There’s a stereotype that IQ tests just measure book smarts and yet intelligence itself evolved because of it’s practical real World survival value. Thus I’m always fascinated when a bookish high IQ nerd decides to compete in a decidedly non-nerdy field like politics. Will their lack of charisma make them look like a dork, or will their intelligence allow them to adapt to even the most unlikely of situations.
Ramaswamy has a lot going against him. He is dark skinned, foreign named and Hindu in a party that is Evangelical Christian and anti-immigration. He’ll never be able to compete with Trump when it comes to charisma and ability to connect with working class whites, however by becoming Trump’s most vocal and articulate supporter and vowing to pardon Trump of everything if he ever becomes President, he is gradually emerging as the most popular non-Trump candidate and inoculating himself from attacks from Trump himself.
He also took the disadvantage of being a perceived foreigner in a nativist movement and cleverly turned it to his advantage by putting a brown face on Trump’s fan base thus making them feel less racist.
By skillfully and shamelessly sucking up to Trump and calling him the greatest President of the century, he was able to get the crowd screaming so hysterically on his side that anti-Trump Chris Christie was nearly booed off the stage.
But Governor Nikki Haley was having none of it. Before this arrogant young Brahman came along, she was the top Indian American in the GOP.
Just as Ramaswarmy had turned the crowd against Chris Christie for being anti-Trump, Haley turned the crowd against Ramaswarmy for being insufficiently pro-Israel, scolding him for thinking Israel needs America; arguing it’s America that needs Israel! The Israel loving crowd went wild.
So what is his IQ?
In 2016 Forbes ranked Ramaswarmy as one of the 40 richest U.S. entrepreneurs under 40. Virtually everyone on the list was born between 1977 and 1993 and all but two were men. Assuming there are 32 million American men born in those years, Ramaswarmy’s 24th place ranking puts his self-made wealth around the one in 1.3 million level for American men in his age range. If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and life-time earnings, this would equate to an IQ 72 points above the U.S. mean, but because the correlation between IQ and permanent income in men is 0.48, his expected IQ is 72(0.48) = 35 points above the U.S. mean or 135 (U.S. norms).
However even this is likely an underestimate because Ramaswarmy is much more educated than the average young gazillionaire. While about 15% of the young and self-made super rich attended Harvard, Ramaswarmy not only graduated, but did so in STEM, and then on top of that, got a JD from Yale Law giving him the most impressive credentials of anyone on the 40 person list (though one other guy went to Caltech).
If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and education, we’d expect the most educated person among the 40 under 40 to be 30 IQ points above the group mean, but since the correlation between IQ and education among same age peers is 0.7, and slips to 0.4 when we look at people of similar income levels, his expected IQ would be 30(0.4) = 12 points above the mean of a group which is already 35 points above the U.S. mean.
In other words the expected IQ of a U.S. under-40 near-billionaire with two Ivy League degrees is 147 (U.S. norms) or 146 (white norms) and until we get some actual psychometric data, this is a good guess for Ramaswarmy.
This is one in a 1000 level intellect.
Pumpkin Person 
Who is the king of the danes?
I remember a Hollywood actor saying there is a hierarchy among Danes controlling ( hollywood or western world ) I don’t know. Harvey weinstein was among the top tier but not the only one in it.
What is the King of southern italian mafia?? Or of Roma gypsies??
In family-friendly criminal organizations like the organized jewry generally dont have a main leader.
There is definitely a leader of the jews. It must be Rubin.
I read a story about how Oprah was at the airport rushing to get on a private plane to Bill Cosby’s house and she pushed aside a lone child fan who was waiting at her car for an autograph.
In front of the cameras, magic negro is nice.
Without cameras, magic negro is mean.
shows her intelligence to know when to be nice
You are deranged
>hereditarian explanations
RaceRealist is a propagandist
Sure everything he said about blacks might be true but what the fuck is he doing? How can he connect anything about anything to hereditarianism?
I can put “ism” in front of anything. I can put ism in front of science. look: scientisms
Scientism does not make science false and there is no such thing as his bullshit renderings against heredity.
“How can he connect anything about anything to hereditarianism?”
What do you mean?
“look: scientisms
Scientism does not make science false and there is no such thing as his bullshit renderings against heredity.”
Scientism is an illogical position to hold to because we can acquire knowledge with logic and reasoning.
“RaceRealist is a propagandist because he mixes science with social justice.”
Haha. Look at Jensen pushing against school integration in the 60s along with racists and Lynn, Cattell, and Shockley with their outright racistt writings. They’re the DEFINITION of propagandist. I can supply quotes if you’d like, but it seems that people are allergic to that
@RR
if scientism makes science false then you are an idiot.
He’s saying that we can know things through philosophical (apriori, logical/mathematical, abstract) means, so scientism is false.
