When Forbes first began listing the 400 richest Americans in 1982, they counted only 13 billionaires. This Fall they counted so many, 300 U.S. billionaires were considered too poor to make the Forbes 400, meaning 700 in total. That’s probably an underestimate since billionaires have probably become too frequent for one magazine to count, but we’ll go with it.
Typically, Forbes reports that about 2/3rds of America’s super rich are self-made so let’s say 462 self-made U.S. billionaires. And I estimate about 93% are white males, so that’s about 430 white male self-made billionaires in America.
I estimate there are 232 million Americans old enough to be billionaires (the combined population of the Silent Generation to Generation Y, inclusive), and of these 67 million are white males. Thus becoming a self-made billionaire is about a one in 156,000 level achievement for white men, and the median white self-made billionaire is around the one in 312,000 level among white male self-made wealth. That’s equivalent to a normalized Z score of +4.53.
As noted in my last article, using the 0.16 correlation between IQ and net worth gives absurd results, it’s much better to think of self-made billionaires as people with super high permanent incomes. Among white men, the correlation between IQ and permanent income is 0.45, thus the expected IQ of a self-made white billionaire (0.45)(4.53 SD above white male mean) = 2.04 SD above the white male mean.
On a scale where all Americans have a mean IQ of 100 with an SD of 15, the white male mean and SD is 101 and 15.6 respectively, thus 2.04 SD above the white male mean equals IQ 132 (U.S. norms).
Even though this analysis was based only on white males, white males are about 93% of all U.S. self-made billionaires so it’s a good estimate of U.S. self-made billionaires in general. Even if you think the 7% of billionaires who are not white males would drag the average down, you have to keep in mind that a huge percentage of the “white” men are actually Ashkenazi which might drag the average up.
Anecdotal evidence
Further confirmation that the average IQ of U.S. self-made billionaires is around 130 comes from anecdotal evidence. The highest self-reported (old) SAT scores of any self-made billionaire are 1590 to 1600 (Bill Gates and Paul Allen) which equates to an IQ of about 170 on the pre-1995 scale and it’s difficult to imaging any elite being smarter than Bill Gates. The lowest self-reported SAT score of any gazillionaire is 500 (Bill Cosby) which equated to an IQ of 83. However my research shows that prior to the 1980s, black Americans scored 1.5 SD below whites on tests of reading and math, instead of the much more validated 1 SD gap on official IQ tests observed since WWI. Adjusting for this brings Cosby to about IQ 90.
Of course Cosby was technically never a billionaire, but he was worth $340 million in 1994 which is likely equivalent (in percentile rank) to being a billionaire in 2022.
Thus it seems reasonable to assume the IQs of U.S. self-made billionaires range from 90 to 170, and the mid-point of this range is 130, just as predicted from linear regression.
Oprah
Based on her reading and math skills at age eight, I estimate Oprah has an IQ of 140. About 10 points higher than even the average self-made billionaire. This makes sense because unlike most self-made billionaires who come from an upper class background, Oprah overcame poverty, classism, weightism, colorism, and sexism to become the most worshipped billionaire on the planet, and thus needed to be more adaptable.
More importantly, while most self-made billionaires scored super high only on life’s IQ test (money), Oprah scored at the one in a million level on both life’s IQ test (money), and neurology’s IQ test (1884 cc brain size).
Scoring at the one in a million level on the two most Darwinian IQ tests (money AND brain size) shows much more intelligence than scoring Mega level on just one, hence she’s 10 points above even her self-made billionaire white male peers.
You can tell just from looking at her she’s the smarter than even most white self-made billionaires and was destined to spend decades of her life on the Forbes 400. As Donald Trump noted, nobody has more “it factor” than Oprah.
Elon Musk
It is interesting to ask what Elon Musk’s IQ because in recent years, he overtook Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos as the richest person in the World (at least on paper). Of the 67 million white American men old enough to be billionaires, Musk is number one suggesting his permanent income has a normalized Z score of +5.53 and given the 0.45 correlation between IQ and permanent income among white men, a white male IQ Z score of 0.45(5.53) = 2.49 is expected. Given that white men have a mean of 101 and an SD of 15.6, this equates to IQ 140.
