hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I should have clarified, an 'imported' or foreign born asian wife. What I was saying is that this single data point doesn't necessarily point in the direction you need it to. It's not a matter of how many, it's a matter of recognizing that the course of your life and your expressed political beliefs don't always line up 100%. And just because they don't doesn't mean you don't feel how you feel regarding politics and your in and outgroups.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
So why not revolt against the modern world, if it is dehumanizing us like this? Or, a more modest proposal, rethink how we develop or interface with technology?
I mean, it seems to be a rather self defeating argument to bring up the fact that we have more ways now than ever to connect when we are standing right next to the fact that we are connecting less and less. And it certainly didn't stand as a valid argument in my household that playing video games was more fun than visiting grandma during Christmas. And whilst I didn't agree with it as a kid, I can certainly agree with and appreciate it now.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
No, looking at the tail ends the total number of jews is too low to account for the overrepresentation. At the elite level jews are outnumbered 6 to 1.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
They can cite higher numbers if they want, just like I can cite numbers that say the average IQ of a fieldworker in China is 122. That doesn't mean its very smart to do so. Considering that looking at a small sample of jewish children from high achieving families might skew the data. Similarly to how only looking at test takers from elite universities in Beijing might.
Lynn looked at vocabulary scores of jews living in the US as a proxy for IQ and saw that in that category they had an advantage that ultimately translates to 7 points. Considering that jews, in every study I've seen, are carried by their verbal score, but lag behind in other scores, such as spatial memory, I'd consider 104 to be a reasonable lower estimate, and considering I could be wrong somewhere, a 109 is a reasonable upper estimate.
I don't know why you think Lynn is such a bad researcher. He generated a lot of controversy with his rough estimates for IQ for areas that did not have much data. But it's not like he didn't know that these were rough estimates. The controversy was, as far as I could tell, carried nigh entirely by hysterics from people who did not belong at the table of psychometric research in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If most HBD figures cited an inflated Chinese IQ score they would be wrong as well. I don't understand this authority worship here. Looking at studies on jewish IQ in the US, most focus on children and/or unrepresentative samples. I see no reason to look at the aggregate of bad studies over a single decent one regardless of what 'leading figures' have to say. If this is what they say I don't see a reason to consider them leading on the topic. Nor do I consider the disagreement between us to be on an equal level.
I don't understand your last paragraph. I'm not saying that it's a myth that jews are overrepresented where they are. I just hazard a guess to say that they are where they are, on top of everything you laid out, because of heavily expressed ingroup bias. Or, for a lack of a better term, nepotism. And I am sure that this is an inherited trait like all psychological traits are.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Considering that most people in these institutions are not 155+ IQ, no the situation does not make sense. You have to crank the dial on the IQ score all the way up to get a number that doesn't betray the glaring obviousness of jewish overrepresentation. Which is why when the claim is 115 for jewish IQ, the IQ barometer is set at 145 or 140, and when we lower the jewish IQ score, the barometer for IQ goes up accordingly. I don't think this is a game worth playing and it becomes obvious how ridiculous it is when looking at the actual IQ scores of jews.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It's obviously a factor that you left out of your previous comment. Just getting your foot in academia is half the battle for most of the novel scientific advances. Most of which happen as a result of larger teams with networking that relies entirely on the institution. Considering the obscene overrepresentation of jews in all levels of academia I can't see how you could argue to the contrary. Especially considering the actual IQ of jews. The amount of exclusion going on in those institutions at the cost of gentiles is, again, obscene and is in no way justified by any metric. Or maybe it is, we'd have to see what the jewish thought and policy leaders have to say on that question. Hopefully they have some justification outside of racial hatred. Though I am so far yet to see it.
Jews outperformed even in the Ottoman Empire and Eastern Europe, both of which had native populations that did not have the pathological lack of ingroup preference with which some HBD proponents diagnose Western Europeans.
I guess we have a difference in defining performance. As far as I understand the history of jews as something other than wandering gypsies is that of slave merchants and usurers. I wouldn't call it a success to be run out of every other place in Europe and then managing to outcompete Turks in swindling their own peasants only to lose it all to the Greeks. But in any case I don't understand the relevance of this. Neither Turks nor Ukrainian peasants are, as far as I can tell, a relevant comparison to anything.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I care because I don't like to be ruled over by a population group that gleefully advertises its hatred and genocidal tendencies towards mine. The question wasn't whether the mechanism by which they accrue power is hereditary or not. The question was what their IQ was and by what mechanism they accrue power.
The question and distinction between ability to do good and ability to do bad, i.e. exploit and leech, is extremely important. As as the case with Freud in the past and various jewish charlatans that abused the privilege of the position afforded to them by gentile society and used it to actively sabotage and destroy the lives of the people that maintained that society.
