From the beginning Oprah was black and brilliant.
A few readers think I’m crazy for thinking Oprah could have an IQ around 140. For some dismiss her as just another mediocre celebrity entertaining the unwashed masses. And 140 is a truly astonishing figure, when one considers that the average white U.S. college graduate has an IQ around 111, the average white PhD has an IQ around 123 and the average U.S. president has an IQ around 130. Many find it unimaginable that overweight black woman who entertains housewives could be so much smarter than all those people.
But the first thing to keep in mind is that Oprah’s not just an entertainer, she’s a billionaire, with a B, and she’s a billionaire several times over. Think about how hard it is to go out and make a million U.S. dollars, and then imagine doing so 3000 times, and keeping every penny, and you have a sense of just much genius is required. The following chart is a very rough approximation for the relationship between money and IQ in America. It’s hard to pin down exact numbers, but a good rule of thumb is that Americans tend to be close to ten IQ points smarter than Americans who earn ten times less than they do, and they tend to be ten IQ points dumber than those who earn ten times more:
Homeless people (three figure income earners): Average IQ 76
The working poor (four figure income earners): Average IQ 86
Average Americans (five figure income earners): Average IQ 96
Self-made millionaires (six figure income becomes seven figure wealth): Average IQ 106
Self-made decamillionaires (seven figure income becomes eight figure wealth): Average IQ 116
Self-made centimillionaires (eight figure income becomes nine figure wealth): Average IQ 126
Self-made billionares (nine figure income becomes ten figure wealth): Average IQ 136
Self-made decabillionaires (ten figure income becomes 11 figure wealth): Average IQ 146
So just the fact that Oprah is a self-made billionaire implies she has a 50% chance of having an IQ of 136 or higher.
The next question that needs to be answered is whether Oprah is likely smarter or dumber than the average self-made billionaire. One indicator is that her head is so big she has to have her hats custom made. Given that the correlation between IQ and head circumference is about 0.23, and billionaires have IQs 2.53 standard deviations above the U.S. mean of 96, we’d expect the average billionaire to have a sex adjusted head size that is 0.23(2.53 SD) = 0.58 SD bigger than normal. But Oprah’s sex adjusted head circumference is an astonishing 6.3 SD bigger than normal, which makes it 5.72 SD bigger than the average billionaire’s.
Assuming the 0.23 correlation between head size and IQ holds among self-made billionaires, Oprah would be expected to be 0.23(5.72 SD) = 1.32 SD smarter than the average self-made billionaire.
On a scale where white Americans have a mean IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, and all Americans have a mean IQ of 96 with an SD of 15.8, self-made U.S. billionaires likely have a mean IQ of 136 with an SD also of 15.8. So the average self-made billionaire with a sex-adjusted head as huge as Oprah’s would have an IQ of:
1.32(15.8) + 136 = 157
But because self-made billionaires are so heterogeneous, and because the correlation between IQ and head size is so weak, you could not have much confidence at all in this estimate. All you could say with 95% confidence is that such a big headed billionaire has an IQ anywhere from 126 to 188.
Of course the typical biggest headed billionaire would be white, and so these stats don’t apply to North America’s first multi-billionaire black.
What happens when race is factored in?
For as long as IQ tests have existed, black Americans have scored about 15 points lower than white Americans. One interesting fact is that this same 15 point IQ gap exists even among high achievers. On page 374 of his book Coming Apart Charles Murray reported IQs for educated white and black Americans. Because Murray reported his IQ data using American norms, I converted to the preferred scale using white American norms:
Whites with a bachelors degree: IQ 111
Blacks with a bachelor degree: IQ 96
Whites with a masters degree: IQ 114
Blacks with a masters degree: IQ 99
Whites with a PhD or professional degree: IQ 123
Blacks with a PhD or professional degree: IQ 110
As can be seen, at each level of accomplishment, blacks score roughly 15 points lower than whites. Extrapolating this trend, the biggest headed billionaire (expected IQ of 157; 95% confidence interval 126 to 188), would have an expected IQ of 157 – 15 = 142 (95% confidence interval of 111 to 173) if she’s black.
Further, an IQ of about 140 is corroborated by Oprah’s computer scored idea density, and a historiometric estimate of her childhood IQ.
