Thank you. You research essentially matches my estimate for average G-weighted Jewish I.Q. at 108-109. The simple issue is this isn't that much above the Asian average I.Q. at 105-107 but we have dramatic difference in outcomes for let's say representation at elite Colleges. Clearly there's something Jews do or have that people with similar intelligence don't but somehow we aren't allow to even acknowledge this obvious fact.
I know the DR often says that in-group preference or nepotism is the explanation but I'm wondering if actively punishing Gentile groups plays a bigger role in their outside success?
For example, the 150 points on the SAT scores that subtracted during University admissions plays perhaps an equal or even bigger role on why Asians don't dominate and the Jewish student body in places like Harvard is massive. Asians are nepotistic but they don't actively try and harm other groups unlike many powerful Jewish group are known to do. Can we divide "nepotism" into positive and negative nepotism and create a model to predict which kind of nepotism is practiced by which groups and which explains more?
Genetics and conditioning, you already know the answer. Where the propensity derived, environmental pressure which allowed for larger gene pool, mating preferences, high general K strategic phenotype unlike Asians with also high K but to the extent in which the positive manifold lessens and becomes more adaptive to a niche giving rise to aspects of R. For example European women give the most head where as Asians are the opposite, Europeans have the most pets where as Asians are the opposite, Europeans are more creative and rely more heavily on geniuses to dominate other groups where as Asians relatively do not and rely more on an ethnocentric strategy, and Asians have a narrower IQ band with a higher average baseline. Religious institutions may have also inhibited clannishness from thriving.
Dope, I was gonna ask about this. J got the finger on the pulse
What is exousiology?
Thank you. You research essentially matches my estimate for average G-weighted Jewish I.Q. at 108-109. The simple issue is this isn't that much above the Asian average I.Q. at 105-107 but we have dramatic difference in outcomes for let's say representation at elite Colleges. Clearly there's something Jews do or have that people with similar intelligence don't but somehow we aren't allow to even acknowledge this obvious fact.
I know the DR often says that in-group preference or nepotism is the explanation but I'm wondering if actively punishing Gentile groups plays a bigger role in their outside success?
For example, the 150 points on the SAT scores that subtracted during University admissions plays perhaps an equal or even bigger role on why Asians don't dominate and the Jewish student body in places like Harvard is massive. Asians are nepotistic but they don't actively try and harm other groups unlike many powerful Jewish group are known to do. Can we divide "nepotism" into positive and negative nepotism and create a model to predict which kind of nepotism is practiced by which groups and which explains more?
Genetics and conditioning, you already know the answer. Where the propensity derived, environmental pressure which allowed for larger gene pool, mating preferences, high general K strategic phenotype unlike Asians with also high K but to the extent in which the positive manifold lessens and becomes more adaptive to a niche giving rise to aspects of R. For example European women give the most head where as Asians are the opposite, Europeans have the most pets where as Asians are the opposite, Europeans are more creative and rely more heavily on geniuses to dominate other groups where as Asians relatively do not and rely more on an ethnocentric strategy, and Asians have a narrower IQ band with a higher average baseline. Religious institutions may have also inhibited clannishness from thriving.