Shortly after Oprah took her low budget Chicago talk show national in 1986, she quickly emerged as the richest woman in entertainment, and then the richest African American of all time, and would eventually become, for several years, the only black billionaire on the planet (excluding a Canadian Blasian billionaire and a Saudi Arabian Blarab billionaire, both of whom seemed less than 50% black). As a compassionate social Darwinist, I watched in great fascination as arguably the biggest brained member of both her race and her gender, emerged as the World’s richest black and the World’s most influential woman.
Many in the industry were shocked that an overweight black woman could be the most successful talk show host in America, and acquire so much wealth, fame and power in the process. Today blacks are considered hip and cool, but back in the 1980s, there was enormous stigma to being black because it meant your ancestors were from Africa, so seeing a dark skinned black looking black woman on TV was incredibly taboo and shocking to people, and it was even more shocking when she started making so much money.
People probably thought, if a black woman can make all that money hosting a sassy talk show, it must be easy, and so pretty soon, the industry exploded with Oprah clones, each one, more sensational than the one before, until the sight of a drag queen became more common on daytime TV than a cooking segment.
Oprah was not pleased that so many people were entering her industry, trying to get a slice of her lucrative pie. “The reason there are so many talk shows, is people came specifically looking for the Oprah deal. They wanted the bucks,” she fumed.
Furious that others would dare think they could compete with her, Oprah watched with glee as as a platoon of competitors bit the dust. It didn’t matter if they were white or black, male or female, fat or thin, everyone who tried to compete against her got clobbered. At her peak, her ratings were an astonishing FOUR TIMES her nearest competitors. It seemed to me her huge brain size was giving her an ability to come up with witty comments, and down-home folksy wisdom that kept the audience entertained. For example when a couple mentioned they had sex on a golf course, Oprah asked “any particular hole?” When a jailed alcoholic praised himself for not drinking for years, Oprah said “I never heard of alcohol being served in prison.”
By the time Oprah was in her 40s, she was disgusted with all the sleaze on daytime TV and vowed to take the high road. No more shows about one night stand reunions, cheating husbands, and Satanic worshipers. More shows about spirituality, Toni Morrison, and Maya Angelou. Her ratings initially slipped, but she was so rich and so far ahead of her competitors that she could afford to pursue prestige over profits.
Ricki Lake
Then out of nowhere came a young hip Ashkenazi Jewish New Yorker named Ricki Lake, who was rapidly emerging as the fastest growing talk show of all time. She was only 26, and while Oprah had decided to take the high road, Lake was doing shows about taboo sensational sexual topics, that just came across as fun to her young audience, who would chant “Go Ricki! Go Ricki! Your topics, are icky!” Lake’s Ashkenazi genes gave her the verbal IQ to further entertain her audience with one liners like “Dump that zero and get yourself a hero”
Lake quickly beat every single talk show in America, except for Oprah, but was rapidly gaining on her. Oprah was beginning to get pestered by the media, one of whom said something like, “your ratings are down 25%, Ricki’s ratings are up 75%.”
“That means nothing,” Oprah replied. “My ratings are twice hers”
“So you don’t care about ratings. You just want to do a show that uplifts people?”
“That’s right. I’m surprised you got it!”
Still Oprah, was feeling the heat, and she came back from summer holidays with a hip hairstyle and a Beverly Hills 90210 Valley girl persona, to adapt to the young competition:
A few weeks later, Forbes magazine stunned the World by announcing that Oprah’s net worth had hit $340 million, allowing her to replace Bill Cosby as the only black on Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, and was well on track to be a billionaire! Everyone already knew Oprah was the richest woman in entertainment, but to suddenly make the ultra prestigious Forbes 400 put her in a whole new category. For she was now the richest black in all of America, beating out everyone, even Ivy League mulattoes and quadroons. Oprah’s star had risen so high, Lake faded into TV history, but a new Ashkenazi rival was emerging. But first, would come Rosie O’Donnell
Rosie
By the last 1990s, a gentile named Rosie O’Donnell (who incidentally has a head circumference almost as large as Oprah’s) was rapidly emerging as Oprah’s big threat in the ratings, because like Oprah, she could relate to the struggles of gaining weight, and like Oprah, she was acquiring a wholesome family friendly reputation, and on top of that, as a stand-up comic, she had the quick wit to entertain millions.

With a cranial capacity almost as stratospheric as Oprah’s, Rosie had the smarts to become the only gentile in syndicated talk show history to almost beat Oprah in the ratings
Jerry Springer
Many were predicting Rosie would be the new Oprah, so the last person anyone ever expected to emerge as the real threat to Oprah’s empire was some boring nerdy mild mannered lawyer in his 50s, but 900 years of intense natural selection for high IQ Jewish genes seemed to give Springer the mental ability to adapt to any challenge. He entered college at a young age earning a Regents scholarship, and went on to get a degree from prestigious Northwestern law school. Jumping from one leadership position to another, Springer began his career as an ultra liberal aid to Robert Kennedy, turned mayor of Cincinnati at only 33, then adapted to a new career in television, becoming Cincinnati’s number-one anchor, winning ten local Emmy Awards for his articulate commentaries. Finally, he was given a nationally syndicated talk show.
At first Springer was too low on the totem-pole for Oprah to even acknowledge, but suddenly he was catching on like wildfire. Exploiting the fact that the Christian right had scared other talk shows out of doing sleazy topics, and Oprah had by now totally abandoned sleaze, and was competing with Rosie to be as wholesome and family friendly as possible, Springer shrewdly adapted; filling the sudden market void, taking sleaze to the extreme with shows about one night stands, interracial sex with drag queens, and having black women pull out each-other’s weaves on national television. And unlike other hosts who had tried to push sleaze to the extreme such as Geraldo and Morton Downey Jr., Springer did not act like a tough guy; instead he stayed true to his cerebral nerdy personality, hiding cowardly in fear behind audience members when the angry black women on his stage got too violent.
The contrast between angry violent low IQ guests beating eachother up, as the nerdy cowardly Springer giving cerebral philosophical commentary from a distance, proved enormously successful. Although Springer’s large cranial capacity was nowhere near as big as Oprah’s or even Rosie’s, as an Ashkenazi Jew, he may have carried unique IQ genes related to Tay-Sachs, Gaucher’s and Niemann-Pick, involved in the storage in nerve cells of special fats called sphingolipids, which form part of the insulating outer sheaths that allow nerve cells to transmit electrical signals.
This superior neurological efficiency may have been what made Springer especially articulate and witty off the cuff. For example, when a young woman in his audience offered to pretend to be bread if Springer would be the butter, Springer joked “the trouble is, at my age I’m toast.” When a naked woman on his show complained that her conservative parents had their panties in a bunch over her nudist life style, Springer said “at least they have panties”.
After each of his witty comebacks, the young audience would chant “JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!”.
The explosive combination of sleaze, nudity, violence, mixed in with Springer’s articulate commentary and witty punchlines, proved incredibly successful, with entire college bars watching Springer every afternoon, even at prestigious universities like Oxford. And then in the late 1990s, the unthinkable happened: Springer made television history by beating Oprah in the ratings, knocking her off the number one spot she held since 1986.
Oprah must have been furious that he was beating her. She didn’t have the option of adding trashy topics to her show, because having publicly abandoned such topics in 1995 for more inspirational shows, turning back would have looked like a hypocritical ratings grab that would have damaged her unique prestige. Thus Oprah had little choice but to wait for the media to shame Springer out of doing sleaze, however Springer’s high Ashkenazi verbal IQ made him especially adept at deflecting criticism.
When reporters would complain that his show was exploiting people, bringing on the poor, disenfranchised, and black, and letting them beat each-other up for the entertainment of rich white college kids, Springer would say he thinks news exploits people, because news forces the camera into the face of people who don’t want to be in the headlines, unlike his show where people beg to come on. He would even paint himself as a kind of liberal crusader who was providing a forum for the black underclass.
Finally Oprah decided to take action. She went on TV and started reading from the Bible, then turned to the audience and said “Springer’s having fights, we’re reading the Bible.” The audience applauded, but more drastic action was needed, so Oprah gave an interview where she threatened to quit television:
I am all talked out.My contract has two years left, then I am getting out of such shows, because I feel they are going to burn themselves out…I am in disbelief about things that are happening on television talk shows. How low can it get? Can public taste keep on sinking? Yes, it can. I have to get out…Up until a few months ago, I felt that Jerry Springer was giving us some serious competition. But I don’t think it is sustainable because his show is such a vulgarity circus.
Unless you are going to kill people on the air, and not just hit them on the head with chairs, and unless you are going to have sexual intercourse – and not just, as I saw the other day, a guy pulling down his pants and pulling out his penis – then there comes a point when you have oversaturated yourself.
As usual, Springer cleverly used his high Ashkenazi verbal IQ and high social IQ to adapt. Realizing it would be bad optics to get into a slug-fest with such a beloved black woman, Springer adapted by becoming self-deprecating while praising Oprah. “She’s the most talented person there is in this business,” he would tell reporters. “I’m a bright guy, but I’m not cut out for this business like she is. She’s unbelievable…Let’s face it, she’s the best there is…She’s the best there ever was. Ten years from now, everyone will remember Oprah, no one will remember me…so she doesn’t like my show, that doesn’t make her a bad person. My own mother would have hated the show, and I love her!”
But big brained Oprah wasn’t falling for his shtick, and neither were her fans, and Springer came under pressure to not have so much violence on his show. His ratings began to drop like a rock, and Oprah regained her status as the number one talk show in syndication, and would soon emerge as the World’s only black billionaire.
Judge Judy
As the 21st century began, it became apparent that no one, no matter how bright, funny, talented, or famous, would ever again have a syndicated talk show that could rival Oprah’s, but another Ashkenazi Jew with a legal background, brilliantly adapted, not by hosting another talk show, but through an entirely new genre of daytime TV: the court show.