Assuming there are about 42 million African Americans, and that they have a mean IQ of 85 with a standard deviation that might be as high as 15, the normal curve predicts there are about 5,162 black Americans with IQs of 140 or higher. Given the new opportunities that emerged in the post-civil rights era, it would not be surprising if one of these 5,162 brilliant blacks rose up to become the richest African American of all time, and another, with her help, went on to become President of the United States.
Obama giving the Medal of Freedom to Oprah in 2013, AP photo by Evan Vucci
If you use the means and standard deviations from Table A1 of this paper by Dickens and Flynn, 2006 ( http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/dickens2006a.pdf ) , there should be, at worst, one black person out of 8 million black people with IQ scores of 140 or better, or at best, 53 black people per million with such a score. By comparison, there should be nearly 4000 white people per million with such a score.
Most studies do indeed find black have a smaller standard deviation than whites, however those stats seem to underpredict the number of blacks with very high IQs.
So either the studies are understimating the black SD, or the curve is not normal at the high end, or a segment of the black population is scoring high for reasons other than intelligence.
Either way, assuming blacks and whites have the same SD seems to give more realistic results, and it’s hard to think of a theoretical reason why the black SD should be smaller than the white SD.
I’ve seen studies saying east Asian IQ SD is higher (around 16). But I’m not sure if that’s just total BS. What is the evolutionary argument? If something has been under recent selection, shouldn’t the variance be greater? So maybe that explains the greater IQ SD among whites and Asians?
I used those data because of the authority of the source. That said, I’m surprised that a standardization sample would use as few as 600 subjects. I’d have thought a couple of thousand subjects at least.
”For some dismiss her as just another mediocre celebrity entertaining the unwashed masses”
huuum, yes, she is. Majority of ”celebritches” are mediocre. Even Spielberg is mediocre in some perspective, very good for soft entertainment (special effects more important than story of movies).
”Many find it unimaginable that overweight black woman who entertains housewives could be so much smarter than all those people.”
II don’t find it. But ”intelligence” (cognition + personality) NEED a purpose, to be functional in the society. Intelligent but useless is quasi-exactly the same for intelligent parasite.
Again
”smarter” term.
Very very complicated for you accept that there are a diversity of smart types.
You already go in the oprah show*** Oprah is smarter than you*
I will repeat for you again. Most people here are not oprah fan, just efemminate gays, many blacks (most them, women) and average non-black woman who tend to like oprah as well ellen degeneress. Very few straight men who like oprah, ellen, any female talk show.
”But the first thing to keep in mind is that Oprah’s not just an entertainer, she’s a billionaire, with a B, and she’s a billionaire several times over. Think about how hard it is to go out and make a million U.S. dollars, and then imagine doing so 3000 times, and keeping every penny, and you have a sense of just much genius is required.”
You are talking about irrelevances here. oprah is not a interesting subject for many here. indeed, like panda said, oprah have LUCK, right place, right moment, right people, right mind (i.e, conciously conformist if she is really intellectually smarter OR stupid enough for believe in every piece that their jewish directors said, without any criticism or reflexive thinking. White researchers found that ”liberal” government is bad for blacks and not operah’s who found it. Even for their own people, operah is not a angel like you are thinking). Most of the celebrity have luck, and a important minority have father fame to become famous.
Hard working is work day by day below the sun in the countryside in the old times.
”Homeless people (three figure income earners): Average IQ 76
The working poor (four figure income earners): Average IQ 86
Average Americans (five figure income earners): Average IQ 96
Self-made millionaires (six figure income becomes seven figure wealth): Average IQ 106
Self-made decamillionaires (seven figure income becomes eight figure wealth): Average IQ 116
Self-made centimillionaires (eight figure income becomes nine figure wealth): Average IQ 126
Self-made billionares (nine figure income becomes ten figure wealth): Average IQ 136
Self-made decabillionaires (ten figure income becomes 11 figure wealth): Average IQ 146”
You can understand what the word AVERAGE mean** The chances for a afro-american woman”with” a iq 140 to be the most famous black woman in the USA, is very little.
The average iq of people who ‘work’ with entertainment is not high enough. Don’t confound a real self-made rich ones who start by nothing and step by step build their own business (the average self made rich) with a someone who ‘work’ in very lucrative entertainment and become millionaire in their second year of job.
