[PLEASE PLACE ALL OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS IN THE MOST RECENT OPEN THREAD. THEY WILL NOT BE POSTED IN THIS THREAD]
Last week the rebooted Roseanne show drew 18 million U.S. viewers; an incredible achievement in our fragmented media age. I’m not surprised as the original show ended while it was still good, and so many people are nostalgic for the 20th century (before the internet, fear of terrorism and neocon wars dominated American life)
The original Roseanne show ran from 1988 to 1997. One of the reasons the show worked was the chemistry between Roseanne Barr (her character is Roseanne Conner) and her TV husband Dan Conner (played by John Goodman). They made a great couple because even though Roseanne was a big woman, Goodman was such a big guy he made her look small.
John Goodman and Roseanne on the original Roseanne show
It was hard for Roseanne to land a sitcom because TV execs didn’t think anyone wanted to watch a fat woman on TV, but then someone must have noticed that the then overweight Oprah was setting record ratings on daytime TV, and decided to take a chance on Roseanne.
The show became a huge hit, because seeing a working class family on TV was a novel concept and unlike other sitcoms where everyone was perfect, the Conners were overweight, blue collar, and had kids who dropped out of high school (as did the real Roseanne and her real life kids) .
As two plus sized women from working class backgrounds, both of whom suffered sexual abuse, it was only natural that Roseanne became one of Oprah’s most frequent guests, but the first time they met Oprah thought “Who is this WHACKED woman?”
But then the second time Roseanne appeared on Oprah she was promoting her book, My Life as a Woman, and Oprah was blown away by the insights.
“You are so smart,” Oprah would later tell her circa 1998 “And have been empowering women in ways that we don’t consciously recognize, but all those years when we would not miss one single Roseanne show, what you were really saying is no matter who you are, what your circumstances: YOUR LIFE MATTERS!”
But shortly after that exchange, Roseanne who had for decades loved Oprah, suddenly became hostile. It started when the two women arm wrestled on TV and Roseanne bizarrely thought Oprah cheated.
Things got worse as Oprah started doing shows about new age spirituality, which Roseanne felt had no relevance to working people.
But what really set Roseanne off was when Oprah endorsed Hillary over Obama in the 2007 Democratic primary. Roseanne felt Hillary was better and smarter than Obama and felt Oprah should be supporting an intelligent woman over a flashy man.
And then when Obama bailed out wall street bankers who had looted the U.S. treasury, Roseanne went absolutely ballistic on her blog, calling Obama a black man owned by white bankers, and stating: “NOW I WANT TO SEE THAT DAMN BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!!!!!”
During Oprah’s final season in 2011, she invited Roseanne back on her show to clear the air:
When Roseanne later visited Oprah’s cable network OWN she remarked “I like that everyone here’s a woman. That way you don’t have to deal with any ASSHOLES!”
In the years since, Roseanne’s politics have changed a lot: she went from loving Hillary to hating her, from hating Israel to loving it, and she’s become a huge Trump supporter, even making her TV character Roseanne Conner a hard-core Trump supporter too (much to the horror of her many liberal fans). Naturally Trump called to congratulate her on the show’s success.
There are entire working class towns where you have to drive miles before finding a single person who didn’t vote Trump, so it makes sense that Roseanne Conner, as the iconic working class white, would be a Trump supporter too.
It must have been sad for Hillary to not only have lost the presidency to Trump, but to have a working class feminist hero like Roseanne celebrate Trump’s win on the highest rated sitcom in years.
But so many working class white women would scream “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!” whenever Trump mentioned Hillary at his rallies. Perhaps on the rebooted Roseanne sitcom they will have an episode where the Conners are watching TV and Hillary comes on, and Roseanne and Dan chant “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!”
While such a scene would add dark realism, it would ailienate Hillary fans, and many are already angry enough about Roseanne’s Trump support.
Early Years
As a working class Jewish girl surrounded by Mormons in Salt Lake City, Utah, Roseanne Barr felt like an outsider growing up. She also claimed she was abused at home:
My mother abused me from the time I was an infant until I was six or seven years old… She did lots of lurid things. She hurt me psychologically and physically…My father molested me until I left home at age 17. He constantly put his hands all over me. He forced me to sit on his lap, to cuddle with him, to play with his penis in the bathtub. He did grotesque and disgusting things: He used to chase me with his excrement and try to put it on my head. He’d lie on the floor playing with himself. It was the most disgusting thing you can ever imagine.