Lurker,
Correct.
lurker,
Hereditarianism doesn’t even mean anything.
It is a term rr made up to spread his political message.
What are you taking about? Just use the Google ngram viewer, filter from 1903-2019 and you’ll see that you’re wrong. Even a straight Google search will see you’re wrong. Eg Gottfredson’s “What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?” Think before you write.
If a hypothesis is false then it is false, but it is totally unnecessary to bring politics into the matter.
That is what I am saying: that science should have nothing to do with politics. RR does not even understand how science works. He thinks any truths that are harmful should not exist. Like how creationists deny evolution happened because they claim it would lead to moral degeneracy because people would disbelieve in God. RR denies that intelligence exists and believes that neuroscience is fake. Politics and religion corrupts science.
The main hereditarians are the ones with political motivations (Lynn, Murray, Rushton, Jensen, Shockley, Cattell).
“science should have nothing to do with politics”
“To do science is to be a social actor engaged, whether one likes it or not, in political activity” Lewontin, Dialectical Biologist
“RR does not even understand how science works.”
Yes I do.
“He thinks any truths that are harmful should not exist.”
Fortunately, hereditarianism isn’t true.
“neuroscience is fake”
Haha what? Neuroscience merely studies brain physiology.
Are you going to admit you were wrong about me “making up” the term hereditarianism? What about this response from when you called me a “propagandist”?
“Look at Jensen pushing against school integration in the 60s along with racists and Lynn, Cattell, and Shockley with their outright racistt writings. They’re the DEFINITION of propagandist. I can supply quotes if you’d like, but it seems that people are allergic to that.”
They clearly had political motivations, as I noted here. What’s the response to the fact that hereditarians are the political social actors, and were propagandists?
Neuroscience can and does study the nature of intelligence.
You just cannot accept that fact.
Advancements in this area will be made with or without you.
You cannot stop it.
Sure thing bro. Haier is a confused man and he didn’t even respond to Uttal in his newest volume nor in his “neuroscience of intelligence” book—very telling!
So do you admit you were wrong about the hereditarianism claim? What about how the big name hereditarians are the political social actors, as I’ve shown. Cattell and Shockley made particularly damming comments and suggestions—that proves my point.
We can study brain states (physiology), sure. But you’re then making a huge, unargued leap from studying brain states to “studying intelligence.”
Another set of arguments that present an apparently unanswerable objection to a materialist view is grounded in the fact that every item in an entirely material world would admit of third-person description. Every item would be accessible to the third-person viewpoint and would be amenable to description based on what is revealed to that viewpoint. The problem for the materialist view is that any such description will fail to capture what is accessible only to a first-person viewpoint and thus necessarily will omit the very centre of a person’s world; more specifically, it will omit the self, understood as the subject of conscious states as well as much of the intentional content of those states. As David Lund maintains, third-person information about oneself (knowledge of oneself by description) seems indeed to be neither necessary nor sufficient for consciousness of oneself. It is not sufficient, for (in first-person terms) I would be unable to see that the third-person information is information about me unless I were already aware of myself in a first-person way. But in the materialist view, it would have to be sufficient.
“Another set of arguments that present an apparently unanswerable objection to a materialist view is grounded in the fact that every item in an entirely material world would admit of third-person description. Every item would be accessible to the third-person viewpoint and would be amenable to description based on what is revealed to that viewpoint. The problem for the materialist view is that any such description will fail to capture what is accessible only to a first-person viewpoint and thus necessarily will omit the very centre of a person’s world; more specifically, it will omit the self, understood as the subject of conscious states as well as much of the intentional content of those states. As David Lund maintains, third-person information about oneself (knowledge of oneself by description) seems indeed to be neither necessary nor sufficient for consciousness of oneself. It is not sufficient, for (in first-person terms) I would be unable to see that the third-person information is information about me unless I were already aware of myself in a first-person way. But in the materialist view, it would have to be sufficient.”
Anyway, this debate bores me now. I’m much more interested in my discussion with PP.
(That quote is from Lavazza and Robinson, 2014 in Contemporary Dualism: A Defense)
And there are arguments that neuroscience supports dualism, see
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/the-minds-reality-is-consistent-with-neuroscience/
Anyway, I’m pretty much done with this discussion as a whole until something new happens. I won’t be focusing on this any more. Unless you’re going to talk about what I wrote about the hereditarians, you can take the last word.
>Unless you’re going to talk about what I wrote about the hereditarians
You believe that genes cannot influence intelligence. I do so you would call me a hereditarian which is silly because I have no association with that group of people who existed before I was even born and I do not care about them. And that is why I dislike what you are doing. You will lump in anyone you disagree with as a name: IQ-ist, hereditarian, materialist. That is all bullshit. You cannot use “philosophy” to disprove confirmed empirical research. “philosophy” is a dead subject when it comes to actual science. It is the case that people can and do perform better in life because of intelligence, and this can and is being studied so that we already know most of the mechanisms of intelligence.