Julia Roberts is a genius too**
Nope.
Iq is not important than real intelligence, real world intelligence = achievements or potential, the capacity to create.
Iq is a instrument created for capture intelligence. Is imperfect, very imperfect but still good to be used. The order of factors modify the product. Iq is a way (a bridge, like Nietzche said about human) to search the literal expression of intelligence, and not the end, the finality, like barometer is a way for (capture) measure atmospheric pressure.
Intelligence correlates positively with
science (not ideologue ones),
philosophy (and not marxistoid ones),
arts ( create a high valued and beautiful product ).
Operah is smart***
of course, i no doubt.
She’s a genius**
Nope.
II don’t find it. But ”intelligence” (cognition + personality)
Intelligence = overall cognitive adaptability, not cognition + personality. Psychologists make a very clear distinction between cognitive tests and personality tests. Now obviously personality affects how motivated you are to perform on cognitive tests and what you do with your intelligence in real life, but there’s a very clear conceptual difference between these two constructs.
NEED a purpose, to be functional in the society. Intelligent but useless is quasi-exactly the same for intelligent parasite.
Her purpose was to provide inspiration and entertainment to millions of people, to change culture, and to get money and power. Not a parasite because millions of people got great joy from her show, and because she was the primary reason the show was good.
I will repeat for you again. Most people here are not oprah fan, just efemminate gays, many blacks (most them, women) and average non-black woman who tend to like oprah as well ellen degeneress. Very few straight men who like oprah, ellen, any female talk show.
I am interested in her for scientific reasons. I am not a fan in any conventional sense. My interest is psychologically very different from theirs
Also, millions of straight black men love her because her accomplishments bring pride and inspiration to their race, and because she reminds them of their mothers, their sisters, their wives, their daughters, their cousins, and their aunts.
You are talking about irrelevances here. oprah is not a interesting subject for many here. indeed, like panda said, oprah have LUCK,
Virtually all super successful people have luck. But you have to know what to do with luck.
(i.e, conciously conformist if she is really intellectually smarter OR stupid enough for believe in every piece that their jewish directors said, without any criticism or reflexive thinking.
Jews have nothing to do with this.
White researchers found that ”liberal” government is bad for blacks and not operah’s who found it. Even for their own people, operah is not a angel like you are thinking)
I don’t think she’s an angel at all. Oprah inspires blacks to take charge of their live, not be dependent on government.
The average iq of people who ‘work’ with entertainment is not high enough. Don’t confound a real self-made rich ones who start by nothing and step by step build their own business (the average self made rich) with a someone who ‘work’ in very lucrative entertainment and become millionaire in their second year of job.
According to Steve Sailer, Oprah is the most self-made billionaire in America:
http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2011/11/earning-vs-owning-your-way-on-forbes.html
Most billionaires get rich by owning the hard work and talent of others. Oprah does too, but unlike other billionaires who sell products other people make, Oprah IS the primary product she’s selling. If she personally didn’t get out there and perform in an entertaining way for five hours a week for 25 years, her empire would have crumbled.
Julia Roberts is a genius too**
Nope.
Julia Roberts reads a script that other people wrote. Hosting a talk show where you actually have to be entertaining and interesting off the cuff is ten times harder. And Julia Roberts never became a billionaire and the most influential woman on the planet. Julia Roberts didn’t transform society.
”ntelligence = overall cognitive adaptability, not cognition + personality. Psychologists make a very clear distinction between cognitive tests and personality tests. Now obviously personality affects how motivated you are to perform on cognitive tests and what you do with your intelligence in real life, but there’s a very clear conceptual difference between these two constructs.”
Is the exactly the same. Nope, is not just or fundamentally ”cognitive adaptability”.
Psychologists, on average, are dumb. They are victims of abstract words. Abstract is directly based on literal and is a type of literal, a thing. Soul, emotions, personality…
”Her purpose was to provide inspiration and entertainment to millions of people, to change culture, and to get money and power. Not a parasite because millions of people got great joy from her show, and because she was the primary reason the show was good.”
Oooohhh, ”inspiration”… but she should teach to fish and not just ”inspire” people.
Nope, a billionaire without any historical curriculum based on real, fair and productive long term attitudes is a parasite.