At 16, she was hit by a car and suffered traumatic brain injury. Her behavior changed so drastically she spent time in a mental hospital.
But it was while working as a waitress that Roseanne finally found her calling. Customers were amused by her witty comebacks and as her fan base grew, she was encouraged to try stand up comedy, which eventually led to a sitcom.
So what is her IQ?
I’m not aware of Roseanne ever taking an IQ test, and little is known about how she did in school. Her speaking style doesn’t sound very intelligent but that could reflect her working class roots or be feigned to fit her working class persona.
I find it interesting that she’s a Jewish high school dropout, because Jews appear to be about 0.66 standard deviations more educated than non-Jewish Americans. So while a high school dropout in Roseanne’s day was about -0.66 SD less educated than the average American (normalizing the education distribution), a Jewish high school dropout was 1.32 standard deviations less educated.
If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and education among U.S. Jews, you’d expect Roseanne’s IQ to be about 20 points below the Jewish mean of 110, but since the correlation is 0.57, we’d expect it to be around 0.57(20) = 11 points below 110, so 99.
On the other hand, Roseanne is rumoured to be worth around $80 million thanks to the success of her sitcom. That puts her lifetime earnings way above the 99.9 percentile for her generation (self-made low decamillionaire), but way below the 99.99993 percentile (self-made billionaire). Normalizing the distribution of self-made money, she’s somewhere between +3.1 SD and +4.8 SD. Splitting the difference, let’s say +3.95 SD. However because the typical U.S. Jew is about +0.73 SD on a normalized income curve, we might subtract 0.73 SD to very crudely guess how Roseanne compares to U.S. Jews. She’s perhaps about +3.22 SD.
If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and lifetime earnings, we’d expect Roseanne to be 48 IQ points above the average IQ 110 U.S. Jew, but since the correlation is about 0.48, we’d expect her to be 0.48(48) = 23 points higher, predicting a 133 IQ.
So who is the true Roseanne? The average woman implied by her education, or the genius implied by her income. One can only guess, but a brilliant Promethean long ago told me that when using two or more variables to predict a third, I should use multiple regression. Since education and income correlate 0.57 and 0.48 with IQ respectively, and about 0.44 with each other, the predictive power of education and income (independent of each other) are 0.42 and 0.3 respectively. Thus:
Roseanne’s IQ = 0.42(education) + 0.3(life time income)
Roseanne’s IQ =0.42(-0.66 SD from the Jewish mean) + 0.3(+3.2 SD from the Jewish mean)
Roseanne’s IQ = -0.28 SD + 0.96 SD from the Jewish mean
Roseanne’s IQ = +0.68 SD from the Jewish mean
On a scale where white Americans average 100 with an SD of 15, Jews average about 110 and probably also have an SD of 15, and so if Roseanne is +0.68 SD, that would put her at:
0.68(15) + 110 = 120
Of course this doesn’t tell us Roseanne’s IQ. At best it tells us the average IQ of Jewish high school dropouts who amassed an $80 million fortune. However even within such a narrowly defined demographic, there’s enormous variation (or would be if the demographic were large).
Notes:
Pumpkin Person 
Right brain people are so talented.
But it is just she could be balanced unlike me.
A fast brain can be an advantage.
Rossie is higher than 120, I’d say 125.
Because of the social intelligence.
I saw the family show, she was joking to deflate was was really in her head.
Like how Oprah kind of says things just to keep in line with the audience.
125 because you see it in her eyes, cognitive empathy, bold strait certainty.
Little Rosie OP theme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
This is another example of when something real is labelled a ‘conspiracy theory’. Want to know the person that invented that term? – Allen Dulles.
Pumpkin is an 80’s kid
My dad recorded tapes from the 80’s
Cartoon network di reruns.
How could anyone associate them with cultural Marxism
Why do you mention it Mugabe?