Of course this prediction tells us little about Musk’s IQ, but tells us a lot about the mean IQ of people who have been the richest American. When I think back at others who have held that title, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, Sam Walton, Musk seems around the middle of the pack so 140 is plausible. His math IQ is probably above 150 but his verbal IQ seems below 120. Kind of the opposite of Oprah.
Pumpkin Person 
morality seems to play a part in how successful someone will be. oftentimes more moral peoples will end up succumbing to the psychopathy of others.
i find it weird that nobody says anything about the things happening around the world that would destroy the very fabric of trust between people. people act so selfishly and so ostentatiously perversive it is quite ridiculous.
humans are such a primitive animal with such a high intelligence its absolutely crazy. we spend so much time looking for primal and lowered forms of satisfaction that we dont have the ability to self actualize and grow as a society greater than we could if we were more advanced in our ability to control our impulses and instincts.
no one cares.
and no one includes you. you don’t care.
give up.
become a hindu or buddhist.
you are so stupid. you lack a shred of self respect. you give up Mug. youre probably twice as old as me and have accomplished nothing.
i’m PROUD of accomplishing nothing.
and it shows Mug it definitely shows.
“”the nothing noths” — mistranslation of heidegger”
This sort of joke is the irrefutable proof that Mug is the Big Brain among us.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Mug of Pee. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Kierkegaard and Bultmann most of the jokes will go over a typical reader’s head.
Mug is seriously as retarded as he seems. no need to read into what he is saying because yes he is funny but its repetitive and disruptive and essentially shallow.
I actually agree with Loaded. I think jewish IQ doesn’t explain their wealth. I think the fact that they have worse morals explains it.
Their IQ definitely explains a big chunk of it.
is peepee now doubling down on retardation by identifying “rich pipo” with the 400 richest pipo in america?
are the top 0.00…01% smarter than the top 1%?
maybe.
maybe not.
that is, i expect they are on average, but only by a little bit.
the IQ vs income correlation is valid (as mediated by cedentials) only up to the median of the-top-0.1%-in-IQ’s mean income. which the correlation predicts is the 93d percentile. but is actually less.
musk and gates may have super high IQs. but i guarantee they have people working for them with higher IQs.
One anomaly is that even though millionaires averaged old SAT scores of 1100, there was no correlation between net worth and SAT scores among millionaires, so decamillionaires are probably no smarter than millionaires. This could be because an advanced degree might make you a millionaire but is not much help in being a deca-millionaire or it could be because of noisy data.
On the other hand, even among billionaires, Jonathan Wai found a correlation between net worth and attending an elite school. Something like 90% of the 10 richest Americans have attended an elite school compared to about 45% of the 400 richest.
in fact pill-stein, the interesting thing about simons is he has and has had an “operation”. in other words, as he has said himself, his success is due to his hiring smart people.
buffet was and is a one-man-band. all munger has ever done is play the tambourine.
simons is a mathematical genius but he is NOT EVEN CLOSE to buffett in his understanding.
You never bothered to read the Snowball. Buffet is also a math genius. He can do complicated math in his head. Its because he has aspergers. He has total recall of memory. He never gets bored reading data. Hes basically a computer.
And I said before that Simons relies on smart people whereas Buffet was kind of a loner. Simons is clearly very intelligent however. I would guess Simons is not autistic and is more socially intelligent which means he can rely on people a bit more.
and if you wanted both artists on a song. its crazy how life gets crazy. i am impressed.
in other words…
a superhuman hedge fund manager would unnuhstan:
1. financial accounting
2. options pricing aka mathematical finance
(pill: that’s just the BS formula! shut up, you have AIDS. the “mathematical finance” literature is massive but it’s close to 100% about options…i could go into so much detail pill’s nose would bleed.)
3. the so many theories of commodities futures (one of which is very sophisticated math shit)
EXCEPT…
it’s like asking…if you’re so fast, why aren’t you faster than secretariat?
to get VERY rich with your brains alone…no human is that smart…by himself.
daniel negranu is rich but not VERY and a high school drop out.
but is he smart?
maybe. but nothing like chris “jesus” ferguson.
being rich and being successful are all subjective. if someone tells you they wish they were as smart as you all theyre saying is i wish i was as successful as you.
doesnt mean much.
to get VERY rich with your brains alone…no human is that smart…by himself.
But knowing who to hire is part of life’s IQ test.
When Oprah first started everyone kept praising her agent. She shrewdly recognized this as a red flag. If her agent is representing HER best interests, why is he so popular? She fired him and then heard about a Jewish agent who had a reputation for being a piranha which she needed because she wanted to be the nice one. It was largely because of him that she went from being a talent for hire like every other talk show host to an OWNER. Then when Roger Ebert told her to choose syndication instead of joining a network, the money started POURING in.
longevity and IQ might be more interesting than wealth and IQ. how does someone live long? requires foresight.
Why are you so obsessed with such a weird frivolous example Puppy? Oprahs story is plainly not a good example or a typical example of any rich person. Not even blacks could learn anything from the Oprah story [redacted by pp, 2022-10-24]
Because she’s at the one in a million level on the two most interesting & Darwinian correlates of IQ: money AND brain size
The fact that she also happens to be such a dynamic & important pop-culture icon only adds to the excitement.
“excitement”.
This is your own word to describe this…
PP, what do you mean by ‘Darwinian’ correlates of I.Q.?
I would be more inclined to accept the accuracy of your estimate(s) of Oprah’s I.Q. if the evidence cited were more direct. Stupid people sometimes get rich. There are large-skulled morons (in the original, clinical sense of the word).
She was intellectually precocious, but so was William James Sidis – and his mature output was decidedly second rate.
She promoted the transparent fraud Eckhart Tolle. This suggests either extreme credulity on her part (indicative of low intelligence) or equally extreme cynicism. She could have used her platform to expose a dangerous charlatan, but instead delivered even more rubes into his thieving hands.
I’ve never read Tolle but how was he a fraud? He’s just a writer giving his opinion on how to find inner peace. Evangelical Christians hate him so he must be saying something smart.
“I’ve never read Tolle but how was he a fraud?”
Tolle is a fraud because he’s hypocritical in every respect. He disdains wealth but lives in a mansion. He preaches, “the power of now” while living in an industrialized nation (I need not remind you that industry is impossible without planning – concern for the future). His every word is derivative, but he has the audacity to charge people to read his bilge.
“He’s just a writer giving his opinion on how to find inner peace.”
He’s an off-brand Ram Dass. “Just, like, live totally in the present, dude” is a SUICIDAL policy unless you’re already part of the leisure class (so I guess it works for successful confidence artists like Tolle).
“Evangelical Christians hate him so he must be saying something smart.”
PP, Protestants hate everyone, including other Protestants.
Tolle is a fraud because he’s hypocritical in every respect. He disdains wealth but lives in a mansion.
False. He does not disdain wealth:
He preaches, “the power of now” while living in an industrialized nation (I need not remind you that industry is impossible without planning – concern for the future).
His point is take time to enjoy the moment. That doesn’t mean he opposes planning.
His every word is derivative, but he has the audacity to charge people to read his bilge.
Millions of people enjoy his “bilge” and gain value from it. The ideas might not be original but he helps bring them to people who otherwise wouldn’t have heard them.
He’s an off-brand Ram Dass. “Just, like, live totally in the present, dude” is a SUICIDAL policy unless you’re already part of the leisure class (so I guess it works for successful confidence artists like Tolle).
I’ve never read him but I suspect you’re strawmanning his argument
4. a deep understanding of every industry.
5. a deep understanding of how the economy is moving in terms of a vector assigned to the current point (industry, profit).
unlike schoenberg, von neumann converted to the popish religion in an aunthentic way.
and his genius was part of a pack of bubble gum cards.
1. The Hungarian school system produced a generation noted for intellectual achievement, which included Theodore von Kármán (born 1881), George de Hevesy (born 1885), Michael Polanyi (born 1891), Leó Szilárd (born 1898), Dennis Gabor (born 1900), Eugene Wigner (born 1902), Edward Teller (born 1908), and Paul Erdős (born 1913).[45] Collectively, they were sometimes known as “The Martians”.