This might is right dogma you are hiding behind has no relevance here since the question is not who is winning but why they are winning. You've already granted my point and I have little interest in hearing you grandstand on the corpses of dead slaves and homeless bankrupted peasants in the name of jewish supremacy.
In other words financiers and labor-market brokers, the two most important roles in pre-modern commerce
No, I mean slave merchants and usurers. Two things that were not needed for Europe to prosper. As is made obviously clear by the fact that modern prosperity rose from North/Western European technological advances. Which, to bring the discussion full circle, contradicts the notion that jews were somehow needed for their alleged intellect.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I don't see how that matters. The government shouldn't be in any way shape or form associated with censoring legal speech. It's not allowed to do that.
As a hyperbolic example, I am not allowed to ask someone to kill someone else. It doesn't matter if the person asked could say no. If they act on the request I am accessory to murder at the very least.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You brought up mechanisms as an alternative explanation to jewish IQ. I wouldn't mind it if there were charismatic, ingenious, curious, high IQ people from Planet X running things so long as things ran in ways that weren't deleterious to my life. But that's not how things are run. Things run on the basis of group based favoritism and the people who run things have a very clear bias that they act on with impunity.
This is the product of jews in positions of influence and power. From marxist economics to Boasian anthropology to Freudian psychology to Frankfurt School sociology to jewish second and third wave feminism to neo-conservatism and towards whatever this modern amalgamation of all of this crap can be called. Today I'm living it.
I guess the mechanism matters to me because I find the idea that the smart, high IQ, ingenious, charismatic and naturally curios path and philosophy towards life should necessarily reach the conclusion that celebrating the demise of people who are identified as being like me to be insane. I can't read about the history of these allegedly horrible people, that have literally carried the world on their backs out of the goodness of their hearts and believe that their demise could in any way be better for anyone. I can't look my family members in the face and pretend that their lives live up to the horror stories conjured up about them by race hustling jews that occupy positions of power in academia and media. Similarly I can't imagine that the best way to run a pharmaceutical company is to kill hundreds of thousands of people by marketing extremely addictive painkillers to them. I can't imagine that the best way to cast women into movie roles is to see who is willing to suck your deformed penis. I can't imagine that an industry centered around pornography could be a good thing. If jews were really in positions of power because of the things you attributed to them then I could only be insane. You can't prop up an industries of sexual exploitation or mass drug addiction without there being some missing ingredients from your list of inherited mechanisms.
Who financed the railroads, the factories, the shipyards, the mines, the refineries, the mills?
Who invented and built them? Who invented and built the society that made those inventions possible? Who came in after all the leg work was done and leveraged their ill gotten gains to leech off of this process? Why on earth did jews need to finance Europeans in the first place instead of just financing themselves doing this?
Then grant me this, at least - which country do you live in and, if diverse, to what tribe do you belong? I am always interested.
I'm from Scandinavia.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
When members of parliament were having a discussion on banning infant genital mutilation the nation got a harshly worded letter from the ADL mentioning that there would be consequences if the people of the country and its representatives voted the wrong way. Following this the subject was dropped despite popular public support. There has also been one of the largest uptake of drug addicts and deaths following the introduction of drugs like Oxycontin. Outside of such direct examples of effect there are countless examples of indirect effects. Since, culturally, we are all living in America and there is no escape.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The term 'revolt against the modern world' is not revolutionary in the marxist sense. It's referential to Evola and a book that carries the name. It's less Karl Marx and more Varg Vikernes.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It can be, but I don't see how that's a relevant... whatever it is. There are an endless amount of things that could be. I don't understand the point you are making. It seems like you are presupposing a framework of economic rationality and I don't understand why or what you think necessitates it. It's not about deducing what others think and seeing if it can or can not fit within some predefined rubric of 'rationality'.
It's like you are extrapolating into a wider context to get away from a question that isn't about anything other than yourself.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If I "appreciate" the 'biological null hypothesis', everything you write is wrong. What necessitates one over the other?
I ask since it looks like we are taking the presumptive priors of environmentalism, slapping it with a 'null hypothesis' label and saying that it now beats out the presumptive priors of hereditarianism. I don't see how this changes anything. Other than framing the discussion in a way where your enemy is ignorant and hasn't considered something when in reality I am pretty sure most HBD'ers are pretty well acquainted with the environmentalist worldview.
To me, as an illiterate HBD'er, it just seems like skirting the actual issues. If you don't have an alternative theory of reality to human biology to supplant the HBD one then what is the point of this? Assert we can't know anything about anything and then what? This topic isn't worth discussing outside the context of two competing explanatory worldviews.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You will have to forgive me but I'm not able to read what you are writing without it coming across to me as rather confusing and incoherent. If you could clarify for me that would be great.
It's the phenotypic null hypothesis, not the environmental null hypothesis.