Cattle feelings is not real important here. She made a tv show where globalistic agenda is daily transmited in the today superpower.
”I am interested in her for scientific reasons. I am not a fan in any conventional sense. My interest is psychologically very different from theirs”
Maybe, but isn’t look ”strictly scientific” for me.
”Also, millions of straight black men love her because her accomplishments bring pride and inspiration to their race, and because she reminds them of their mothers, their sisters, their wives, their daughters, their cousins, and their aunts.”
Admirators is different than to be fan.
”Virtually all super successful people have luck. But you have to know what to do with luck.”
Yes, no criticism about it.
”Jews have nothing to do with this.”
Define ”nothing”, 0% of participation**
I’m just a conspiracy theorist too*
”I don’t think she’s an angel at all. Oprah inspires blacks to take charge of their live, not be dependent on government.”
Scientific analysis
Will go analyse how effective was their inspiration.
Oooohhh, ”inspiration”… but she should teach to fish and not just ”inspire” people.
Nope, a billionaire without any historical curriculum based on real, fair and productive long term attitudes is a parasite.
She’s not a parasite, she’s just really good at protecting herself from parasites. Most black entertainers create popular art, and then some parasitic business men come along and take most of their profits, leaving the black artist with only a few million. Oprah became a billionaire because she was smart enough to take ownership of her show, so other parasites in the industry couldn’t take advantage of her.
Also, millions of straight black men love her because her accomplishments bring pride and inspiration to their race, and because she reminds them of their mothers, their sisters, their wives, their daughters, their cousins, and their aunts.
Clearly, I like Oprah, because I’ve spent so much time defending her over the past few days. But a lot of black men really dislike Oprah. She’s been very critical of certain rappers and rap music, particularly it’s misogyny. And if there’s one way to piss off black men, it’s to not like rap music.
”She’s not a parasite, she’s just really good at protecting herself from parasites. Most black entertainers create popular art, and then some parasitic business men come along and take most of their profits, leaving the black artist with only a few million. Oprah became a billionaire because she was smart enough to take ownership of her show, so other parasites in the industry couldn’t take advantage of her.”
Artists, or are parasites or are naive-stupid, or a combination with both.
”According to Steve Sailer, Oprah is the most self-made billionaire in America:
http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2011/11/earning-vs-owning-your-way-on-forbes.html
Most billionaires get rich by owning the hard work and talent of others. Oprah does too, but unlike other billionaires who sell products other people make, Oprah IS the primary product she’s selling. If she personally didn’t get out there and perform in an entertaining way for five hours a week for 25 years, her empire would have crumbled”
Self made, there a spectrum between hereditarian rich and complete or total self made. Complete self made milio or billionaire people are someone, what i said above, very clear, who start from zero and step by step build the own fortune and business.
Oprah is partial self made because is very easy to be at least a little millionaire working in the entertainment show.
”Julia Roberts didn’t transform society.”
”Scientifc analysis”…
Self made, there a spectrum between hereditarian rich and complete or total self made. Complete self made milio or billionaire people are someone, what i said above, very clear, who start from zero and step by step build the own fortune and business.
Oprah started in poverty
Oprah is partial self made because is very easy to be at least a little millionaire working in the entertainment show.
Yes, but you have to get the entertainment show in the first place. She didn’t inherit it. She had to earn it.
Again…
Oprah don’t create a business by nothing, she start working in a business called tv. Is very different. I’m not trying to treat her as ”less” but just the right weight of their achievements and intelligence.
Oprah don’t create a business by nothing, she start working in a business called tv. Is very different.
Give me a break. I can’t think of a single billionaire who created a completely new industry. The computer industry existed before Bill Gates. The investment business existed before Warren Buffet. Retail existed before Sam Walton.
You’re being silly.
”Give me a break. I can’t think of a single billionaire who created a completely new industry. The computer industry existed before Bill Gates. The investment business existed before Warren Buffet. Retail existed before Sam Walton.
You’re being silly.”
But Gates was in the early entepreneur life a predominantly self made. Remember spectrum.
Your main point here is
”Oprah is a genius because she have a 140iq, because self-made billionaires ”have” average iq 140” Simplistic linearity
Oprah make any official iq test that can prove that she really ”’have”” iq 140***
Oprah produce any real intelectual, scientific or artistic achievements**
Smart people, i.e, pure cognitive smart people tend to be strongly attracted by intelectual activities.