2. He was not able to accept the proximity of his own demise, and the shadow of impending death instilled great fear in him.[91] He invited a Catholic priest, Father Anselm Strittmatter, O.S.B., to visit him for consultation.[92][93] Von Neumann reportedly said, “So long as there is the possibility of eternal damnation for nonbelievers it is more logical to be a believer at the end,” referring to Pascal’s wager. He had earlier confided to his mother, “There probably has to be a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn’t.”[94][95][96] Father Strittmatter administered the last rites to him.
Mugabe thinks Von Neumann flipping on his deathbed is evidence of his terrible beliefs in Catholicism. Great thinking Mugabe.
Anyone who knows anything about Catholicism knows that it requires penance for sins. Compare the phrasing of the Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims to the King James.
That von Neumann thought that muttering a few words on his deathbed would suffice to save his soul shows his immense ignorance of the Catholic faith.
Peeps dear,
I am sure you have measured your head circumference sometime. Can you tell us how much is it?
22.75″
mine is 23″. how is mine higher than yours and im probably 8 inches shorter than you lol?
Weird. And South Asians usually have small heads. It’s possible I have more brain volume than mu HC indicates.
That would imply a thin skull, wouldn’t it? Maybe you have a higher-than-usual percent of your brain volume concentrated in regions related to intelligence.
Peter Thiel probably has a higher IQ (maybe much higher) than Musk, since he is good in both math and verbal areas.
6. a deep unnuhstan-ing of machine leaning.
7. a deep unnuhstan-ing of risk ala ed thorp (supposedly).
Hedge fund managers don’t need to know the full list you just mentioned. It depends on what strategy or what asset class they’re running.
I actually agree with you that most mathematical finance is basically derivatives pricing and some risk models.
Most hedge fund analysts need to do programming to some extent though. That is now a job requirement.
wow! was he arrested when he went back to germany? the answer is no. because germany’s political correctness is just for show. germany persecutes overt nazis because they’re bad for business, bad publicity. not because they disagree with them fundamentally.
btw i agree with lex…sort of. stalin’s body count has been exaggerated by capital. and stalin didn’t kill children. the final solution? i believe the official story. and it was the largest and most methodical genocide ever. it was satanic.
sort of…because while what hitler effected was uniquely evil, i expect lex could have him on his podcast and wouldn’t get evil vibes. hitler didn’t do any of the killing himself. so it was just an abstraction for him.
and bach is wrong that the holocaust was a plan prior to 12/11/1941. no one ever talked about it prior. there was no “rhetoric”. hitler gave the order when the US declared war on germany. that’s my theory anyway.
Puppy uses a sleight of hand. When the empirical correlation is 0.16 Puppy gets angry because it makes Oprah’s achievements seem like luck (which it is).
So he comes up with this new idea of ‘permenant income’ (what the fuck does this mean).
Net worth is a much more realistic view of a persons IQ than their income over a period of years. The 0.16 correlation is probably more accurate because it includes all the trust fund babies and ex-wives of these billionaires. Thats whats dragging it down puppy.
Yes the permanent income only predicts the IQs of self-made billionaires. To predict the IQs of trust fund billionaires you just regress the IQs of self-made billionaires to the mean using the 0.45 parent-child correlation.
Permanent income is especially relevant to Oprah because unlike other fortunes which are estimated based on the value of a company, Forbes estimated Oprah’s wealth simply by adding up her yearly income over the decades and subtracting taxes, agent fees, living expenses etc. Thus Oprah’s estimated net worth would always increase by a predictable amount each year until she ended her syndicated show and then it kind of stagnated.
If we used the 0.16 correlation, then Georges Soros, who is about +4.87 SD in normalized income for a Jewish silent generationer, would have an expected IQ of only 0.16(4.87) = 0.78 above the Jewish mean of 113. Roughly IQ 125. But if we use the permanent income correlation instead, he’s expected to be above 145!
This is why ad hoc IQ estimations are so problematic. For any given person, you can determine a bunch of demographics they belong to and then pick one which gives the desired result. For instance, why Jewish silent generationer? Why not silent generations whose initials are G.S.? Or people born during a precise 6-month time span? The level of specificity is arbitrary. I’m not accusing you of dishonesty, just pointing out the possibility for both honest and dishonest mistakes.