The fast talking, quick thinking Judge Judy utterly dominated the court show genre with one-liners like “don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining” and at her peak, by some estimates, got more viewers than Oprah. Yet unlike so many Ashkenazi Jews, Judy seems to lack the entrepreneurial skills to turn her huge success into a billion dollar empire. She earns about $45 million a year, a truly astonishing figure, far higher than virtually any in TV history, yet still dwarfed by the $315 million a year Oprah was reportedly raking in during the final years of her talk show.
In addition, Oprah parlayed her talk show gig to become a truly iconic figure, one of the ten most worshiped people in American history. Judy has yet to make the leap to that kind of status, but like her co-ethnic Jerry Springer, she is incredibly verbally skilled, and the two of them go down in TV history as the only two syndicated personalities to ever beat Oprah in the ratings.
of course if pee pee were really into horror…real horror…she’d post on all the horrors of which every day now is a centenary.
1914-1918…the war to end all wars…the horror to end all horrors…the end of patriotism.
what george will, in his one moment of lucidity/non-stupidity, called “the most significant event since The Resurrection”.
The true horror is what’s going in in Europe right now
i will show you fear in a hand full of dust.
Where did you find the second picture?
Brutal.
brando should have said, “the hooper. the hooper.”
from the second best movie ever, at least:
…of people…
…like pee pee…
THEY’RE ALL COMPETING ON EVIL PEEPEE, NOT IQ.
WHAT THE NAZIS DID IS NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT THESE JEWS AND OPRAH HAVE DONE.
THE NAZIS WERE HANGED FOR THEIR CRIMES.
THESE JEWS SHOULD BE HANGED TOO.
COMPARED TO WHAT THESE JEWS AND OPRAH HAVE DONE.
They have done a lot of good in the sense that they broke taboos and brought previously marginalized groups like drag queens and gays into the mainstream.
There’s a whole book by a Yale sociologist Joshua Gamson praising daytime talk shows for mainstreaming and liberating people like him.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/280640.html
Oprah’s brain is so large she figured out a way to become a billionaire while also making the World a more tolerant place!
“Oprah’s brain is so large she figured out a way to become a billionaire while also making the World a more tolerant place!” (PP)
That’s about it. This statement of yours shows
1. you’re a neo-HBDer (rofl): perhaps you could run a calculation on Oprha’s “legendary” brain size ( note: it’s the internal size, not external fat meat size, LOL) to see in oder to be a billionaire, she must have IQ of say 6,853?
2. you’re a feel-good liberal. “making a world more tolerant place” is your real goal, not the size of the brain of Oprah. In all honesty, Panda thinks Oprah’s intellectual capability won’t make her pass any recognisable university entrance exam in any part of East Asia, not even close!
I have run the calculations. Her brain is arguably as big as her bank account, even after subtracting for fat and skin around the skull:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-brain-size-of-the-worlds-most-successful-woman/
And I’m not a liberal. But just as there are some East Asians who are mentally retarded, there are also some blacks who are absolutely brilliant, and Oprah’s a likely candidate given her brain size and bank account. Very few people are so extreme on the two most Darwinian correlates of IQ.
Mongoloids average higher IQs than Caucasoids who average higher than Negroids, but there is an enormous range of ability within each of the three main races. .
Panda, keep pouring on the Haterade. A lot of people love Oprah, and many of the ones who don’t are just jealous.
And please stop referring to yourself in third-person. It makes you seem even more narcissistic than is tolerable.
Her brain size I won’t comment on. Her bank account could be very inflated beyond what it would normally be due to the massive wealth-generating effect of something that has nothing to do with intelligence – the fact that she landed a job on TV (massive exposure to millions of people in one fell blow, unlike most billionaires who have to earn their wealth with deal after deal, great decision after great decision, creating systems, seeing opportunities where others don’t, etc. ,etc. for years on end), pleasant face that looks good on TV, is a woman (thus appealing to the primary daytime afternoon audience) who struggles with her weight (further appeal to same audience). These factors are akin to being born with a fantastic singing voice and getting discovered by a top music biz exec – they have nothing to do with intelligence.
Granted her verbal cleverness and high self-awareness are likely markers of high IQ. Also granted she has done a lot of deals to increase her wealth after the initial TV gig, another marker of high IQ. But to estimate her IQ at 140 is in my opinion a bit of stretch. There are many IQ-120 people with great verbal cleverness and deal-making ability. The real coup that put Oprah in the super-high earning category was landing a job on TV. Then kicked in the combo of looking pleasant, being a woman that struggles with weight, having (or putting on) a vibe of wanting to make the world better, plus verbal cleverness. Of all these factors only verbal cleverness (+ self awareness) and deal-making ability are markers of high IQ. And there are many people with IQs well below 140 that have that combination – some of them get rich, some of them don’t, etc.
Bottom line: To estimate Oprah’s IQ at 140 one must ignore the primary factor that catapulted her to massive wealth in the first place – landing a TV gig, which has a little bit to do with IQ, and a lot to do with other things that have nothing to do with IQ.
Her brain size I won’t comment on. Her bank account could be very inflated beyond what it would normally be due to the massive wealth-generating effect of something that has nothing to do with intelligence – the fact that she landed a job on TV (massive exposure to millions of people in one fell blow, unlike most billionaires who have to earn their wealth with deal after deal, great decision after great decision, creating systems, seeing opportunities where others don’t, etc. ,etc. for years on end),
Good points, but she didn’t just jump from no audience to an audience of millions. She worked her way up through the ranks. When she and her co-host Richard Cher turned a local Baltimore show into a smashing success, she was offered a job in the much larger market of Chicago where the demographics were very different. When she turned a low budget Chicago show from dead last in the ratings to #1, practically overnight, she was offered the chance to go national. Only when she made her national show #1 immediately, and kept it number one, year after year, in the face of explosive competition, did she have a potentially billion dollar product, but unlike other very famous entertainers who are only given a salary while management rakes in billions, Oprah took ownership of the show so that the lion’s share of money would go to her.
And while other moguls can depend on staff of talented people to create the products that make them billionaires, Oprah’s path was arguably harder, because Oprah herself is the product. She had to go on TV day after day, week after week, and be interesting, spontaneous and amusing enough to keep millions entertained, over and over again, in the face of constant competition from new and fresh faces.
what a smelly cunt.
the us has the death penalty for the leaders of drug cartels, even if such aren’t convicted of murder.
how are Oprah, Jerry Springer, and Judge Judy any different from el chapo or whoever?
THEY AREN’T!!!
yet you worship them.
do you want to suck el chapo’s cock too?
Pumpkin, I get kind of tired of your seeing the world in smart and dumb. here is the list of things that could have gotten Oprah to her position in addition to intelligence and talent.
-confidence
-boldness
-hard work
-persuasion
-luck
-good friends
-emotional strength
And the list is not exhaustive.
I’m starting to think that discussing with you is pointless, judging people’s intelligence is just a hobby for you and there is nothing rational in your enterprise. So I think my comments are going to become rarer and rarer, I like things a little more highbrow.
The theme of this blog is IQ. That’s not to imply that other variables aren’t important and sometimes far more important, but when IQ plays any role at all in life outcomes, however small or peripheral, it tends to be the focus here.
You don’t even know if IQ is the cause or the consequence of any life outcome. But IQ is your obsession and your life is apparently so boring, your ignorance so astonishing that you’re here judging other’s intelligence, people that you don’t know and people who are often much more brilliant or wise than yourself. The only ones whose IQ should really be questioned are you and some of your most moronic commentators.
Farewell Pumpkin, my trip in HBD ends here, I have more important things to do.
Yea, get off if you don’t like it here. No one’s ever said IQ is everything, or even the most important thing, but it’s interesting.
You’ve made some good comments but you whine too much. See ya.
Jeezz,
PP, you make a very good text but now a shittext.
I will summarize for you
Oprah is not a genius, probably a very talented person who use their psychopathic trends to be rich and famous, like almost ”celebritches”. I like music, poetry, entertainment, but this kind of work is subjectively valued. So, smart ”artists” should compensate their very easy-life helping society in a good and smart way. But not, or ”artists” are useful idiot with recreational creative talent OR they are very bad people, the dumb and trivial narcisistic parasite.
And many or most of ashkenazics are also like that.
Jewtards are like a wasp parasites (wasps, lol!!). Very bright to be parasite, very stupid to be a wise.
Jews were the most rich and educated people in Uass in 1996, almost white american people were happy and indifferent if their new elite were wasp or not.
But, but….
they, jews, are now destroying their own success. Complete bullshit amateur insane-”strategy” or real stupidity.
Macchiavelli or Talmud, a interesting bullshit literature, only for mentally handicapped psychopath, not by wise politician, if it really there.
Human intelligence is overrated, higher intelligent peoples are overrated, just individuals who can be extremely smart ”or’ wise, collectivities, with iq above 100 or not, will be always collectivities, stupid. Even in science fiction like Brave New World, alfa and beta, the cognitive and biological elites also will be stupid.
The technically smart but intelectually retard are very unconsciously dangerous. And, and, most of the SJW are technically smart, because their amateurism to understand ”intelectual material stuff”. High grades, high iq (specially verbal iq). The ”above intelligence” trivial marxistoid-burguoise student of humanities.
PP must be joking right? Let’s fact it, the only non-retarded reason why Oprah is at where she is today is Affirmetive Action of the mass media of the US.
And no prize for guessing who control it.
In East Asia, the likes of Oprah won’t good enough to graduate from high schools. LOL
In East Asia, the likes of Oprah won’t good enough to graduate from high schools. LOL
Wont BE good*
Oprah is probably smarter than you. I red some of your comments and you dont appear very smart. I hope that you are a teenager.
You present a lot of traits linked with low IQ:
-Ethnic tribalism
-Difficulty to control your impulse and feelings (your comments are always deeply emotionnal)
-Self confidence, you rarely (never?) appear to have doubts.
-Simplistic vision of the world( “Oprah is there bcz of affirmative action agaga she is a stupid monkey who cant graduate from high school”)
Of course you are not mentally retard, you are just not as smart as you think you are.
You will probably ignore me or insult me after reading this, or trying to appear superior in any possible way…but you have to know that I have nothing against you.
”Oprah is probably smarter than you.”
huuum, no. Charismaticaly and astutely (the dark side of wisdom) smart, yes.