Inspector Gadget and heathcliff were just cartoons.
I find it interesting how Fox has backed trump a lot against the rest of the media. I thought that one was most in the neocon tank.
Yup. A number of Fox News commentators spoke out against Trump (Carlson, and Trump’ s rival in narcissism, Bill O’Reilly). And of course Megan Kelly had her little rivalry with Trump. But by the time the general election had come around, Fox was definitely behind Trump all the way. I guess someone at the top of Fox sent out the memo to be pro-Trump all the time.
Maybe Trump isn’t as anti-neocon as you thought? Alternatively: Fox is run by people truly in favor of America’s interests (seems unlikely).
carlson is right about everything except guns. but he uses the same retarded guests over and over. he claimed he didn’t vote for president.
he is the most left wing person in msm.
carlson has spoken of civil war in the offing before, so his gun thing may be that he actually expects those guns to be used at some point in insurrection. wouldn;t surprise me that much. and that is the only thing a AR15 is good for.
”What is Roseanne’s IQ?”
I don’t know, why are you asking this to me**
Her JQ is very high!!!
Her Jewish Quotient???
Can you take a JQ test for that? What would philosopher score?
Seems some anti semites and the most pro semites tends to score higher in JQ because they know or understand jewish mind [on avg].
Does it matter what Roseanne’s ‘IQ’ is?
Yes?
Why?
reasons?
It lets us know how she adapted the way she did as her choices reflect the level of IQ she has in aggregate. So it matters because she may set an example for other people adapting similarly with the same IQ levels. We want to know if people of similar IQ act similarly in solving life problems in the context of their life problems. Does Rosies IQ influence her choices? That’s what matters I believe.
It’s always interesting when someone from the working class succeeds without help from the education industrial complex which is normally how high IQ people get ahead
Roseanne hates people who went to harvard or Yale
How do you know her ‘IQ’ was the ’cause’?
Well there are ways to show causation using only one person though it’s probably too late for roseanne.
I guess if you tested her right when she dropped out of high school and found she scored way higher than the other working class Jewish dropouts. You then predicted she’d become richer based on her score. Follow up in 20 years and her wealth exceeds the mean jewish dropout wealth by a statistically significant margin.
That’s standard hypothesis testing. Same way they test drugs
Wouldn’t 100% prove causation but i think it would meet the scientific standard for causation in psychology
it’s only interesting when such people “succeed” in areas other than entertainment or crime. (sport is entertainment.)
because credentials are useless in these fields.
if oprah or roseanne had “succeeded” in software, that would be impressive.
both are gross.
because credentials are useless in these fields.
That’s what makes these fields interesting to study from an IQ perspective. If high IQ people succeed in non-credential fields it shows that IQ has adaptive value independent of schooling.
“I guess if you tested her right when she dropped out of high school and found she scored way higher than the other working class Jewish dropouts. You then predicted she’d become richer based on her score. Follow up in 20 years and her wealth exceeds the mean jewish dropout wealth by a statistically significant margin.”
How is this evidence for causation?
“Wouldn’t 100% prove causation but i think it would meet the scientific standard for causation in psychology”
The ‘scientific standard’ (if you can call psychology ‘science’) seems pretty low to me…
Either way, saying that “IQ” ’causes’ success doesn’t make any sense. How could some stupid test “show” how successful you’ll be in life? Only because it’s constructed like other tests. That’s why the correlation exists. They’re different versions of the same test (correlation of .5 see Richardson, 2002).
Actually I think I’m wrong. It’s probably not possible to show causation for IQ and success using one person, unless you do an experiment where a person’s IQ is changed and the effect on success is observed (brain damage might qualify as a natural experiment, though it doesn’t strike randomly), but it is possible to show correlation using only one person.
But there are several ways to show a correlation is causal:
1.Strength: A relationship is more likely to be causal if the correlation coefficient is large and statistically significant.
2.Consistency: A relationship is more likely to be causal if it can be replicated.
3.Specificity: A relationship is more likely to be causal if there is no other likely explanation.
4.Temporality: A relationship is more likely to be causal if the effect always occurs after the cause.
5.Gradient: A relationship is more likely to be causal if a greater exposure to the suspected cause leads to a greater effect.