PP as well many hbds avoid ambiguous results, everything need to be brutally linearized. I don’t disagree completely with it but they, by Occam navail, believe that tendencious reductionism is the same that syntheticity.
Magical thinking in ”scientific analysis”. Any real empiricism, real deep investigation about the variables of this matter of this post.
I don’t disagree with you that most of billionaires are not complete self made, but like Oprah, they will tend to be a partial self made ones.
Today, for you become rich, quickly or at least by productive work, you need
– psychopathic personality or at least inside the anti social spectrum to be cold and unemotional, for example, avoiding help people when you are improving their personal patrimony, ascendent period,
– strong social connections (retro-nurtured by the first component),
– astuteness for create a popular and lucrative product,
– acute and oportunistic perception to understand the world and use it to enrich their own, like, find what people like and create a product (facebook**) that many people will go use. Never repeat the same thing. Here, in my little town, many people have the idea to invest in a pharmacy or drugstore. Same products, same demand in a little town, stupid people with money enough to do bad investiments.
hybrid creative ideas, recreational and practical, are the most lucrative. And you still can create a business that is not fundamentally creative but you can change it in the long term.
But Gates was in the early entepreneur life a predominantly self made. Remember spectrum.
Oprah is far more self-made than Gates. Gates had upper middle class well connected parents, and Gates, though extremely brilliant in his own right, relied on a platoon of super high IQ programmers to create products for Microsoft to sell.
By contrast Oprah came from nothing and the product was mostly just Oprah being Oprah.
”Oprah is a genius because she have a 140iq, because self-made billionaires ”have” average iq 140” Simplistic linearity
Yes it’s simplistic, that’s the beauty of it. The average self-made billionaire has an IQ of perhaps 136. A black billionaire would be expected to have an IQ of 121. The biggest headed billionaire would be expected to have an IQ of 157.
Since Oprah is both a black billionaire (IQ 121) and the biggest headed billionaire (IQ 157), her IQ is probably between those two (140).
Oprah make any official iq test that can prove that she really ”’have”” iq 140***
Not an official IQ test, but I computer scored her writing for idea density (how many ideas she can express per ten words), and she scored higher than other super smart business elites.
Oprah produce any real intelectual, scientific or artistic achievements**
Yes. She created a book club that got millions of people to read, and she’s been credited with creating a confession culture that radically changed society, and with creating a more intimate form of media communication. She’s also credited by two economists with playing the decisive role in electing the first black presidents. These are extremely significant achievements.
I don’t disagree with you that most of billionaires are not complete self made, but like Oprah, they will tend to be a partial self made ones.
She’s probably the most self-made of all the American billionaires.
Today, for you become rich, quickly or at least by productive work, you need
– psychopathic personality or at least inside the anti social spectrum to be cold and unemotional, for example, avoiding help people when you are improving their personal patrimony, ascendent period,
She’s known for being super emotionally sensitive and compassionate, though she might be a secret psychopath who is just pretending to care about people
strong social connections (retro-nurtured by the first component),
She didn’t have this.
astuteness for create a popular and lucrative product,
This relates to IQ, partly
acute and oportunistic perception to understand the world and use it to enrich their own, like, find what people like and create a product (facebook**) that many people will go use.
IQ also helps with this, though more specific skills are needed
Never repeat the same thing. Here, in my little town, many people have the idea to invest in a pharmacy or drugstore. Same products, same demand in a little town, stupid people with money enough to do bad investiments.
High IQ people are very good at not repeating
She may have an above avg. IQ & be a billionaire but if I only backed my own race wouldn’t I be considered a racist? She gets away with so many things that a white person would be persecuted for. Why do people keep backing her instead of boycotting her b.s. ?
Because it’s socially acceptable to be ethnocentric if your race is disadvantaged, as blacks are on almost every measure of social and economic well being.
Only when your race is doing well is it considered racist to be ethnocentric.
That’s because in the first case ethnocentricism is reducing inequality and in the second case it’s increasing it, and we live in a society were equality is one of the highest ideals.
Not saying that’s good or bad, but it is what it is.
Oprah….she has no heirs, so she can pass off her IQ and wealth.