PP,
your admiration about Operah seems to be very suspicious.
Almost straight men and non-efeminate homo-sapiens don’t give a shi(r)t for celebritches. Look for audience of Oprah show, 90% woman and 10% gay-poodle-prototypes. Or Videla is right and you are a black lesbian.
Why you are unconfortable to talk about the color of your eyes*** The most bizarre excuse i read in this year, lol!!!
“Oprah is probably smarter than you. ”
Panda doubts.
The only 3 things Oprah are “er” than Panda are the colour, the chest size, and the pay check. ROFL
With a roughly 125 IQ highly biased towards verbal, she probably would’ve graduated from a low-tier college but no better in Asia. So what? Even there her social skills would’ve made her successful in some way or another. Probably not a billionaire but maybe a millionaire.
I suspect her IQ is closer to 145 than 125.
I know you’ve written at length as to why her IQ is around 145. I find it too high for my tastes, but I guess it’s possible…
Affirmative action at best gets you in the right career track (to borrow a term from LOTB), but it doesn’t get you your very own nationally syndicated talk show, nor will it make the show a success, nor will it make you a billionaire.
If affirmative action made you rich, there would be many blacks among Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. Instead year after year, there’s only Oprah.
PP, don’t you realise that this argument of yours has a severe logical problem?
Yes, AA can get your very own nationally syndicated talk show as long as you’re “better”( ideally female, AND lesbian) than the rest of AA opponents of yours for that post.
AA can make the show a success too, as long as this was pretty much one of a few similar shows with no competitions in that earlier stage when the director , the whole network and the boss were hellbent making you a hit in order to score a political statement.
AND Oh yes, AA can make you a billionaire. The supply and demand alone from above can already make you so. Plus, actaully it ‘s a bit contrry to another theory of yours on IQ Vs Billionaire: Panda’s theory is that no matter how smart you are, unless one has IQ score of 10,000 or sth, billionaire or multibillionaire , albeit not plainly dumb of course, has NOT much to do with IQ whatsoever, but much more to do with PURE LUCK, period.
PP, don’t you realise that this argument of yours has a severe logical problem?
Yes, AA can get your very own nationally syndicated talk show as long as you’re “better”( ideally female, AND lesbian) than the rest of AA opponents of yours for that post
There are no affirmative action quotas for talk shows, Panda.
AA can make the show a success too, as long as this was pretty much one of a few similar shows with no competitions in that earlier stage
Her competition when she started was primarily Phil Donahue, and she was the first talk show host in history to beat him, and she did so immediately
when the director , the whole network and the boss were hellbent making you a hit in order to score a political statement.
The employers of all talk show hosts are hell bent on making them hits. That’s not affirmative action, that’s called rooting for the person you hire so that the show can turn a profit. Many people were hired for that show before Oprah and all of them got clobbered by Donahue. Finally Oprah was recruited, and the show went from dead last in the local ratings to umber one, practically over night, despite the fact that show had practically no budget and her only staff was two girls and a gay guy. Oprah herself had to get on the phone and book guests and drive to Wendy’s herself to buy salads for everyone. .
AND Oh yes, AA can make you a billionaire. The supply and demand alone from above can already make you so.
Huh? The supply of blacks in America is huge (tens of millions) and there’s no demand for an affirmative action host, because there are no such quotas. You don’t seem to understand that talk shows are business.
: Panda’s theory is that no matter how smart you are, unless one has IQ score of 10,000 or sth, billionaire or multibillionaire , albeit not plainly dumb of course, has NOT much to do with IQ whatsoever, but much more to do with PURE LUCK, period.
But you have to know what to do with luck. If it were overwhelmingly luck, you wouldn’t see high IQ races (Ashkenazem) being so dramatically over-represented among billionaires and low IQ races being so dramatically underrepresented, which also shows affirmative action is virtually irrelevant at that level of “free” market capitalism.
Panda believes in an American conspiracy where white middle-aged housewives are forced to watch a black woman talk to people, in order make a “political statement”.
“There are no affirmative action quotas for talk shows, Panda.”
— Oh no? ROFL. C’mon PP, that’s just dishonest of you. If there were some kind of stickers on their foreheads telling they are AAers, the American folks would have revolted long ago.
“Her competition when she started was primarily Phil Donahue, and she was the first talk show host in history to beat him, and she did so immediately”
— Donahue helps making Panda’s point on 2 fronts: 1. it was 1 out 2 competition. The chance is at least 50/50. and 2, if watch Donahue Vs Rushton or Taylor of Amren, anyone would know the Donahue was silver-hair unattractive white male PC from head to the toe. Let alone 120 IQ Oprah, any breathing young female mammal with a shred of fresh air would have his arse handed to him on a silver platter.
“…Finally Oprah was recruited, and the show went from dead last in the local ratings to umber one, practically over night, despite the fact that show had practically no budget and her only staff was two girls and a gay guy….”
—- the same answer as above. Oprah’s rise coincided with Feminism and anti-Racism in America. No one would have dared to touch her a bit. it’s politics, not capability. That said, I am not arguing that she’s dumb, but just as said In an old Chinese proverb – “if there are no tigers in the forrest, even a monkey could become the king”.
“Huh? The supply of blacks in America is huge (tens of millions) and there’s no demand for an affirmative action host, because there are no such quotas. You don’t seem to understand that talk shows are business.”
ROFL. Huh? if you think primetime major network US Talkshow hosts or even news anchors, then and now, have been pure entertainment business with no big time politics involved, Panda has no idea which planet you’re on.
“But you have to know what to do with luck. If it were overwhelmingly luck, you wouldn’t see high IQ races (Ashkenazem) being so dramatically over-represented among billionaires and low IQ races being so dramatically underrepresented, which also shows affirmative action is virtually irrelevant at that level of “free” market capitalism.”
That sounds very “logical”, but actually it is not. The fact that high IQ races (Ashkenazem) being so dramatically over-represented among billionaires, and talkshow hosts, tells one thing:
if it is true (which panda believes so), then either
A. the Ashkenazem must have average IQ > 500 to say the least. Hey, you got the corresponding bell curves and total population of every major races, you will then have what are total populations of each with IQ higher than 150 – simple maths calculation isn’t it??
or
B, there is something going very, but very very wrong, isn’t it? So what is it??
AA has been alive and kicking, not only in academics, in politics, but also in Hollywood, in business, particularly in big time media networks, and in every visible corners of the social lifes. C’mon that’s just abc. LOL
“Panda believes in an American conspiracy where white middle-aged housewives are forced to watch a black woman talk to people, in order make a “political statement”.”
(Lion of the Judah-spheresaid:)
— By its definition, POPULAR shows (or whatever) are the proxy of the average IQ of the audiences/listeners/voters etc.
And vice versus.
That is to say, if America average IQ = 95, the most popular show host of America has IQ, at least appears to be on the surface, is quite close to 95. Else he/she wouldn’t become popular.
Therefore, popular contest by default is a reflection of stupidity in the eyes of high IQers. Some of the biggest-name Chinese sages thought so 2,500 years ago.
Do you think Einstein or James Watson enjoyed lady Gaga, or 50cents, or kardashian? Well, give yourselve a knuckle on the head then think again. ROFL
That is to say, if America average IQ = 95, the most popular show host of America has IQ, at least appears to be on the surface, is quite close to 95. Else he/she wouldn’t become popular.
Wrong. I think there is a truism in the IQ research community that the best leaders have an IQ around 20 points above those they’re trying to lead (I’ve never seen actual research on this, but it seems plausible). I would guess performers and entertainers would have a similar disparity between themselves and their audience, on average. And Oprah’s social IQ is so high that she might intuitively know how to dumb down herself even more for a stupid audience
“wrong”?
Eh? You haven’t explained why wrong with evidences or clear logical inductions, but just some “i would guess”.
And watch out “best leaders” or ‘ideal leaders” don’t automatically equal to “average actual leaders”.
So you seriously think a 95 IQ person could build and then maintain a billion dollar empire? That’s interesting, considering professional athletes in the US at the same IQ level can’t even maintain much smaller million dollar empires, without all of the working components of Oprah’s organization.
And it’s illogical to say that a dummy can run an organization full of people of likely at least moderate intelligence- accountants, script writers, makeup artists, costume designers, set designers, lawyers, etc. And given Oprah’s appeal to middle-aged housewives, her audience IQ wasn’t super dumb either.
Oh no? ROFL. C’mon PP, that’s just dishonest of you. If there were some kind of stickers on their foreheads telling they are AAers, the American folks would have revolted long ago.
So there’s a secret conspiracy to make black women billionaire talk show hosts that only Panda is in on. Never mind that virtually every other major black female host of a major talk show of the last 30 years has been cancelled. Never mind that she’s the only multi-billionaire black in North American history.
— Donahue helps making Panda’s point on 2 fronts: 1. it was 1 out 2 competition. The chance is at least 50/50.
Boxing is 1 out of 2 competition too. I guess Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson were just affirmative action cases also. All that muscle, speed and skill must have been figments of my imagination.
if watch Donahue Vs Rushton or Taylor of Amren, anyone would know the Donahue was silver-hair unattractive white male PC from head to the toe. Let alone 120 IQ Oprah, any breathing young female mammal with a shred of fresh air would have his arse handed to him on a silver platter.
And yet not a single one came close to doing so in the nearly 20 years before Oprah hit the scene. If he were so beatable, someone else would have beat him, especially given all the money and influence there was in doing so.
”the same answer as above. Oprah’s rise coincided with Feminism and anti-Racism in America. No one would have dared to touch her a bit. it’s politics, not capability. That said, I am not arguing that she’s dumb, but just as said In an old Chinese proverb – “if there are no tigers in the forrest, even a monkey could become the king”.
Post-hoc sophistry. You can always look back retrospectively at anyone’s success and say they were just in the right place at the right time, but at the time Oprah took the job in Chicago, virtually everyone thought she committing career suicide, and warned her it was impossible for a black woman to take on Donahue in his hometown of Chicago.
And if feminism and anti-racism were such career boosters, why is Oprah the ONLY multi-billionaire black in American history, and virtually the only self-made female multi-billionaire in American history?