The higher the level of specificity the better the estimate will be, but the harder it is to get the data.
track surfaces, blocks, and shoes have changed such that times are faster today. but timing has also changed such that times are slower today? not sure about the later.
borzov was called “the mechanical man” because cold war. he was an example of nurture over nature in the single human endeavor which is supposedly most genetic. “sprinters are born not made.”
Environmentalists will say “I don’t have to explain why there are high-IQ outliers, only explain group differences”. So basically they’re admitting, as they accuse hereditarians, of being able to cook the numbers or p-hack for their hypothesis whenever they want.
The wealth of evidence from all fields is on the hereditarian side. 99% of people nowadays have better nutrition, education, and learning materials than the past, but you don’t see IQ scores increasing except by a couple points per decade. If IQ was something culturally defined, Newton and Da Vinci would be retards on today’s tests.
And at least hereditarians have a decent working definition of intelligence. With environmentalists, they take the fact that knowledge is abstract, and that some experience needs a mind, and then somehow conclude that intelligence is magic and post-modern and there is no such thing as an objective fact or absolute meaning. Despite all the evidence showing that the mental is heavily dependent on the physical.
The basis for hereditarianism is twin, family and adoption study “heritability estimates.” EEA is false. They have no such “working definition” and the proposed “definition” (Gottfredson’s) is nonsensical in relation to “IQ” tests. The mental is dependent on the physical insofar that it’s a necessary condition, but psychological traits are irreducible.
“The basis for hereditarianism is twin, family and adoption study “heritability estimates.””
And also nearly every observation about human races known to man.
“The mental is dependent on the physical insofar that it’s a necessary condition, but psychological traits are irreducible.”
Stop repeating yourself. I’ve already offered a similarity between physical and psychological – they are both conceptual. Concepts map to each other. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to speak to each other and about the physical world.
So stop saying they have no common ground. The mental need not be reducible to the physical to be applicable.
“Heritability” estimates are bunk and not usable for humans. What other observations? We can talk to each other about the physical world because… We have words and concepts and our words have referents to things in the world. The mental is NOT reducible nor is it identical in any way, as the arguments I’ve provided prove, to the physical.
““Heritability” estimates are bunk and not usable for humans. What other observations?”
Literally all observations about humans in daily life that show how they inherit their parents genes?
“We can talk to each other about the physical world because… We have words and concepts and our words have referents to things in the world.”
So you admit that we have an objective world and that our mental concepts objectively conform to the physical word, thereby mapping the mental to the physical and showing they are equal in that respect?
“The mental is NOT reducible nor is it identical in any way, as the arguments I’ve provided prove, to the physical.”
Mental is identical to physical to the point we can perceive the physical… which is all that anything can exist as (a perceived concept). Are you telling me anything can exist in a form that isn’t conceptual? It can’t because a concept literally encompasses anything that isn’t paradoxical and self-contradictory.
No one denies that children inherent parental genes. That’s not the hereditarian claim.
“equal in that respect”
I merely said our concepts and words have referents to the physical world. That’s joy the same as showing M and P are “equal”, as the arguments for irreducibility show.
“No one denies that children inherent parental genes. That’s not the hereditarian claim.”
No use going back and forth on this since we just disagree and every thing you’ve mentioned can be waved off with more evidence, since it doesn’t dispute with any apriori claims about intelligence and genetics.
“I merely said our concepts and words have referents to the physical world. That’s joy the same as showing M and P are “equal”, as the arguments for irreducibility show.”
Yes… so M and P are equal, up to perception. Everything physical is filtered through our subjective, abstract perceptions. That’s why they must match on the conceptual level. I’ve said this numerous times in numerous ways.
And ultimately, the physical is a nebulous concept that just refers to abstract facts we all agree on. Outside of qualia/experience which is not included in the abstract descriptions, there is no such thing as any other conceptual difference between physical and mental. Otherwise we couldn’t conceive of physical facts with our minds.
Words have meaning because we want them to. The argument I gave on the subjectivity of definitions is a knockdown one for the claim that there are “objective definitions.”
“M and P are equal”
Repeating the claim doesn’t make it true.
The hereditarian claim is that mental abilities/psychological traits are generically heritable.