She doesn’t have direct heirs, but by using her money to build schools in Africa and using her power to elect a black president, she is helping the global black gene pool, that shares copies of her black genes.
JS and pumpkin, you are both right. Her genes are exceptionally good for helping her population but pitiful for helping her own individual genes.Natural selection and evolution is about the population as a whole and not the individual. The simplest way to look at it is that Oprahs unique genetic code will never be passed down but thru her actions people that have similar genetic traits will prosper. Think of her as a reverse parasite, helping people’s genes at her own genes expense.
Yikes…prattling on about EGI again.
If you believe in selfish gene theory, then Oprah has both some of the most Darwinianly fittest and some of the most Darwinianly unfittest genes in the history of mankind.
On the one hand, she has genes that made her a genius multibillionaire beloved by millions of different peoples around the world. On the other hand, her genes made her into a lesbian with Gayle King (Stedman is just a beard, and gay himself). Thus she’ll never pass on her genes to anyone who shares approximately 50% of their genes with her (aka, her children). And no, she’s not helping her genes by donating money to blacks who are only .0005% related to her.
If Oprah were a black man, she’d probably have a large harem and would be very “prolific”.
Yikes…prattling on about EGI again.
If you read between the lines, even JayMan does not dispute EGI itself; what he disputes (with good reason) is whether such behavior could be directly selected for.
On the one hand, she has genes that made her a genius multibillionaire beloved by millions of different peoples around the world. On the other hand, her genes made her into a lesbian with Gayle King (Stedman is just a beard, and gay himself)
I have no idea whether that rumor is true or not. Oprah had romantic relations with a lot of men in her teens and twenties (even getting pregnant at 14), so if she is a lesbian, she’s a late bloomer.
And no, she’s not helping her genes by donating money to blacks who are only .0005% related to her.
Genetic relations are relative, not absolute. Compared to members of the same ethnic group, a random co-ethnic is by definition unrelated to you, but compared to the total human gene-pool, co-ethnics are thought to be the equivalent of first cousins. Compared to a chimp, humans of all races are almost genetic clones. Compared to a dog, humans and chimps are almost genetic clones. So helping your genes is relative to who you’re comparing yourself with.
“If you believe in selfish gene theory, then Oprah has both some of the most Darwinianly fittest and some of the most Darwinianly unfittest genes in the history of mankind.”
I think this is what were all saying here. She’s both fit and unfit at the same time
If you don’t believe in the selfish gene theory then you don’t understand it. Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. He just released the 40th anniversary edition back in August. Read it. You will believe in the Selfish Gene Theory after you’re done with it.
i should say *helping the host gene’s at her own gene’s expense*
Individual genes are relative. Compared to nonblack people, all black people share her individual genes. Compared to other black people, only her kids if she had them, would share her individual genes. Compared to her kids, only a genetic clone would share her individual genes
So when she helps her race, she is helping her individual genes relative to nonblacks, but she is sacrificing her individual genes relative to blacks
thats basically what i said, just expanded upon, goodjob keep up the good posts
Her individual genes are much more important than her helping out other black people. There is evidence that even with early childhood education, people will regress to their genetic IQ. Yes, it helps, but we need more than that.
Us black people cannot afford to allow a high IQ individual not to breed.
well if she has 2 children and each child has 50% of her genes then that creates a 100% Oprah into the next generation
They would have 50% of her genes relative to other African Americans. Relative to her extended family, they have less than 50% of her genes. Relative to whites, they would have more than 50% of her genes.