ROFL. Huh? if you think primetime major network US Talkshow hosts or even news anchors, then and now, have been pure entertainment business with no big time politics involved, Panda has no idea which planet you’re on.
Who the hell benefits politically from some random black woman becoming a billionaire talk show queen? Was there also a political conspiracy to make Mike Tyson the World’s top boxer? Michael Jordan the World’s top basketball player? Tiger Woods the World’s top golfer? Michael Jackson the World’s top pop star? Do people sit around in meetings saying “what random black can we pull out of obscurity and make rich next?”
That sounds very “logical”, but actually it is not. The fact that high IQ races (Ashkenazem) being so dramatically over-represented among billionaires, and talkshow hosts, tells one thing:
if it is true (which panda believes so), then either
A. the Ashkenazem must have average IQ > 500 to say the least.
Absurd non sequitur
B, there is something going very, but very very wrong, isn’t it? So what is it??
AA has been alive and kicking, not only in academics, in politics, but also in Hollywood, in business, particularly in big time media networks, and in every visible corners of the social lifes. C’mon that’s just abc. LOL
Affirmative action is totally obvious in academia, which is why blacks are over 10% of the students at the most elite schools. By contrast blacks are only 0.25% of the 400 richest Americans and Oprah is the only multi-billionaire black in North American history. This shows that unlike academia, there’s no significant affirmative action in “free” market capitalism, at least not at the highest levels.
“the IQ research community”
Afrosapiens is rolling on the floor laughing.
“So there’s a secret conspiracy to make black women billionaire talk show hosts that only Panda is in on. Never mind that virtually every other major black female host of a major talk show of the last 30 years has been cancelled. Never mind that she’s the only multi-billionaire black in North American history.”
—- Logically yes it’s never mind, because it only proves 1 thing:
that likely she is the best amongst all other black female host-wannabes.
Actually it’s not entirely fair for the rest black females since many just didn’t get the chance to compete with her. There was considerable luck factor involved. The similar to Woopy Goldberg alikes. it would be insult to the black telling them Goldberg is the best black Hollywood actress of their time, she was there due to good luck, her surname and her colour.
What the current US does to Oprah is the classic “GOD Creation Process”. When it’s fgutile, up to now, to dig out a Science Nobel winner from Sub Shara, Oprah is there for a strong political purpose, showcasing that blacks are big-brained successful businessmen as well. The next thing Panda would be told that Oprah is from mars?
“Boxing is 1 out of 2 competition too. I guess Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson were just affirmative action cases also. All that muscle, speed and skill must have been figments of my imagination.”
—- bravo! that just a text-book example how to put up a strawman whenever being forced into the corner. ROFL When did panda mention boxing in terms of AA? The fact was, as you admitted, she was 1 out of only friggin 2 candidates: a young black female Vs an old white male. it won’t take a genius to figure out who would win out in the US political climate.
“And yet not a single one came close to doing so in the nearly 20 years before Oprah hit the scene. If he were so beatable, someone else would have beat him, especially given all the money and influence there was in doing so.:
—- of course, let alone 1 Donahue , 100,000 Donahues with IQ > 160 will never shake a hair off Oprah, because what? Because she is NOT a business symbol, nor an big-brained academic symbol, SHE IS A POLITICAL symbol first and for most. That’s why.
( that said, Panda is not arguing she’s dumb. She’s ok compared to the other potential black females who wanted to be the host. But to suggest now her IQ = 145 is laughable at best. Even Steve Hsu doesn’t have 145 IQ. 145 IQ means that she is intelligentually reary to take Nobel Prize Science shjould she get a chance or fit to become a field medal candidate, are you drunk? Panda watched some of her show and would put her IQ btw 110 and 120 max, pretty much average in East Asia. And panda believes that Donahue, even though filled with PC, does have higher IQ than Oprah. The problem of Donahue was simplely that he has wrong skin tone and gender)
“And if feminism and anti-racism were such career boosters, why is Oprah the ONLY multi-billionaire black in American history, and virtually the only self-made female multi-billionaire in American history?”
—-The proof is in the pudding: it showcases nothing but the fact that it’s very very veeeeery hard to find self-made multi billionairs blacks, hence 1 (leave aside why so for the moment) is enough for this chest thumping GOD-creation acitvity for the rest of Human Civilisation on the blue planet. Thank you PP for helping Panda making the point clearer!
Your logical fallacy repeated many times over on this argument is that:
“if she is the only one black female, and the only super rich one, then she must be super smart”.
Very wrong there on multiple fronts, pal, not neccesarily so depending on many pre-set conditions.
“Who the hell benefits politically from some random black woman becoming a billionaire talk show queen? Was there also a political conspiracy to make Mike Tyson the World’s top boxer? Michael Jordan the World’s top basketball player? Tiger Woods the World’s top golfer? Michael Jackson the World’s top pop star? Do people sit around in meetings saying “what random black can we pull out of obscurity and make rich next?”
—— We are talking about Oprah and major US TV/media network precisely here, not some sports stars. Pls do NOT put up more strawmen here , as it doesn’t work for Panda, ROFL.
US TV/Media is one the main battlefield of 20th and 21st century political and ideological themes with global impact. ANYONE there has been strictly vetted by their networks, serving for a purpose. To suggest otherwise is infantile and naive.
“Affirmative action is totally obvious in academia, which is why blacks are over 10% of the students at the most elite schools. By contrast blacks are only 0.25% of the 400 richest Americans and Oprah is the only multi-billionaire black in North American history. This shows that unlike academia, there’s no significant affirmative action in “free” market capitalism, at least not at the highest levels.”
——— your comparison of 10% and 0.25% doesn’t make any sense.
Affirmative action is totally obvious in academia because the link btw adademic results and IQ is much more prominent and direct – anyone knows this since little intuitively. Hence it’s much harder to showcase otherwise. 10% of most elite schools being blacks is already an outrageous AA level that would almost ignite an armed revolution amongst angry students & parents communities across the board, hence doesn’t reflect the true level of the adademics/IQ capabilities of the blacks. It is clear!
On the other hand, the business world has much less direct influcence by and link to both IQ and adademic results, in the sense that high IQ, though broadly correlating with high income, does’t have very high correlation with the income/wealth indeed. This is because wealth-accumulation process contains much more variants (e.g. pure luck, family connections, cultural factors, political factors, etc) than just IQ. 0.25% is only the combo result of above blackbox factors and it tells not much about any of those factors. Therefore it requires a giant leap of logic to argue directly, as you do, that “since (Oprah) is super rich, and she is the only black female who is super rich, so she must be super smart”.
Simples.
@Panda
Not all 145 IQ people win Noble Prizes. In fact, not all of them are even that successful. Having a high IQ simply raises the possibility of being successful, it doesn’t guarantee it. Oprah’s lack of scientific or academic credentials doesn’t preclude the possibility of her having a high IQ. And I would also posit that maintaining a large media empire requires a high IQ.
I personally put Oprah’s IQ between 120 and 130, although Pumpkin has made very strong arguments for his higher estimate.
And you still have to explain why so many watched her show, year after year. You can’t force people to watch a show, even if the network executives want a show to be popular (for “political reasons”).
Don’t worry, I can understand your distaste for Oprah. Her show is supposed to appeal to middle-aged women, not men, so we’re not supposed to “get” why she’s so successful.
Logically yes it’s never mind, because it only proves 1 thing:
that likely she is the best amongst all other black female host-wannabes.
But you have no evidence that being a black female was helpful in her field. When virtually all black female solo hosts besides Oprah were cancelled, it’s extremely illogical to argue that being black and female gave her a large advantage. Your whole argument makes about as much sense as arguing that Muggsy Bogues was a successful basketball player because he’s short.
What the current US does to Oprah is the classic “GOD Creation Process”. When it’s fgutile, up to now, to dig out a Science Nobel winner from Sub Shara, Oprah is there for a strong political purpose, showcasing that blacks are big-brained successful businessmen as well.
The U.S. couldn’t care less about Oprah’s head size. Craniometry is dismissed as 19th century pseudoscience.
—- bravo! that just a text-book example how to put up a strawman whenever being forced into the corner. ROFL When did panda mention boxing in terms of AA?
I am showing how ridiculous your argument is. There was no affirmative action conspiracy to make Oprah the #1 talk show host in American just as there was no affirmative action conspiracy to make Mike Tyson the #1 boxer in America. Both theories are equally absurd.
The fact was, as you admitted, she was 1 out of only friggin 2 candidates: a young black female Vs an old white male. it won’t take a genius to figure out who would win out in the US political climate.
A genius would predict an older white male would win, because virtually all the top talk show hosts in American history have been older white men, and virtually every other major show hosted by a young black woman has flopped.
:
—- of course, let alone 1 Donahue , 100,000 Donahues with IQ > 160 will never shake a hair off Oprah, because what? Because she is NOT a business symbol, nor an big-brained academic symbol, SHE IS A POLITICAL symbol first and for most. That’s why.
No one is going to watch a talk show for an hour a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year, because someone is a political symbol. People watch daytime TV to be entertained. If she were not entertaining, they would have switched channels to one of the dozens of the other shows all competing against her, or they would have turned off the TV entirely.
( that said, Panda is not arguing she’s dumb. She’s ok compared to the other potential black females who wanted to be the host. But to suggest now her IQ = 145 is laughable at best. Even Steve Hsu doesn’t have 145 IQ. 145 IQ means that she is intelligentually reary to take Nobel Prize Science shjould she get a chance or fit to become a field medal candidate, are you drunk? Panda watched some of her show and would put her IQ btw 110 and 120 max, pretty much average in East Asia. And panda believes that Donahue, even though filled with PC, does have higher IQ than Oprah. The problem of Donahue was simplely that he has wrong skin tone and gender)
We can disagree about her IQ, but to attribute her success to an affirmative action conspiracy is insane. Even if her IQ were 115, it still would not prove your theory; it would simply prove she had other advantages besides high IQ. There have been plenty of whites who have been stratospherically successful despite having IQs below 115, but it’s because they had other things going for them..
And if she were affirmative action, it wouldn’t prove she was not brilliant, since high IQ blacks tend to benefit the MOST from affirmative action.
