Is this correct from a psychological point of view?
jordanbpeterson.com
On the so-called “Jewish Question”
Grayson Lee
Other urls found in this thread:
unz.com
twitter.com
Nicholas Miller
sage, reported
and please never comeback to Veeky Forums ever again
stay in rebbit or /pol/ with your e-celebs
Jose Russell
No, Jews are not that smart. American jews may have had a 112 group IQ average 50+ years ago, but Jews have highly dysgenic breeding patterns, and they are much more culturally the same as the American populace as a whole than they once were.
Here is some data from Harvard.
Nathaniel Perry
More data. You can follow the links to check the data yourself.
Christopher Ortiz
>psychological
Not science or math
Mason Brooks
Here is data you need to verify that Jews at Harvard are much dumber than they used to be.
Smart jews have few children and marry outside their ethnic group. Dumb jews have tons of kids. Over a few generations this has caused jews to lose most of the cognitive edge they once had.
Peterson is wrong.
Jonathan Bailey
The idea that Jews have a standard deviation advantage on the rest of the population comes from very, very old studies that had questionable sampling. There is no current evidence to say that jews are that smart. There is plenty of evidence to say that they are much dumber than they used to be and that they are disproportionately found in places like the Ivy League because of nepotism.
Ron Unz got a lot of attention for this work (not enough). The most important fact is that Harvard and other schools absolutely refuse to have transparent admissions data open to audit. If you believe Harvard (through the grape vine), the data is explained by Jews dominating legacy admissions which is possible. However, this is still nepotism.
Also, it is noteworthy to acknowledge that Jews were once discriminated against in Harvard admissions. The most telling part now is that asians are just as if not more discriminated against as Jews were, and, by this data, non-jewish whites are even more discriminated than asians!
Joseph Stewart
Don't you guys know that legacy admissions to Harvard and most top schools exist? They don't focus on just selecting the brightest kids or those with most potential and never have.
Owen Parker
Yes, I covered that in the post you responded to. Maybe you should have read it? Here:
>The most important fact is that Harvard and other schools absolutely refuse to have transparent admissions data open to audit. If you believe Harvard (through the grape vine), the data is explained by Jews dominating legacy admissions which is possible. However, this is still nepotism.
Kayden Hill
Also, Jews dominating legacy admissions confirms that they are dumber than they once were, so my main point, the point that contradicts Peterson's assertions, stands as well.
I don't believe in legacy admissions. Many jews don't either, to be fair. But you don't see the Harvard jewish clubs lobbying to end this nepotistic practice!
Cooper Kelly
That isn't nepotism. It's Harvard ensuring rich parents will keep donating to their school so their kids can go to that school become rich and than they'll donate to Harvard so their kids can go to school and so on and so forth.
Landon Taylor
>That isn't nepotism. It's Harvard ensuring rich parents will keep donating to their school so their kids can go to that school become rich and than they'll donate to Harvard so their kids can go to school and so on and so forth.
That is literally nepotism. Maybe you should look the word up. Certain people get a huge advantage based solely on who their parents are. That is nepotism.
Josiah Cox
Nepotism is if a relative helps or favors another relative. This is an institution helping rich people keep their family rich and associated with the school to ensure future donations.
Thomas Martinez
You are being silly. Of course getting into Harvard because your daddy went there is a form of nepotism.
Jordan Martin
I don't think you understand what nepotism is.
Ryder Sullivan
And Harvard does not need money. Its endowment is self sustaining. The same came be said of the entire Ivy League, but especially Harvard. Harvard does not need rich people anymore and hasn't for decades.
Josiah Long
the dad's not the one giving the kid the admission, it's harvard doing it. that's completely different.
you say harvard doesn't need money but they're greedy motherfuckers. i believe around 1/3 of harvard is legacy admissions and that means a lot of jews and wasps
Thomas Gutierrez
>you say harvard doesn't need money but they're greedy motherfuckers. i believe around 1/3 of harvard is legacy admissions and that means a lot of jews and wasps
Yet by this , Jews are getting dumber (expected) but non-Jewish whites are getting a lot smarter (not expected). We wouldn't expect non-jewish whites to be smarter than asians because of legacy admissions and athletic admissions (no offense to the handful of asian athletes). It looks like Harvard is, through whatever means, achieving racial quotas, and all the diversity is taken at the expense of whites and asians (but mainly whites).
Lincoln Campbell
>that's completely different.
No it isn't. It is a minor point that completely goes away once you realize that alumni hold institutional power. Harvard is in part acting as stand in for its alumni. Harvard's faculty and administration is also disproportionately jewish, so any policy favoring jews can be seen as nepotism no matter what the ostensive "motives" are.
Ryan Morgan
so if white people were on a board and they selected mostly white people for a job, is that nepotism?
Lucas Edwards
If those white people were demonstrably dumber than the average person hired, yes. That is the situation with jews at Harvard. It isn't just that there are a lot of jews. It is that jews at Harvard are dumber than the Harvard average, even with Harvard's international and diversity admissions. Why do you keep ignoring this? You are making very cheap points. It seems like you are just trying to argue.
Yes, if white people hired incompetent white people there would be nepotism going on.
Julian Evans
>ad hominem
shill
Jordan Perez
Thomas Collins
Chomsky is not a pseud.
Jason Jenkins
>Chomsky is not a pseud.
In linguistics sure, but in politics he is
Blake Gomez
>CoX
>Kaku
Not pseuds, actual physicists with a pretty good professional record. They do like to dumb it down in order to popularize, tho
Ryder Perry
IGNORE SEVERELY AUTISTIC "INFOGRAPHIC" COLLAGES
Logan Young
who's the chick under sarkeesian?
Julian Stewart
Luke Myers
Yes, he is.
>study linguistics for 40+ years
>call yourself an anarchist
>be so much of a brainlet you never realise that authority and power are inherent in human language, and that language is absolutely crucial in producing and reproducing power
Nicholas Robinson
>doesn't understand anarchism
Austin Young
chomsky literally lost an argument to a tripfag from /a/
Andrew Brown
Well you can be an asshole that thinks you have to dominate people to have a functional society, and I'll keep never trusting you. Great.
David Thompson
What is the Golde One, Varg and Lana Lokteff doing there?
Gavin Ward
>although God only knows why I would hesitate :)
That's it. That's all you need to read. He can't talk against his Jewish masters in public for fear of being fired or shut down and no platformed, so he goes on some rant about alt-right "conspiracies". A laughable joke of a human being, no further attention needed.
John Baker
In regards to the JQ please tell me how you create Prussian Blue from gaseous HCN and iron walls.
>Hint: you can't
Wyatt Bell
Bait: the post