6.Plausibility: A relationship is more likely to be causal if there is a plausible mechanism between the cause and the effect.
7.Coherence: A relationship is more likely to be causal if it is compatible with related facts and theories.
8.Experiment: A relationship is more likely to be causal if it can be verified experimentally.
9.Analogy: A relationship is more likely to be causal if there are proven relationships between similar causes and effects.
”IQ”
”Intelligence” [”whatever it is”]
”science”
”psychology”
”How is this evidence for causation?”
Where PP said only-IQ makes her rich [causation]**
Reading issues…
”The ‘scientific standard’ (if you can call psychology ‘science’) seems pretty low to me…”
Sociological/musculist is saying what is science and what is not…
check out, it’s free!!
PP, so how to show it’s causal?
Santo that doesn’t answer my question. Yes I used scarequotes is there a problem? Yes I say psychology is not a science, again, is there a problem?
The more of those 9 criteria a correlation meets, the more likely it is to be causal
go on….
You’re the problem rr
first thing in your ”intellectual” life you must need grasp.
peepee’s idea of “success” is perverted.
It’s not necessarily wrong via
IMORAL
point of view,
it’s utterly naturalistic…
what jews often are
they are or many them are uber-naturalistic [pragmatic/chain-food-mindset] but use culture to overemphasise mythological// moral sector of culture.
what is morality?
An illusion
Something you and pill no have.
Morality may prevent people to kill you by futile intentions.
What is morality*
Morality may prevent people to kill or send pill to hospice because he is delirant [less when he talk about thoos].
It’s extracted from action/reaction physical law even it was considerably older than Newton ”cicle of life” [i mean life]. At priori morality has been created to prevent chaos but in very imperfect ways because humans are insufferably dumb as well paratoxically clever motherfuckers.
Philosopher tells people things all the time he thinks are right and wrong. He is in cognitive dissonance believing things are right and wrong but says morality does not exist. He has convictions but says they are illusions, figments of his imaginations.
Philosophe is a nihilist. Yet believe in stopping bad people from doing bad things.
Philosophe is a nihilist. Yet believe in people working together to do good things.
He is schizo that way. Saying he is a nihilist yet by actions not being one.
this is why women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.
women are shallow, dishonest, and stupid.
“successful” is working for a legit company (a goyish company) like Boeing as an engineer, having two kids and not getting divorced.
better than this is starting your own legit company…but that’s only for a very small minority.
MDs and JDs may be respectable or not. it depends.
JDs are much more respectable in france than they are in the US.
You’re starting to drift off-topic. Head to open thread please
Pumpkin, you can ban this comment if you want, it’s very off-topic…
Something I found out recently: JDs are literally a doctoral degree even though there’s no research or dissertation (I always knew of course JD stood for Juris Doctor). Of course, not all countries accept this practice of calling JDs “doctorates” (Although apparently in some Latin American countries attorneys are literally addressed as “Doctors”)
At one time the U.S. Department of Education only recognized 10 professional doctoral degrees;
Chiropractic (D.C., D.C.M.)
Dentistry (D.D.S., D.M.D.)
Law (LL.B., J.D.)
Medicine (M.B., M.D.)
Optometry (O.D.)
Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.)
Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)
Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., Pod.D.)
Theology (M.Div, M.H.L., B.D., Ordination)
Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M., V.M.D.)
Originally in medieval times only three professions were addressed as doctors: physicians, lawyers, and ministers/theologians.
The modern term of “master”, as it refers to Master’s degrees, comes from the concept of a “Master Builder” that was considered the pinnacle of the European guild. These individuals had a combination of skills in architecture, artisanship, engineering and surveying (these fields weren’t really considered separate back then). One could become a Master of many fields besides “building” too.
Law really doesn’t have the prestige that it used to. There’s way too many in the U.S. and most non-elite legal jobs pay like shit. I think the U.S. produces like twice the lawyers of England, three times compared to Spain and Italy, and ten times compared to Japan and Korea.
Sad!
Conversations naturally evolve from the original topic. What i object to are people INITIATING off-topic discussions
Yeah I know. I just wanted to think of some way to link it back to theboriginal topic but didn’t feel like it after writing the whole comment.