Relative to whites, the average black has 13% of her genes. She need only save 8 random blacks to create a 100% Oprah
In an absolute sense she shares more than half her DNA with a tree. So she’s already created a thousand 100% Oprahs with the 2000 trees she planted at her California mansion. 🙂
this makes sense, this explains altruism, although this creates a paradox. Helping co-ethnics will improve genetic fitness just as much as exploiting them would. giving a co-ethnic money vs robbing them for money. Robbing a co-ethnic for money would increase both our fitness because he is related to me. Helping him by giving him my own money would increase both of our fitness as well since again we are related.The difference between the two is that robbing my co-ethnic increase my fitness by a greater amount relative to the amount his is increased and helping him increases his genetic fitness relative to the amount mine is increased . A better example would be “in a population of 2 million people. If i save 1 million co ethnic lives i increase my fitness because there are more of my genes in the gene pool , on the other hand if I kill 1 million co-ethnics i also increase my fitness by an equal amount because there are less of every one else’s genes in the gene pool and mine take up more space in the pool”. Saving 1 million co ethnics increases the populations fitness relative to my own while killing the population increases my fitness relative to the population’s, but in each scenario we both mutually benefit. This paradox 100% explains the prevalence of black on black crime in America. Actually it even explains the prevalence of violent crime in general but especially ESPECIALLY black on black crime, like in Chicago and Crips vs Bloods, for example.If the Crips and Bloods live within the same city then its inevitable a good chunk of their gangs will be co-ethnics. So by 1 Crip violently murdering a co-ethnic Blood he has increased his genetic fitness and that dead Blood’s genetic fitness is increased as well even though he just died. The only difference is the relative fitness increase between the two.
We are (individually speaking) the (possible) biological continuity OR stability of a certain group or population. Smart afro-americans who are less selectively separated from overall afro-american population, will be less prone to pass their ”smart genes” to their kids, because they are a statistical-outlier continuity or variation of afro-american populations while ibos, for example, are more selectively separated from overall nigerian population (same situation for ”christian lebaneses versus muslim lebaneses) and will be more prone to pass their smart genes to their kids.
Epigenetics happens when the phenotypes is less fixed or ”less fixed (less selective) and naturally recessive”.
Smartass is a average joey of ashkenazis, for example, while smart afro-american will be a statistical-demographic outlier. Near to demographic nucleous or (contextual) average(s) joey(s), will be more demographically prevalent and more genetically fixed because many people will carry its genetic variants for cognitive phenotypes intergenerational transmission. Heritability is based on probabilities.
Regression to mean basically happens when you have a higher prevalence of, for example, lower technical intelligence, and a couple with higher technical intelligence. They share with your respective direct families many genes which are not the ”smart genes”. The demographic prevalence and any selective speciation produce genetic prevalence of predominant phenotypes, in this case, lower technical intelligence.
Smart blacks, generally, will be statistical outliers that will be more prone
to have the prevalent genes of their population, that is not increase intelligence,
to marry a person with same genetic situation.
On average, bio-outliers will be more epigenetics in their roots than fixed or prevalent ones.
Is a continuous process of speciation like happen with cell duplications as metaphoric examplification. The number of smart and very afro-americans or even most of black people, is too low that they tend to be encapsulated by their prevalent genes while there a certain ”selective security” among european descendents for example, where there are quasi-endogamic groups of smart people who tend to marry one each other by generations and already have a certain demographic relevance.
makes sense,
Yes, and according to Jayman, smart black men, breed with White women, not smart black women.
you have to make sure you say the words *in general,* smart black men, breed with White women, not smart black women. because obviously not all smart black men breed with white women but most do
I look at blacks in America in 2 situations, smart blacks will disappear through intermarriage, and the rest will breed among themselves. It does not look good. In Canada, where there are more African blacks, who are generally smarter, and they tend to stick to themselves, similar to Asians, the outbreeding will be less prevalent.
Of course, many black men, regardless of origins, like white women, but it’s a lot more severe for african americans.
Yes, and according to Jayman, smart black men, breed with White women, not smart black women.
If so, President Obama would be a clear exception, though I wonder if that was a deliberate political strategy on his part.
Pretty much. People match on IQ and other heritable traits, but IQ is the trait that people match the most on. Even in interracial marriages, people match on heritable traits. So even interracial marriages font disprove the reality of genetic similarity theory. It actually greatly strengthens it.
Igbo and not ibo.
It would not surprise me if her IQ is 140
Don’t most studies show a much more modest effect of IQ on income?
130-140 is something like 2% of the population..yet this wench has far far more wealth than most people in that category.
Her IQ is meaningless to her wealth at the end of the day unless all people with similar intelligence have the opportunity to live with the same status simultaneously.
Thank you. There is not relationship with IQ and wealth. The formula is worthless. Oprah didn’t make it on IQ. Where is my billions, I am in MENSA. just being on TV is a high income profession. Matt Lower income is, if I remember right, $28 million a year. David Letterman was getting $70 million.