Your logical fallacy repeated many times over on this argument is that:
“if she is the only one black female, and the only super rich one, then she must be super smart”.
No, my argument is that if she’s the only multi-billionaire black in American history, and virtually the only self-made woman in American history, then being black and female is not a significant advantage when it comes to getting really rich. In order to become a billionaire, you need to create goods or services that people actually want. You can’t just be a token, and the statistics prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Affirmative action is totally obvious in academia because the link btw adademic results and IQ is much more prominent and direct – anyone knows this since little intuitively. Hence it’s much harder to showcase otherwise. 10% of most elite schools being blacks is already an outrageous AA level that would almost ignite an armed revolution amongst angry students & parents communities across the board, hence doesn’t reflect the true level of the adademics/IQ capabilities of the blacks. It is clear!
On the other hand, the business world has much less direct influcence by and link to both IQ and adademic results, in the sense that high IQ, though broadly correlating with high income, does’t have very high correlation with the income/wealth indeed. This is because wealth-accumulation process contains much more variants (e.g. pure luck, family connections, cultural factors, political factors, etc) than just IQ
If you think becoming a billionaire takes less IQ than getting into an elite school, then the percentage of blacks among the Forbes 400 should be much higher, not lower, than in academia, if affirmative action operates in both places. The fact that 10% of Harvard is black, but only 0.25% of the Forbes 400 is black proves that affirmative action can equalize credentials and opportunities, but other factors determine what you do with them.
[Sigh] Panda rests the case and will not argue on this “Oprah super rich due to super IQ” myth any more, due to the fact that panda has already stated the underlying rationale quite enough for any high IQ lurkers to comprehend in simple English. Any further drag-on would be unneccesary. As a Chinese sage said 1,000s years ago “when one sees abundently clear , he doesn’t need to argue too much; while when one sees barely anything, he feels the urge to argue all the time”. No offence PP but Panda bows out on this round thus. ROFL
” Not all 145 IQ people win Noble Prizes. In fact, not all of them are even that successful. Having a high IQ simply raises the possibility of being successful, it doesn’t guarantee it.” ( lion of Js)
— Absolutely. That’s was Panda’s logic. Yet PP is arguing the other way around.
“And you still have to explain why so many watched her show, year after year. You can’t force people to watch a show, even if the network executives want a show to be popular (for “political reasons”).”
—- Panda did explain.
The main reason is that theoritically speaking the average IQ of “so many watched her show” is quite close to (likely slightly below) Oprah’s, about 110 or so.
In practice the avg IQ of those viewer is considerablely lower than 110, logically due to the fact that there’re many who watch the show just for watching’s sake, like supporting one’s own football team, only out of racial and /or political affinity instead of intellectual appreciation.
In the same vein of logic, it shows to a certain extend that if Oprah were truly high IQ, say 130+ or even 140+, Panda doubts her TV show would become so popular in the US, where the avg IQ is about 95. One could deliberately dumb down his behaviours or thoughts for some time under certain circunstances in order to “blend in”, but not for a long time, consistantly, the way she does. If Einstein or Wernher von Braun is about to give a popular TV show, 90% of the audiences would be lucky not falling into sleep after 20 mins, let alone decade-long TV show series . Don’t you think so? ROFL
Oh btw, lion Js, the lesson from above to take home is that whenever you find yourself highly popular in front of a general broad audience on pretyy much any subject, it gives you 3 hints:
1. it means you can easily profit from it, and profit handsomely
2. it means you are not very dumb
3. it means you are not very smart either
Most of corporate CEOs/Directors fall into this category. ROFL
My estimate of Oprah’s IQ would be more around 120-130, because of (AA argument aside) the massive disproportionate wealth-leap resulting from the single action of landing a talk show while also being a pleasant to look at woman struggling with weight (great appeal to target audience). A talk show supplies that most important of all things for a smart person to get – a huge opportunity to use your greatest strengths in front of a lot of people or a few rich people. I do realize smart people often make their own opportunities, but even if Oprah landed and succeeded in a talk show w/out AA help, she wouldn’t need much more than a 120 IQ to do so.
After landing the massive one-time coup of getting her mug in front of millions of people every day, a 120 IQ would be more than sufficient to take over from there and enable her to use verbal cleverness, self-awareness, and deal-making ability to make the show a success.
Oprah is not much more than the equivalent of a person born with a great singing voice that puts some effort into career, gets discovered by music exec, has some hit songs, and due to decent intelligence parlays that into other business opportunities. No 140 IQ needed.
Using Oprah’s billions as a measure to try to estimate her IQ is deceiving because of the massively disproportionate wealth-opportunity effect from a one-time coup of getting her face in front of millions of people.
Great post Pumpkin. Although I was hoping you would turn to more cerebral topics, I can’t help but appreciate your appreciation of Black America’s greatest star. Given the long-lastingness of her success and her wide-spread popularity across demographics, it can’t be a fluke or due to “Affirmative Action”, so it’s no wonder that behavioral and social commentators such as yourself are fascinated by her.
As for my analysis:
As a social Darwinist
Are you really a Social Darwinist? When I think of Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer, they generally believe that the poor and degenerate should be left to die in the streets if they can’t fend for themselves. Do you really want that?
Today blacks are considered hip and cool, but back in the 1980s, there was enormous stigma to being black because it meant your ancestors were from Africa
Hahaa…seriously? You make the 1980s sound like the the 1950s. Maybe it was that way in Canada, but by the 1980s Black Americans had long since been making in-roads into American popular culture. Ever hear of Michael Jackson? Or Sidney Poitier?
No more shows about one night stand reunions, cheating husbands, and Satanic worshipers. More shows about spirituality, Toni Morrison, and Maya Angelou.
Yep. She wanted to appeal to a higher-IQ audience, but instead of talking about politics and more intellectual topics like Phil Donahue (who was a forerunner to Oprah), she talked about warm fuzzy, feely, emotional stuff that would appeal to middle-aged housewives.
hip hairstyle and a Beverly Hills 90210 Valley girl persona
Hahaah, I was young at the time but I almost feel like I remember when she did that. Oprah would be on when I came home from school.
gentile named Rosie O’Donnell
I’ve always noted that the Irish (and Italians) do pretty well in spontaneous, improvisational, verbal settings. Look at George Carlin and Sam Kinison in comedy. The Irish Morton Downey Jr was also good at this on his talk show in the late-80s before he was booted off for lying about being attacked by skinheads at an airport.
wholesome family friendly reputation
It’s funny that they considered a butch-lesbian with crude humor family-friendly (incidentally, she’s also a long-time opponent of Donald Trump). Although Ellen Degeneres, who is also lesbian, has done exceedingly well in this arena.
Springer did not act like a tough guy; instead he stayed true to his cerebral nerdy personality
Hahaha! Truly brilliant move in my opinion. It was always funny contrasting the nerd with his guests.
bringing on the poor, disenfranchised, and black, and letting them beat each-other up for the entertainment of rich white college kids
Granted, a lot of the guests were also poor rednecks. And most of the people watching were probably not that far above the guests themselves in terms of socio-economic status (ie, ghetto blacks and redneck whites).
Springer would say he thinks news exploits people, because news forces the camera into the face of people who don’t want to be in the headlines
Smart, high verbal IQ move on his part. Throw the media’s hypocrisy back in their faces. The people on Springer’s show chose to be there, but that’s not necessarily the case with people in the news
The fast talking, quick thinking Judge Judy utterly dominated the court show genre with one-liners like “don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining”
Hahaah! The epitome of both high verbal and social IQ. She could understand arguments and complaints rapidly and cut through bullshit, turn smart-ass comments back on person who made them, and also had the emotional fortitude to go toe-to-toe with the angry people on her show.
To be honest, I didn’t always like Judge Judy because she seemed too gruff, but then I saw a documentary about her life that humanized her. She really loves her family. And she even brought her black bailiff with her from her old days as a family court judge.
Judy has yet to make the leap to that kind of status, but like her co-ethnic Jerry Springer, she is incredibly verbally skilled, and the two of them go down in TV history as the only two syndicated personalities to ever beat Oprah in the ratings.
I doubt either of them will go down in history the way Oprah will because their focus was too narrow (Springer on sleaze, Judy on court room drama). But they’re both probably very smart, maybe IQ 130 or better. Maybe even smarter than Oprah…
Are you really a Social Darwinist? When I think of Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer, they generally believe that the poor and degenerate should be left to die in the streets if they can’t fend for themselves. Do you really want that?
No of course not. Is that what people associate with Social Darwinism? I amended it to “compassionate social Darwinist”
Social Darwinism is not just a description of how the economy and society works in an industrial society, but a prescriptive/moral belief that the genetically inferior should be allowed to die.
Even most HBDers don’t believe in that (I know I don’t).
I believed the dictionary definition:
an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20darwinism
But perhaps that was a bit naive in this case.
Hmmm…your use of the word is technically correct, but I still feel that many imply my definition when using it.
Bucephalus seems to agree with your definition, so maybe there are some subtle nuances the dictionary is missing.
Great post Pumpkin. Although I was hoping you would turn to more cerebral topics, I can’t help but appreciate your appreciation of Black America’s greatest star. Given the long-lastingness of her success and her wide-spread popularity across demographics, it can’t be a fluke or due to “Affirmative Action”,
Oprah made her way up through the ranks on pure merit, from local reporter, to co-anchor of the evening news, then demoted down to co-host of a local low budget morning talk show in Baltimore. Only after turning that show into a huge success and beating Donahue in Baltimore was she offered her very own local low budget talk show competing against Donahue in his hometown of Chicago, and only after beating him again there was she able to go national, where she remained the #1 syndicated talk show for 25 straight years (with the exception of 1998 when Springer briefly overtook her)
Hahaa…seriously? You make the 1980s sound like the the 1950s. Maybe it was that way in Canada, but by the 1980s Black Americans had long since been making in-roads into American popular culture. Ever hear of Michael Jackson? Or Sidney Poitier?