Chiropractors are doctors?
They’re not “doctors” in the literal sense of the word. I used a chiropractor to get out of work a few years ago and they said he wasn’t a doctor but let me have the days off anyway.
I’ve read a few stories of people dying from getting a chiropractic exam done. I’ve done it, I felt pretty good after but I wouldn’t do it again. I’d rather go to a spine specialist.
Pumpkins ‘theories’ about IQ and success are casual but in a 2nd or 3rd order way. Not a 1st order. In this case, Roseanne got rich because she was a jew and producers always want to help their own tribe. If she was a catholic, I dont think shed get anywhere near tv.
But it still proves pumpkin is right even though he doesn’t know why himself. In this case, IQ was a necessary factor for jews to control the media apparatus in the first place and Roseanne sharing similar genes is a reason for her “success”.
If the chinese owned the media in america, Im pretty certain wed never have heard of oprah and roseanne. And thats not a transubstantiation argument, its an analogical one.
Philosopher you have trouble holding more than one idea in your head at the same time.
Just cause someone could not have been a success in china, does not mean IQ didn’t help them in the country they’re in
High IQ is just one causal factor out of many. You also have to be in the right place at the right time
Your answer doesnt even make any sense, even in your own terms.
Makes sense to me
No it doesn’t because pumpkin explains why he is wrong to cite that as a casual factor. Only pumpkin can debate by debating himself.
peepee doesn;t get it. as usual.
entertainer = failure.
billionaire entertainer = failure.
Just cause i don’t share your values doesn’t mean i don’t get it. So obnoxious
But you were obnoxious stating that Roseanne is successful.
I am glad I am not a failure entertainer.
I am just a failer being a disability recipient.
That’s sad.
Wow, Roseanne’s childhood reminds me of some serial killer type stuff. Very creepy!
Then again Trump likes to touch his daughter Ivanka in weird places and even compares the looks of pornstars to hers, so maybe it’s just a conservative thing.
Working class whites in the Rust Belt, the Mid-Atlantic and the northeast LOVE Trump! These whites (often ethnic, like Italian, Irish, Polish, and Jews) were very racist towards blacks and tend to dislike immigrants, while being pro-union (I don’t have a problem with the latter two traits, at least) . The movement of working class whites from the Democrats to the Republicans was finalized with Trump, who they see as one of them. Kinda funny
From what I understand from friends who live there, there was a time in Boston that no black person dare go into certain Italian and Irish neighborhoods. Bill Russell called it the most racist city in the country.
When Scandinavians first came in america, anglo-saxon would denied they were white. As they kept the habit of eating stinky herring, people were saying it was impossible to stay in the same room as Scandinavian because of the odor. They said there pronunciation of English revealed how stupid they were and couldn’t be emploid in any business where people had to speak ….
Yeah, there are documented letters writen by anglo americans complaining about swedish migration.
Its an interesting Q – what is success. There are people in wheelchairs who would say holding down a full time job in a supermarket is a success. And theyd be right.
I think I’ve been very successful considering what I was, what I came from and the fact i dont have control of my mind anymore.
I bet pumpkin thinks Chelsea Handler is a success and she also must be very high IQ. Or Kim Kardashian. Or those people on X factor.
The average professional comic has an IQ of 127. What is so absurd about thinking Roseanne, one of the most successful Jewish comics of all time, has an IQ of at least 120?
Pumpkin, I read on wikipedia that Roseanne was in involved in a vehicle accident that ‘totally changed her behavior’. This could in fact explain her supposed ‘low class’ presentation. So while her genotypic IQ may be fairly high, her current IQ might be substantially lower. I don’t think in the 90s would be too unrealistic. That being said, she still had to memorize all her lines for her sitcom, which does take a moderate amount of intelligence. Anywhere from low to high 90s would be my guess. However, due to the fact that her intelligence may have been effected by a car accident, and is not genetic, it wouldn’t surprise me if her children actually ended up being fairly smart.
Everyone on the internet has an IQ 120+, and here I am with my supposed, measly 105-110 based on my SATs – at least the average I fall under.