It’s funny that you claim you’re not a physicalist but most everything you say is what a physicalist would say. Physical facts can’t explain mental facts because mental facts are underdetermined by physical facts. So even if we knew all of the physical facts, we wouldn’t know all of the mental facts.
All physical facts are knowable without experience, but some facts (like “what-it’s-like-ness”) are not knowable without experience so some facts are non-physical. Physical facts do not entail all facts, and all facts are not physical facts, so there necessarily are non-physical—mental—facts about the world.
“Words have meaning because we want them to. The argument I gave on the subjectivity of definitions is a knockdown one for the claim that there are “objective definitions.”
Your argument is self-contradictory.
I will not listen to it because you already said your words have no objective meaning. Do you see how it is a horrible argument?
“Repeating the claim doesn’t make it true.”
That’s literally all you do.
“The hereditarian claim is that mental abilities/psychological traits are generically heritable.”
You claim that, because you believe brains are genetically inheritable don’t you? And the type of brain is inheritable as well, you agree? The only thing that’s disagreed is whether IQ has a heritable element, which you disagree with. Yes, we all know this. Got it. No one cares.
“It’s funny that you claim you’re not a physicalist but most everything you say is what a physicalist would say. Physical facts can’t explain mental facts because mental facts are underdetermined by physical facts. So even if we knew all of the physical facts, we wouldn’t know all of the mental facts.”
What the hell is a “mental fact”? I’ve explained there is a difference between qualia/experience and information processing. You’ve offered no real graspable definition of mental vs. physical besides repeating 1000x that M is not reducible to P.
“All physical facts are knowable without experience, but some facts (like “what-it’s-like-ness”) are not knowable without experience so some facts are non-physical. Physical facts do not entail all facts, and all facts are not physical facts, so there necessarily are non-physical—mental—facts about the world.”
Experience is experience, it’s a concept in itself. Yes it’s not “knowable” because you can’t make someone experience something, but you can at least refer to it and compare it to different things. Therefore, it’s conceptual… and since an experience neither determines anything nor is apparently determined by anything, it is of no consequence to knowledge, or tests of any sort.
A physical fact is a mental fact. They are both abstract. There is no such thing as a purely “physical fact” without going through the mind. How many times have I said that?
it’s easy if you try.
Peeps dear,
Xi jinping has become a dictator to 1.5 billion people. This is no small feat. And he is self-made (as much as I know) unlike the current north korean one who inherited dictatorship from his father.
I think no human being has achieved so much power over so many people, in world history. None of the Roman emperors or genghis khan or Alexander achieved this.
It takes a lot of intelligence to do that. Is it ‘political intelligence ‘ or is it general intelligence? Does something like political intelligence exist? If yes, what could its correlation be to general intelligence?
“I think no human being has achieved so much power over so many people, in world history. None of the Roman emperors or genghis khan or Alexander achieved this.”
Dude, the global population during the period from -300 to 1300 didn’t exceed half a billion persons. Xi rules over a mere ~20% of the global population. While I don’t have figures on hand, I’m confident that Alexander, the Great Khan, and several of the Caesars ruled over a large share of the global population.
“It takes a lot of intelligence to do that.”
Alexander, Temujin, Muhammed, and Octavian created empires. Xi is a bloated little turd who inherited a third rate dictatorship that had crushed all meaningful dissent before he was even born.
I already said Xi is ruling over more people than those conquerors. I didn’t talk about percentage of global population ruled because I think numbers matter more.
Alexander created an empire by winning just 3 main wars. Dumb luck also helped him. And the empire collapsed after he died. Octavian already inherited most of his empire. Muhammed didn’t create one. Ghenghis didn’t rule over as many people. Plus genghis inherited successful mongol warfare tactics like feeding horses earlierr, consuming horse blood and horse meatt when supply chains are affected during war. These kind of things also contributed to Mongol successes. Ghenghis also had capable generals. Plus even as a percentage did ghenghis really rule more people than Xi?
Peeps, I really want to know what do you think about xi intelligence?
Xi can suck a dick.
“I didn’t talk about percentage of global population ruled because I think numbers matter more.”
If the global population were one trillion, would you still be impressed with Xi’s ’empire’ of a billion?