Of course, but the fact that Michael Jackson felt the need to transform his appearance so dramatically suggests there might have been great stigma to being black, even as recently as the 1980s. I might be overstating it, but I get the sense there’s been dramatic social progress for both gays and blacks in even the last several decades thanks to partly to really mainstream figures like Oprah, Collin Powell etc, who were able to rise to prominence outside the stereotypical fields of sports, music and comedy, . I don’t believe Barack Obama could have been elected president in the 1980s, but I could be completely wrong
I’ve always noted that the Irish (and Italians) do pretty well in spontaneous, improvisational, verbal settings. Look at George Carlin and Sam Kinison in comedy. The Irish Morton Downey Jr was also good at this on his talk show in the late-80s before he was booted off for lying about being attacked by skinheads at an airport.
wholesome family friendly reputation
LOL! I’m guessing you watched the recent CNN documentary about Morton Downy Jr. I was thinking of doing a post on it. Remind me to never lie about being attacked by skinheads, or it could be the end of my blog.
To be honest, I didn’t always like Judge Judy because she seemed too gruff, but then I saw a documentary about her life that humanized her. She really loves her family. And she even brought her black bailiff with her from her old days as a family court judge.
Yes, I heard that too. I always admired her for keeping the black bailiff she had from before she was famous. Shows class.
but the fact that Michael Jackson felt the need to transform his appearance so dramatically suggests there might have been great stigma to being black
Naw, I think Michael Jackson was just crazy. Talented, but crazy. Look up body dysmorphic disorder.
Oprah’s success had mostly to do with her being a CIA asset, not her intelligence.
The CIA likes to use people who have pathologically compartmentalized personalities as assets, and Oprah has one of those. So does Obama, both Clintons, and all the Bush brothers. They are all CIA, and they all got compartmentalized the very same way: by being sexually molested by their very own fathers. The CIA is Satanic, and Oprah is a practicing Satanist, who has sacrificed pubescent boy children on the alter at the Temple of Moloch. It is well known that Oprah hates her father, and treats him like shit. Now you know why.
The only thing loonier than anti-HBD people are…
Conspiracy theorists!
Agenda of jayman puppet…
😉
If you want to destroy something put negroes in charge of it. Obama’s a quadroon not a negro, but he’s done a pretty good job of destroying America. The sub-intelligent, sub-moral, sub-humans, from sub-saharan africa, were created without moral agency, as slaves, by Satan the Black Devil from Hell. The Synagog of Satan is using them as weapons in his war against Jesus Christ and God’s most magnificent creation, White people. Only White people were created using God’s own genetics. All the other peoples of the world are made from monkeys, except for Jews. And Jews are not from Earth at all. Jews came from Mars. And by the way, I am not an HBD denier or a conspiracy theorist, I am the mouth of God.
I am the mouth of God.
Wow, have you heard of Father’s Manifesto? There’s some bonafide interesting stuff there, too.
Hey is this you? Good stuff, buddy!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2iGs8zUyC_uYEPssDGpfQw
Very good troll
One last comment to summarize this post before Labor Day:
It’s interesting that the only people that actually beat Oprah (at least briefly) were Ashkenazis, but not any folks from other high IQ races. It suggests that the Ashkenazim have some traits in common with Africans that allow them to succeed in improvisatory verbal situations (is this social IQ?). You notice a similar pattern in comedy and jazz music.It’s interesting that the dumbest race and the smartest race have something in common.
“It’s interesting that the dumbest race and the smartest race have something in common.”
Very interesting indeed!
To further the thought, perhaps you could then ask yourself that are they the dumbest and the smartest races after all? ROFL.
Pumpkin Person,
you are smarter enough to beat intelectually Oprah***
Lion,
reaction time,
verbal reaction time, would be interesting analyse. 😉
My tip is that blacks and ashkenazis will score higher than east asians and whites, on average, of course.
I bet verbal reaction time correlates with facets of personality, which may explain (possibly) superior black/Ashkenazi performance.
I think results of a verbal fluency test would be interesting too.
Well, generally, all pure cognitive traits (should) correlates with personality (indirect cognitive) traits.
Extraverted personality, my second tip.
Extraverted people are better in verbal reaction time, very good for comunicate.
Well, generally, all pure cognitive traits (should) correlates with personality (indirect cognitive) traits
Wrong! Personality and cognition are two separate domains in psychology.
Actually Panda just took notice of the title:
Only Ashkenazi Jews were smart enough to compete with Oprah
It is very funny. ROFL. Ashekenazis are the boss of the US media, while Oprah is merely a hired AA gun by the boss to shoot the rest.
The title then should be read:
Only the chairman of the board is smart enough to compete with general mamager., yeeks?
ROFL
So…you think that East Asians have higher average IQ than Ashkenazi while scoring lower on the test..right ?
Ashekenazis are the boss of the US media, while Oprah is merely a hired AA gun by the boss to shoot the rest.
Nope, Oprah’s one of the bosses too. The reason she’s so rich is because unlike virtually all other hosts, she owned her own show and so instead of just getting a salary, she got a lion’s share of the profits, and became an owner of other talk shows.
Not all black people are mindless affirmative action puppets for elites; some are actually capable of having power in their own right. Get over it.
The reason why Oprah owned her own show was because the bosses allowed the general manager to own some shares in the Cartel in order to better serve bigger scheme of the plan.
Oprah owned a rented apprtment and a 2nd-hand auto until the Jews allowed her to own sth else. There’re millions in the US with avg IQ>140. Many of these people would love to own something of their in the US media empire. In the end they ‘re lucky to own their own house before the age of 40. In the highly developed, capital-intensive and ultra-competitive media industry of the US, you don’t ‘own” sth unless you are permitted by the bosses who own the whole darn thing to do so. That is clear.
Oprah was able to own the show because she took it from last place in the ratings to number one, practically overnight, generating unimaginable profits in record time. This gave her enormous leverage to demand ownership, because had she quit the show, it would have been impossible to find a replacement, anywhere near as popular. Billions of dollars has been spent trying to find the next Oprah with virtually no success.
PP, as Panda said many times, your logical fallacy is:
if popular , then make huge $, then must be super high IQ.
Not neccesarily.
Panda’s rebuttal is:
– popular person = having popular IQ by difinition, Aka close to avg IQ of those who make him/her popular in the first place.
– Since by being popular itself is usually sufficient enough to make huge amount of $, therefore by being i. popular and ii. super rich not only does NOT necessarily guarantee that he/she has a super high IQ, but also suggest otherwise since popularity usually suggests that he/she don’t have super high IQ.
– Most corporate CEOs , Hollywood & TV/media celebs are the typical examples. Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Lady gaga, Beyoncé, etc are hugely popular and more or less billionaire as well, so their IQ must be 140+?
Plus, you don’t need to have 140+ IQ to conduct a very straightforward simple business negotiation of having her own show in the network due to her profitability, or do you?
Moreover, forget Oprah, think about Jackie Chen!
Jackie Chen’s carrer, both as actor and as producers and directors of various movie-TV production ventures for decades across Hollywood, HongKong , China mainland, Taiwan and Japan earned him billions. Chen’s continental empire, both on the surface and hidden, along with the complexcity and varieties of his profit-making business across continents is of orders of magnitude , arguablely speaking, higher than Oprah’s simple chitchat talk show , gaining most of the money due to the effective monoply of the network in the US domestic market, which is dominated by just a handful of them.
What’s Jackie Chen’s IQ then? 180? ROFL
He started as a semi-illiterate and forced into a ciucus training programme in HK. optimisticly speaking his IQ is more or less Chinese avg 105 or so.
Panda’s rebuttal is:
– popular person = having popular IQ by difinition, Aka close to avg IQ of those who make him/her popular in the first place.
– Since by being popular itself is usually sufficient enough to make huge amount of $, therefore by being i. popular and ii. super rich not only does NOT necessarily guarantee that he/she has a super high IQ, but also suggest otherwise since popularity usually suggests that he/she don’t have super high IQ.
I agree that there have been many very rich and popular people who were not smart, BUT Oprah’s not just rich, she’s a BILLIONAIRE, and she made her money in an extremely competitive, improvisational and verbal field. Doesn’t prove she’s brilliant, but it’s suggestive.
I agree that a lot of very smart people would have no interest or talent for that type of work, but they would be smart enough to know that, and not enter the field in the first place.
Among those who are motivated to be popular talk show hosts, being smart would help, because IQ predicts job performance in virtually every field, though I agree the correlation is quite weak in some fields.
Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Lady gaga, Beyoncé, etc are hugely popular and more or less billionaire as well, so their IQ must be 140+?
None of those people are anywhere near billionaire status, let alone multibillionaires like Oprah. And don’t compare people who sing and memorize scripts for a living with talk show hosts who have to verbally improvise day after day, and make it so entertaining, so spontaneous, and so amusing that millions and millions of Americans watch then five days a week, year after year, in the face of tons of competition.
And Lady Gaga does have an extremely high IQ, btw:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/high-iq-lady-gaga-becomes-highest-income-celeb-under-30/comment-page-1/
Plus, you don’t need to have 140+ IQ to conduct a very straightforward simple business negotiation of having her own show in the network due to her profitability, or do you?
You don’t need a 140+ IQ to do anything, other than score 140+ on an IQ test, however the higher the IQ, the greater the probability of using common sense in everyday life. Oprah’s IQ gave her the common sense to say, “look at all the money they’re making off my show. They need me more than I need them, so I’m going to demand ownership of the show!”
Jackie Chen’s carrer, both as actor and as producers and directors of various movie-TV production ventures for decades across Hollywood, HongKong , China mainland, Taiwan and Japan earned him billions.
Jackie Chan is worth $350 million according to Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2015/06/29/big-bucks-for-big-brother-why-jackie-chan-is-the-worlds-second-highest-paid-actor/
Oprah is worth $3 billion according to Forbes.
Chan made his money following a script. Now he followed a script in very creative and talented ways, but talk show hosts have to improvise and perform and direct their shows off the cuff in real time.
Oprah radically transformed society. Chan did not.
Chen’s continental empire, both on the surface and hidden, along with the complexcity and varieties of his profit-making business across continents is of orders of magnitude , arguablely speaking, higher than Oprah’s simple chitchat talk show , gaining most of the money due to the effective monoply of the network in the US domestic market, which is dominated by just a handful of them.