It has even been demonstrated and proven that we even understand the mechanism of the scientific method in the brain. No amount of philosophy can disprove the research you emphatically deny.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-06-upfront-personal-scientists-human-brain.html
You will not read these articles for politically motivated reasons.
Genes can’t influence mental states and abilities because dualism is true. I’ve proposed my own solution to the mind body problem, identifying action potentials as the mechanism Descartes was looking for. The relationship between the mental and the physical isn’t an empirical question. I don’t care what an AI has to “say” about things.
“mechanism of the scientific method in the brain”
What is this gibberish?
My guy, neuroscience studies physiological states, but mental states aren’t physiological states. I don’t care about what AIs “say” about things because they’re nonsense generators and don’t think about questions you ask them.
What’s the argument that mental events reduce to brain events? If something starts from the premise that neuroimaging can tell us anything about our minds, it’s already false. I don’t deny that neuroscience can study physiology, but I do deny that it can study the mind.
“pOlItIcAlLy MoTiVaTeD rEaSoNs”
Have a good one in lala land.
By the way, Uttal showed that neuroreductionist explanations for cognition are “probably not possible.”
Click to access 864.pdf
The medicalxpress.com article was from 2014 and not even a.i. generated.
I was right, you are politically motivated to reject actual neuroscience.
Neuroscience can’t tell us about the workings of the mind but it can tell us about the physical workings of the brain. I’m not “politically motivated”—you don’t even know my politics.
>Neuroscience can’t tell us about the workings of the mind but it can tell us about the physical workings of the brain.
The brain has a lot to do with intelligence.
Can you not see that healthier brains are more likely to be more intelligent?
A healthy brain requires good neuronal proteins for metabolism and proteins come from gene transcription.
Some people have healthier bodies and brains because of genes.
Genes contribute to body and brain health.
>you don’t even know my politics.
All I know is that you label people you disagree with.
I do not even believe in IQ tests anymore as a standard of all abilities.
I believe in network theory.
What’s the argument that mind reduces to brain? What’s the argument that thoughts are physical?
“You label people who you disagree with”
Those are the correct terms to use. I don’t understand why you’re talking about this if you’re not familiar with the terms. Very strange.
The explanatory gap argument shows that we can’t bridge the subjective and the physical.
P1: Mental states have a first-personal subjective aspect which cannot be captured by third-personal brain sciences.
P2: All physical states can be described in terms of their physical relations relations and properties.
C: So mental states cannot be reduced to third-personal descriptions of brain activity.
P1: If neuroscience can bridge the explanatory gap, then it must be conceptually capable of explaining subjective consciousness.
P2: Neuroscience has not demonstrated a conceptual framework capable of explaining subjective experience.
C: So neuroscience can’t bridge the explanatory gap.
We can describe brain functions neural processes but that’s not the same as describing thought and mental activity.
I am not talking about mental activity.
Brain activity leads to intelligence.
If the brain’s parts do not work together then there is no intelligence.
That has nothing to do with third or first-person gobbledygook.
A body does not function if its parts do not work together.
If we understand the quality of the parts we can understand the quality of the functionality of the entire system.
Unhealthy brains function worse because the parts are not working together.
That means we can tell the level of potential intelligence by the function of how well the parts work together.
@RR you do not understand that parts need to work together for intelligence to exist?
It’s necessary but not sufficient. Third- and first-person matters. We’re talking past each other. Have a good one.
RaceRealist is a propagandist because he mixes science with social justice.
Science is supposed to be proven or disproven by its merit, not some kind of cancel culture mob rule.
“RaceRealist is a propagandist because he mixes science with social justice.”
Yes, great way to put it!
“Sure everything he said about blacks might be true but what the fuck is he doing? How can he connect anything about anything to hereditarianism?”
Yes, no one is necessarily going to disagree that negative stereotypes might make African Americans more likely to commit violence than positive ones. The problem is: how can we actually test whether discrimination is more or less? This is untestable because there is no objective measure or object of measurement, as RR states. Is being viewed as physically strong positive or negative?
Yes, you can test media representations of violent AAs, but how does this weigh against nonviolent representations? This is basically a philosophical question that is unanswerable by empirical means. And are media representations of blacks being violent the cause or the effect of their violence?
How are we even supposed to factor in implicit bias?
All these hypotheses show is correlation, not causation (as they are social science tests that cannot show a thought-to-action causal link). We cannot say what variable is the actual cause or decrease of AA violence. And neither can we calculate what other changes will occur when we try to change one variable… which is the whole point of the “woke agenda” going too far. