it's defined. There is a correlation between whatever the notion actually measures (don't say intelligence, as pretty much every psychologist would kinda cringe, if you ask what that even is) and success in academia indeed, but one isn't defined with terms of the other.

Being a Nobel laureat and a top level theoretical physician depends on IQ

Wrong choice of words. If you think it literally depends on it, might wanna prove that there is in fact such a function. Long story short: there's not. But again, not denying correlation.

but IQ isn't the only factor - hard work and dedication is.

I'd certainly say IQ is indeed a valid, measurable factor, which can, with a fair degree of certainty, predict your path in life. We both know it's not perfect for doing so, but there is indeed a pattern. Thing is, it's not separated from 'hard work and dedication', as those go hand in hand. I know guys who went from average Joes to world-level problem solvers just by that.

Just like owning a Ferrari..

Going further with that in a different way, even if you weren't born in a rich family, for most, there is in theory a way to purchase a Ferrari. Whether you do something with it or not is still besides the point.

[Lioncourt]

That's not how it's defined. There is a correlation between whatever the notion actually measures (don't say intelligence, as pretty much every psychologist would kinda cringe, if you ask what that even is) and success in academia indeed, but one isn't defined with terms of the other.

I didn't say that is the definition - I mentioned one of its purposes as often psychologists give IQ tests to children to determine in what class to place them.

Wrong choice of words. If you think it literally depends on it, might wanna prove that there is in fact such a function. Long story short: there's not. But again, not denying correlation.

Such function cannot exist, success and IQ aren't axioms - I agree with you that there is a correlation though, that's what I said as well as there are other things in the "formula". I believe if there is a study of IQ of Nobel physics and Field medal laureats majority would be genius level (>145) but still there would be some with Feynman's score. Maybe such study already exists, I don't have time to search.

I'd certainly say IQ is indeed a valid, measurable factor, which can, with a fair degree of certainty, predict your path in life. We both know it's not perfect for doing so, but there is indeed a pattern. Thing is, it's not separated from 'hard work and dedication', as those go hand in hand. I know guys who went from average Joes to world-level problem solvers just by that.

In terms of IQ average Joe is 90-110, random person from the street might be 130, without several (not one) tests nobody knows. Genius people can hide in the least expected of corners, I know a girl legit tested by psychologists with an average score of 139, she is a housewife caring for her two children now, although she has a law degree. If you meet her you wouldn't guess she qualifies for MENSA.

[Tauromachos]

"Almost 50% of Grandmasters are Ashkenazi"... well, trololol...

Stop with such stupid Zionist propaganda, please...

Only..?

70% or 80% at least

[Longbowman]

I'm not going to win a Nobel prize for the sciences, guise.

To be fair to me I handicapped myself by not pursuing a career or even degree in the sciences.

Having an IQ in the highest percentile or fraction of a percentile is not unusual, statistically, it's true of 1 in every 100 people, or one person in every three classrooms.

[Joso]

That's not how it's defined. There is a correlation between whatever the notion actually measures (don't say intelligence, as pretty much every psychologist would kinda cringe, if you ask what that even is) and success in academia indeed, but one isn't defined with terms of the other.



Wrong choice of words. If you think it literally depends on it, might wanna prove that there is in fact such a function. Long story short: there's not. But again, not denying correlation.



I'd certainly say IQ is indeed a valid, measurable factor, which can, with a fair degree of certainty, predict your path in life. We both know it's not perfect for doing so, but there is indeed a pattern. Thing is, it's not separated from 'hard work and dedication', as those go hand in hand. I know guys who went from average Joes to world-level problem solvers just by that.



Going further with that in a different way, even if you weren't born in a rich family, for most, there is in theory a way to purchase a Ferrari. Whether you do something with it or not is still besides the point.

Prizes like nobel laureal and such can be manipulated, there is that possibility too. We cannot accept everything that is mainstream as if it were unquestionable truths.

[Lioncourt]

To be fair to me I handicapped myself by not pursuing a career or even degree in the sciences.

As someone who initially wanted to become a scientist, I'm glad I didn't fulfill my dream. Science, art and sport are always better as a hobby if you belong to the 90% of conformists.