The best and brightest people in public life, including stand up comics, Oscar winning actors, PhDs, lawyers, former U.S. presidents, and Ashkenazi Jews, were all desperate to land a talk show and be the next Oprah. She had tons of competition from the best and brightest in an extremely verbal and improvisational field.
So I would say her accomplishments were much more cognitively difficult than Chan’s
— Mel Gibson is a billionaire.
`Oprah’s IQ gave her the common sense to say, “look at all the money they’re making off my show. They need me more than I need them, so I’m going to demand ownership of the show!”
—- What a brilliant billion-dollar-worth strategy!
sorry , but anyone with IQ higher than a patato can think of that. …
any drug addict can think of that `look, I ´ve connered all the block, now I want to raise the price`…
any hooker can think of that, and even better, `look, I+ve got 30 fixed clients now, that´s a lot of money per month, now I want to raise my price to some 200%, while for some others 20% discount…`
Any bar tender can think of that…
shall Panda go on?
actaully Oprah didn´t even have to think it through ehrself, because her handler-manager can think that for her, and negotiate the best deal on her behave. All Oprah needed to do is to figure out how to print her signiture on the last page of the contract, and count the money. Actually not even count the money, her then private bankers would have done that for her, on a daily basis.
`Jackie Chan is worth $350 million according to Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2015/06/29/big-bucks-for-big-brother-why-jackie-chan-is-the-worlds-second-highest-paid-actor/
Oprah is worth $3 billion according to Forbes.
Chan made his money following a script. Now he followed a script in very creative and talented ways, but talk show hosts have to improvise and perform and direct their shows off the cuff in real time.
Oprah radically transformed society. Chan did not.`
—– 350mio my foot. ROFL. Panda said `Chen´s empire, on the surface or hidden…`. Most of Jackie Chen´s money empire is INSIDE China, not Hollywood, where is tax-free.
Chen makes his own scripts , and movie, and shows,… he is member of political congress of PRC, a congreeman, for christ! Chne pioneered his kongfu movie style.
Oprah´s 3 billion worth comes from 1 single source – monoplied network fees with USA. That´s about it. Whatever Oprah does is no more than some chitchat talk show, not even a standup comedian. You and many others may find it inspiratinal and brilliant, whereas panda finds the show unbearablely boring as most roomcom or sitcom..
Billionaire? multi-billionaire? right, so what? It doesn´t prove a thing logically. Arab kings and princes are next to trilllionaires while can not get 56/6 right without a calculator. How many in Mensa are billionaires? Most of the world´s most intellectually gifted people with IQ 140+ 150+ 160+ 170+ 180+ are just normal people wealth-wise. The single biggest contrubitor of the world´s ultra rich, say multibillionaires, is LUCK , L-U-C-K, or familay connections-hence priviledges-hence some kind of monoply ( right, it concludes media monoply too).
Millions in the world have higher IQ than Bill Gates, and many of them in the IT biz. why Gates is the richest? because He was at the right place at the right time with the right IBM connections, simples!
10s of millions in the world have higher IQ than Zuckerburg, and also in ISP biz model, even earlier than FB. Why only he is the one of a handful multi/billionaire? because he was at the right place at the right time with the right surname and nationality that satisfied both the Wall Street and NSA. Simples!
examples are endless…
— Mel Gibson is a billionaire.
At his peak Gibson was worth $850 million, but after divorce it was down to $450 million:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2011/12/mel-gibsons-loses-half-of-his-850-million-fortune-to-ex-wife-in-divorce/
Oprah remains the only billionaire performer in the history of the planet.
—- What a brilliant billion-dollar-worth strategy!
sorry , but anyone with IQ higher than a patato can think of that. …
Thinking of it, and figuring out how to execute it are two different things.
actaully Oprah didn´t even have to think it through ehrself, because her handler-manager can think that for her, and negotiate the best deal on her behave. All Oprah needed to do is to figure out how to print her signiture on the last page of the contract, and count the money. Actually not even count the money, her then private bankers would have done that for her, on a daily basis.
Yes, but you still have to be smart enough to know who to hire, and what advice to take and you have to keep an eye your empire. It’s a lot harder than it looks. Look at all the celebs who ended up broke because their financial people took advantage of them. So not only did she have the ability to create an extremely lucrative product in an extremely competitive, verbal and improvisational field, but she had the skills to maximize her share of the profits.
`
—– 350mio my foot. ROFL. Panda said `Chen´s empire, on the surface or hidden…`. Most of Jackie Chen´s money empire is INSIDE China, not Hollywood, where is tax-free.
Forbes knows more about it than you do, and they say he’s worth $350 million
Chen makes his own scripts , and movie, and shows,… he is member of political congress of PRC, a congreeman, for christ! Chne pioneered his kongfu movie style.
Oprah´s 3 billion worth comes from 1 single source – monoplied network fees with USA.
Oprah had to compete with 56 to 180 different mainstream TV channels every single day she was on the air. Chan only had to compete with about half a dozen different movies with wide distribution, released the same day as his. Oprah had to brilliantly improvise the entertainment she created off the cuff on a daily basis while Chan had years to craft his scripts and performances.
Oprah revolutionized the culture of the World’s sole super power and elected the first black president. Chan revolutionized kung fu movies.
Arab kings and princes are next to trilllionaires
Don’t be absurd
How many in Mensa are billionaires?
Most Mensa minds are not billionaires, but most U.S. self-made billionaires have Mensa IQs.
The single biggest contrubitor of the world´s ultra rich, say multibillionaires, is LUCK , L-U-C-K,
But you have to know what to do with luck. An average person can turn luck into a million dollars. A brilliant mind can turn luck into a billion dollars.
As Steve Hsu noted, 100% of the three richest people in the World have IQs above 135:
http://infoproc.blogspot.ca/2009/11/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich.html
Millions in the world have higher IQ than Bill Gates,
By some reports, only one in a million whites are as smart as Bill Gates:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/13/high-iq-bill-gates-towers-as-the-richest-american-21-years-in-a-row/
“At his peak Gibson was worth $850 million, but after divorce it was down to $450 million:”
What the differences btw 850 mio and billionaire? Not much. Considering th time value of money mel’s 850 mio worths much more than the current 3 billion.
“Thinking of it, and figuring out how to execute it are two different things.”
Come off it. ROFL. it would be lunatic if an actor/actress or anyone in a society worth 100 bucks who doesn’t know how to execute an easy idea as simple as that. It’s almost a human instinct. Almost any 9-yr-old can do it, when he/she asks candies from parents. if you blantantly even deny this simple point, you’re not being intellectually honest.
“Forbes knows more about it than you do, and they say he’s worth $350 million”
The main source of Chen’s wealth is in RMB, not Hollywood $. Many of his hidden assets , such as some ancient Chinese treasures, are priceless, that could be easily valued at billions if sold in Sotheby’s or Christies.
Nonetheless that’s not the point ! The point is even Jackie Chen worth only $ 30 mio. If his IQ is about 105, what’s your relative IQ in your own “theory”? Say IQ of 12 ? or even less? , if doing some linear interpolation? ROFL
“Most Mensa minds are not billionaires, but most U.S. self-made billionaires have Mensa IQs.”
Most have mensa IQ? Panda needs a decent source, not $-worship speculation. Furthermore, even most doesn’t mean all.
“But you have to know what to do with luck. An average person can turn luck into a million dollars. A brilliant mind can turn luck into a billion dollars.”
No, no, no! LOL Here is exactly where your root problem lies.
Luck is luck. With luck a dumb fcuk can get a billion-dollar lottery ticket. A 190+ IQers with very bad luck can die of hunger.
That said, the general trend is that the higher the IQ the higher the chance one earns more. That’s about it. Not gurantee or anything, neither vice versus. Watch out, this fact can NOT be interpreted as WILDLY as you like: if a average person can turn luck into million $ for sure, then we would have a much happier world; if a brilliant mind can trun luck into a billion dollars for sure, why the heck Panda is doing here?
To be super rich, one must not to be dumb, and one must have certain IQ level, passing a centain bar. Yet that bar is not that high as you think. Panda estimates that the bar would be slightly above the general population average, say 100.
Once beyond that, it has not that much to do with IQ anymore, a 120+ IQ (company CEOs in genral) can could much more than 150+ IQ ( Company head of R&D, chief scientist, etc). Beyind that bar, the single most important thing of extraodinary wealth is LUCK (i.e. events or family connection=centain priviledges=certain degree of connering of a market segment).
Your blind contribution of Oprah ‘s wealth to her “super high”IQ is self-contradictionary to your own theory from 2 fronts:
A. If Oprah had 145 IQ , worth 3 billion. Then , if Panda assume you worth 3 million, therefore your IQ is as ridiculously low as like 0.145, more or less , assuming linear relation, oK? Absurd?
B.If Oprah had 145 IQ , worth 3 billion. Then any any 150+ IQ , your theory is sure that they can earn much more than 3 billion, right? Why they are not? Actually 99.999…% of these 150+ IQers in the world are nobodies. How you explain that?
NO human high IQ can justify those INSANE amounts of money one gets, except 2 things: i) PURE FRIGGIN LUCK, or ii) he/she is an ET with IQ of 12,000+., then all bets are off.
“As Steve Hsu noted, 100% of the three richest people in the World have IQs above 135:”
So,
question 1. If Oprah one of these 3?
question 2, why only 135? while oprah (“145+IQ”) only earns 3 billion, She must be stupid , right?
Question 3, So WHAT that 100% of all top 3 richest have IQ above 135? Does that tells any new or relevent here?
if it is relevent, it only further confirms Panda’s point , instead of yours, that one doesn’t need to have super friggin high IQ to be 1 of the top 3 richest persons in the entire world! That tells the point also from the reverse angle that if you are super super rich, you don’t HAVE TO have friggin high IQ, ditto “political goddess Oprah” myth, doesn’t it?
“By some reports, only one in a million whites are as smart as Bill Gates:”
This doesn’t refute Panda’s point at all.