6.6 million persons died of Covid. Sounds like a lot until you remember that this amounts to less than 0.1% of the global population.
“Alexander created an empire by winning just 3 main wars. Dumb luck also helped him. And the empire collapsed after he died.”
He overran virtually the entire oikumene. Each of the successor empires to Alexander’s survived for CENTURIES.
“Octavian already inherited most of his empire.”
Caesar was only a dictator. Octavian created the apparatus of empire. He transformed a failing republic into the most successful state to ever exist.
“Muhammed didn’t create one.”
U wot m8?
“Ghenghis didn’t rule over as many people.”
Largest contiguous empire ever formed (possibly only under his successors – I don’t recall). He stomped the Mohammedans to a bloody pulp.
“Plus even as a percentage did ghenghis really rule more people than Xi?”
I think that’s a safe bet, but I’m not sure whether anyone really knows.
Neandercel,
When global population reaches one trillion, we shall see.
What empire did Mohammed create?
Did Mongols achieve largest empire under ghenghis khan or later mogol emperors?
What empire apparatus did Augustus create?
Alexander’s descendants deserve more credit for keeping the parts under them as empires…after his death Also his empire broke up unto three different parts after his death. It was not one empire. That is not as remarkable as …if his empire stood as one.
“When global population reaches one trillion, we shall see.”
It’s a point of pure arithmetic – no experiment necessary.
“What empire did Mohammed create?”
Ask the Greeks and Iranians.
“What empire apparatus did Augustus create?”
Read Suetonius.
“Alexander’s descendants deserve more credit for keeping the parts under them as empires…after his death Also his empire broke up unto three different parts after his death. It was not one empire. That is not as remarkable as …if his empire stood as one.”
An empire of that extent could not have been long maintained in those days. The Mongol Empire also splintered into multiple entities each of which was impressive in its own right. Alexander’s supreme achievement was the hellenization of (most of) the known world.
What cultural influence has communist China had? Has there ever been a more utterly sterile power? Even the Nazis could boast of the autobahn and some neat gadgets (and the dubious honor of having revolutionized warfare with the blitz).
Neandercel,
When global population reaches 1 trillion and if nobody repeats xi’s feat ihe will still be impressive than the others we talking about.
Muhammed didn’t create an empire.
Augustus inherited most of the apparatus from Julius.
And one empire breaking up into three or four is easier to manage than just one, hence not as remarkable.
What do you think was the known world during Alexander’s time? Does it include india or just Persia and Greece?
Assume all women are same age, PP which one would you like to date:
1. 130 IQ Jewish woman (with predictable income)
2. 125 IQ East Asian woman (with predictable income)
3. 140+ IQ Oprah (with Oprah Income)
Why do East Asians, who have smaller bodies, and so would need smaller brains to control them (if brains have nothing to do with intelligence but are only necessary for body functions), have larger brains than larger blacks? Women have smaller brains than men because they have smaller bodies, but not necessarily less intelligence. Why doesn’t this apply to East Asians?
Environmentalists: MAGIC ACCULTURATION POWER, ACTIVATE!
“Women have smaller brains than men because they have smaller bodies, but not necessarily less intelligence”
You should read Lewis Terman’s 1916 book. The answer is there. Same with the SAT.
Doubt it.
why would you read anything when it’s all subjective?
Pumpkin where did my comments go?
i decided not to post hem
why? youre being overly sensitive.
“However my research shows that prior to the 1980s, black Americans scored 1.5 SD below whites on tests of reading and math, instead of the much more validated 1 SD gap on official IQ tests observed since WWI. Adjusting for this brings Cosby to about IQ 90.”
Two thoughts occur to me.
1. When we say that a man is intelligent, we ordinarily mean that he’s, “Good with words and numbers”. I.Q. test results probably understate the real white-black intelligence gap.
2. There’s no way Cosby’s I.Q. is only 90. I won’t ‘buy’ anything below 100. ~115 seems plausible to me.
I agree Cosby’s a lot smarter than 90, but his SAT score (adjusted for bias) equates to IQ 90. And while IQ 90 underestimates Cosby as an individual, it may still correctly estimates the floor of self-made gazillionaire IQ.