I don't understand the contention. The point I was making is that the PNH expresses itself in the same way as environmentalist priors. If you believe there is infinite room for enviromentalist theory crafting without holding environmental explanatons to the same standard when it comes to genetic theory crafting then it doesn't matter what you call it. It's always the case that the other side 'could' be wrong and that their assumptions and priors are inaccurate and that there is a hidden factor they could be overlooking that could make them all wrong. What I am trying to tease out here is why you believe that this sort of rigor is some sort of guillotine for HBD'ers but not all the other fields that find no issue ignoring competing hypothesis when attributing their findings as pieces of evidence for their preferred theory.
There are various things that can be done to reduce the problems. For instance in the case of homophobia and mental illness, you can look at environmentla correlations rather than looking at genetic correlations (though that requires good measurement).
I am lost as to what you are trying to say in relation to what I wrote. You don't seem to be answering the question of why any assumption of a genetic cause needs to exclude every single possible environmental cause before it can assert itself as a contender or a piece of evidence that fits into a larger theory of how things work. Why is this a problem for HBD'ers?
From the other comment of yours:
What does the biological null hypothesis say?
That the originary primary and ultimate driver for all behavior and expressions of a biological organism in an environment is their genetic material.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XHK-WjxMShI
This is a 'quick' overview of most of the big interesting points of the book.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I thought that as a kid listening to rap, but when I listen to it now I find the vocabulary to be exceptionally poor. With most of the stories and/or the message of the songs superficial and presented in the most ineloquent and straightforward way possible. Compared to extremely simple poetry like The Life of A Cupcake most rap doesn't even compare.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
That's a context dependent ingroup justification for why we, the ingroup, happen to deserve our privilege. These arguments don't fly in any context where women are getting the short end of the stick.
The only sentiment that is sincere from feminism is that women are the ingroup and men are the outgroup.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I think the explanation is pretty simple. If Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ about 1 standard deviation above the normal, that means they are 20 times more likely to produce a person with a +3 standard deviation IQ. So in the +3 group, the percentage of people that are Jewish is going to be very noticeable.
These are two arguments that are often repeated but don't stand up to scrutiny. The IQ of Jews in the US is not a standard deviation above American whites of European descent. Lynn calculated the verbal IQ score of American jews to be 107.5. Considering 'verbal' subtests are the ones jews tend to score the highest on, a safer estimate for jewish IQ in the US would be 104-109.
Moreover, you are assuming that the people occupying any alleged positions of overrepresentation are extremely intelligent when there is no reason to assume that they are so. It would be a first for me to learn that the correlation between IQ and status within, for example, media and academia would be 1:1. Not to say that many of these people aren't intelligent, but not to the factor of 3+ standard deviations.
On top of that, as you mention, the context of explanation isn't what would fly in the HBD sphere. The public at large has already been taught that these sorts of explanations don't hold any water and are in fact just manifestations of supremacist tendencies and fragility. If these sorts of explanations weren't valid for white people, why would they be valid for jews?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
As far as I can tell you don't translate it. You just gather 'useful idiots' by appealing to them with a message that they can insert themselves into.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Is being a nazi banned? Are you not allowed to advocate for the 14 words and Hitlerist National Socialism? If the answer is no to both cases, is it banned to identify your ideological bent in your username?
Which would not be analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation. It's not like the person is named AuschwitzKikeGrinder. In which case I would magnanimously approve a request for a name change.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I agree that if this was to be enforced, this is the most light handed and respectful way of doing so. But that's not the topic of my contention. Which pertains to the impetus of the request, especially in light of the moderator comment accompanying it:
"But the "1488" thing as nazi thing is not ok."
Why would it not be OK for a person to tag themselves as being a believer in a continued existence of white people and future for their children who also likes Adolf Hitler and David Lane?
The mod position here is, in my view, just nonsensical. You can be a nazi and argue for the destruction of European jewry, just don't wear the armband when talking about cryptocurrency? Not because nazis are banned... Just because... We don't like people labeling themselves... Even though that's what people have been doing for years...
My point here, if no other, would be that this is an inequal application of the ruleset. You can carry banners, like people have done, you can have your pet issues and mini crusades, like people do, but if your banner is a Swaztika, and if your pet issue is the jews, the mods take extra notice. Compared to topics like, for example, AI, which suffer from all the same issues, there is no similar action.
So, my question following that would be: Why? Why the disparate application of rules? The mods will say something along the lines of 'too much heat' or something else. And my question would be, for who? Who can't handle WotanWolf1488 talking about the housing crisis in Belgium? Who are these users perusing this webspace that need to be protected from '1488'?
In all honesty I don't think they exist. It's just mod bias. They have an aesthetic preference for American 1990's era decorum. There's no justification for it other than that.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You have the causation reversed. If someone sufficiently marks themselves as low status or a member of an outgroup you turn your brain off.
Not necessarily. A jew marrying a gentile can still be excessively ethnocentric in all matter besides marital. Similar to how an anti-immigration forklift operator can have an asian wife. .
More options
Context Copy link