Thank you. There is not relationship with IQ and wealth. The formula is worthless. Oprah didn’t make it on IQ. Where is my billions, I am in MENSA.
The correlation between IQ and money is like the correlation between height and boxing ability. If you’re a world class boxer, chances are you’re tall, but that doesn’t mean most very tall people are world class boxers.
just being on TV is a high income profession. Matt Lower income is, if I remember right, $28 million a year. David Letterman was getting $70 million.
And both of them probably have above average IQs.
Homeless earnings is 3 figures?
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-do-panhandlers-make-new-york-city-homeless-man-earns-200-hour-sitting-2181312
Panhandlers in NYC make a killing. Maybe you should look into how much the average panhandler makes and revise your estimate.
a 1986 study of homelessness in Chicago found that panhandling income averaged $7.00 per month. Adjusted for inflation (that study is 28 years old) that’s $15.14 a month or about $182 a year (a three figure income).
I’m sure if you’re really driven you can make a killing, but a lot of homeless people spend all day in a drunken stupor
I guess location matters. Do you have a link to that study? Was it done in a rural or urban area? If you’ve ever been to NYC and other big cities in America, you can see how easy it is for people to make money. That’s why I’m suspicious of such a low number.
Oprah does not have a high IQ because of her income. Her IQ may be in fact average. She has the money because of her personality and the fact that humans are followers. Her caretakers saw the relationship she had with the followers and opened more doors by starting O magazine, etc. Her show also had famous people on it that followers wanted to see.
Caretakers? LOL. You mean employers?
No one becomes that incredibly popular with a TV audience unless they have witty, interesting and common sense things to say. That’s where IQ becomes helpful. Further, talk show hosts don’t show you their personalities, but very skillfully crafted personas. Crafting such personas requires a lot of intelligence. Indeed many biologists now believe that gaining popularity in social interactions was the primary factor that drove the selection for higher intelligence in primates.
Caretakers/employers. Employers/caretakers. Wit, interesting and common sense are things I never saw in her show. Not by Oprah. Her personality caught the attention of the common person by making them feel equal to her. Unfortunately it is many biologist not all biologist. Many philologist would find Oprah’s factor was in her commonalities that attracted like followers. I am in MENSA maybe that is why I wasn’t an Oprah fan. She lost her first job as a reporter for lack of skill. Didn’t you ever notice that she had a problem following the conversation of guest?
Wit, interesting and common sense are things I never saw in her show.
Everyone else did. She had the #1 talk show in American history for a quarter century and won dozens of Emmys
Her personality caught the attention of the common person by making them feel equal to her.
If it were that easy than anyone could get on TV and have millions of loyal followers. The reason Oprah became a billionaire is others who tried consistently failed, driving Oprah’s market value into the stratosphere.
Didn’t you ever notice that she had a problem following the conversation of guest?
No, she was constantly praised for rapport with guests.
100 percent serious question, please don’t moderate:
Can you factor in obesity into your equation?
https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/COEDO2014.pdf
I’d like to see what the number is with that factored in.
BMI is significantly negatively correlated with full-scale intelligence, measured by the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (r ¼ 0.250, P ¼ 0.005) and its vocabulary subtest (r ¼ 0.245, P ¼ 0.006), though not its matrix reasoning subtest (r ¼ 0.126, ns) [8]. Given, the small sample and the extremely limited variance in BMI in the sample, such significantly negative correlations are remarkable. Researchers also find
that, in a sample of Chinese outpatients with schizophrenia, recruited from 10 sites throughout China (n ¼ 896; ages 18–50), BMI is significantly negatively correlated with intelligence, measured by five different cognitive tests (partial r ¼ 0.082, P ¼ 0.018, net of age and sex).
I’m sure you know that the author, Kanazawa, is also an HBDer.
I have a more in-depth formula which takes into account all the major biodemographic correlates of IQ.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/05/17/revised-formula-for-estimating-iq-from-bio-demographics/
And Oprah’s not obese anymore.
I like that it includes weight since the heritability of BMI is so high in first world countries.
And Oprah will yo-yo right back. She’s been battling weight for years, yet she’s never tried a true low-carb diet.
https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2008/12/09/oprahs-plight/
She can’t go low carb. She LOVES bread
Why didn’t Oprah have children?