What the differences btw 850 mio and billionaire? Not much. Considering th time value of money mel’s 850 mio worths much more than the current 3 billion.
He was worth $850 million in 2011. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $900 million.
Come off it. ROFL. it would be lunatic if an actor/actress or anyone in a society worth 100 bucks who doesn’t know how to execute an easy idea as simple as that. It’s almost a human instinct. Almost any 9-yr-old can do it, when he/she asks candies from parents. if you blantantly even deny this simple point, you’re not being intellectually honest.
I think your underestimating how hard it is to have commonsense. I hear people all the time saying “Damn, I wish I had been smart enough to ask for more money. What was I thinking?.”
The main source of Chen’s wealth is in RMB, not Hollywood $. Many of his hidden assets , such as some ancient Chinese treasures, are priceless, that could be easily valued at billions if sold in Sotheby’s or Christies.
Sounds like bullshit.
Nonetheless that’s not the point ! The point is even Jackie Chen worth only $ 30 mio. If his IQ is about 105, what’s your relative IQ in your own “theory”? Say IQ of 12 ? or even less? , if doing some linear interpolation? ROFL
It doesn’t work that way. On average, I have found people to be 10 IQ points smarter than people who make ten times less money than they do, and they are 10 IQ points dumber than people who make ten times more.
Most have mensa IQ? Panda needs a decent source, not $-worship speculation. Furthermore, even most doesn’t mean all.
A good source is prestigious Duke university’s East Asian American scholar Jonathan Wai who estimates that 45% of American billionaires have IQs in the top 1%:
Click to access wai-americas-elite-2013.pdf
Since Mensa requires an IQ in the top 2%, his research suggests most U.S. (self-made) billionaires are Mensa material.
I realize that not all self-made billionaires are Mensa material
.
To be super rich, one must not to be dumb, and one must have certain IQ level, passing a centain bar. Yet that bar is not that high as you think. Panda estimates that the bar would be slightly above the general population average, say 100.
Once beyond that, it has not that much to do with IQ anymore, a 120+ IQ (company CEOs in genral) can could much more than 150+ IQ ( Company head of R&D, chief scientist, etc). Beyind that bar, the single most important thing of extraodinary wealth is LUCK (i.e. events or family connection=centain priviledges=certain degree of connering of a market segment).
There is no one bar. Rather the relationship is probabilistic. Someone with an IQ of 100, might have a one in a million chance of becoming a billionaire. Someone with an IQ of 135 might have a one in 10,000 chance. Someone with an IQ of 170 might have a one in 100 chance of becoming a billionaire.
Oprah’s superhuman bank account is not proof she has a 140+ IQ. Her superhuman head size is not proof either. But together, they raise the odds to 50%, even when you subtract 15 points for race..
To make an analogy, knowing someone’s in the NBA doesn’t prove they’re over 6’5″. Knowing someone weights 400 lbs doesn’t prove they’re over 6’5″.
But if someone’s both in the NBA and over 400 lbs, there’s a good chance they’re over 6’5″
“He was worth $850 million in 2011. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $900 million.”
—–So? does that make any difference from Panda’s point?
“I think your underestimating how hard it is to have commonsense. I hear people all the time saying “Damn, I wish I had been smart enough to ask for more money. What was I thinking?.”
—-No, you’ve (way) over-estimated it. Commonsense, by definition, the sense that could be easily understood by common people – aka with average IQ.
And probably you haven’t heard of Oprah telling you yet that “damn, if I wish I had been smart enough to ask for a $12 billion cut when that luck-of-the-century came along. What was I thinking?.” ROFL
“It doesn’t work that way. On average, I have found people to be 10 IQ points smarter than people who make ten times less money than they do, and they are 10 IQ points dumber than people who make ten times more.”
—— so, assuming Oprah 145 IQ with $ 3 billion, you must worth around 30 mio now, right? or no? LOL
“A good source is prestigious Duke university’s East Asian American scholar Jonathan Wai who estimates that 45% of American billionaires have IQs in the top 1%:”
—— Thank you, but eh…45%? ONLY?
“I realize that not all self-made billionaires are Mensa material”
—– perhaps you could start counting Oprah too. why not?
“There is no one bar. Rather the relationship is probabilistic. Someone with an IQ of 100, might have a one in a million chance of becoming a billionaire. Someone with an IQ of 135 might have a one in 10,000 chance. Someone with an IQ of 170 might have a one in 100 chance of becoming a billionaire.”
OK, probabilistic can be another interpretation. Panda doesn’t have any problem with that. But the problem of probabilistic is that it only paints the picture of the theoritical average. It’s a loooong shot from coming down to any individual, such as Oprah.
“Oprah’s superhuman bank account is not proof she has a 140+ IQ. Her superhuman head size is not proof either. But together, they raise the odds to 50%, even when you subtract 15 points for race..
To make an analogy, knowing someone’s in the NBA doesn’t prove they’re over 6’5″. Knowing someone weights 400 lbs doesn’t prove they’re over 6’5″.
But if someone’s both in the NBA and over 400 lbs, there’s a good chance they’re over 6’5″
The analogy sounds good, but not good enough for Panda. ROFL.
1. NBA is defined by objective reality – performance measured by the actual objective scores that are universal amongst any audiences, say 1 is 1, 5 is 5, no ambiguity, whereas Oprah’s performance is subjective appraisal by the US domestic audiences on that network, VERY different from NBA.
e.g. An Einstein can make a national live talkshow on General Relativity before half of the audiences falling into sleep after the first 20mins ending up lossing quite a lot of $ for prime time network and fired, whereas a decent standup comedian could pretty much make 90% of the audiences laughing like no tomorrow making tons of the money for the network in the process.. The money, the net worth , the popularity, derived solely from that , as the Oprah does particularly whern she OWN a part of the MONOPLIED prime time TV network, has jack to do with precise measurement of IQ.
2. 400 lbs is defined by objective reality as well, universally unambigous number. Now show Panda the brain size of Oprah, not the picture of her head, else Panda would bring on an elephant into the competition. ROFL
2 steps back, even if they were all correct, it only shows that there’s a GOOD chance they’re over 6’5″. But unfortunately we’re not taling about good chance here. We are talking about the more or less accurate IQ measure of an individual.
If Oprah were so super brained as you claimed, why wouldn’t she take a simple IQ test, eh? 1 hour of IQ test? or some old record of SAT leaked “casually”? Surely she wouldn’t be shy of it, if she is sure that her 145+ super high IQ reflected would have made her much more popular and $$$-worthy, this time worldwide into the big juicy $ 10 or 20 billion territory, instead of being the “a politically untouchable” media star inside the tiny US domestic single network.
That’s right! Panda would have guessed that Oprah would be knocking her head against the wall when she hears this common sense suggestion by Padna huh? “Damn! I wish I had been smart enough to figure that out to take a IQ test. What was I thinking?!” ROFL
“A good source is prestigious Duke university’s East Asian American scholar Jonathan Wai who estimates that 45% of American billionaires have IQs in the top 1%:”
And those in ”the iq in the top 1%”??
45% of american billionaires, who are thousand people, at most, have iq in the top 1%. Just 45%, is not super higher like 90% them.
And the ”1% top ones”, how many of them that are at least millionaires?
And contradiction here, if most of billios don’t start from zero, in other words, they already have good and very good life standard, then social class have a important impact. The advantageous to become from high-income families.
Oprah compensate their poor early life with the easy to getting rich in the entertaiment specially when you have
– intelligence
– right person in the right MOMENT
Sorry, american billio are not thousand, lol
but hundred, at most.
Lion of the Judah-sphere what is your spatial IQ ? Your verbal IQ ?
Why?
I took WAIS, which doesn’t break it down by verbal and spatial, but rather verbal, working memory, processing speed, and perceptual reasoning (spatial). I don’t feel like pulling up my exact sub scores, but my full scale was 120, with my verbal significantly higher than the other 3 subscales (working memory was the weakest).
I meant WAIS IV
How many did you score on verbal ?
And what score did you obtain perceptive reasoning ?
Processing speed and working memory are less g loaded bcz more sensible to stress and training.
The processing speed section is largely nonsense; more a measure of clerical speed than intelligence, in my opinion.
Many short forms of the Wechsler scales use only Vocab and Block Design which is an extremely g loaded combination (though I prefer a threesome short form of Vocab, Block Design, and Digit Span), and you hit the ceiling on vocab.
Note, your composite score on short-forms is not just the average of your sub-scores, as you probably know
Processing speed and working memory are less g loaded bcz more sensible to stress and training.
It’s debatable whether real memory can be trained. As I’ve mentioned 100 times, there was a study where people practiced their ability to repeat digits from short-term memory. At first they could only repeat seven, but after endless practice they could repeat 100 in some cases.
But when they were then asked to repeat letters instead of digits, they were right back down to seven. So you can only train for a very specific test, which is cheating, but you can’t really improve the actual ability.
Yes, I know that, I was of course talking about the working memory subtest.
Does Panda actually know is real IQ or he assume that he is smarter than everyone else who is not east asians based on his own perception ?
Pumpkin, the link about high IQ diseases seems to indicate that jews have more neuronal connexion, does it imply that jewish IQ could be link to jewish brain density ?
Pumpkin are you there ? Or may be you are fapping and you will answer later ?
LOL, you’re really demanding!
To be honesr. I am totally crazy and extremely dangerous…when I ask a question, I have an answer.
If the only way to know the detail of your IQ score is to find where you live and kidnapp you, I would do so….
You’re fucking nuts.
Some fake ”conspiracy theory” and real politically incorrect facts are like that
”Number sequence
0,1,3,,6,10…”
😉
Pingback: The average IQ of daytime talk show hosts | Pumpkin Person
the conspiracy radio talk show host Alex Jones said that he has an IQ of 140. he also said that his IQ would have been 160 if he hadn’t grown up drinking fluoride water, which he believes lowers IQ. Link:
He looks like the big brained chris langan
he does. you’re right. alex does appear to have a big brain. i’m sure his biggest strength is his verbal IQ. he takes pride in the fact that his show is telepromptor free, and he doesn’t read from a script. for the entire 4 hours of his show he speaks off the cuff.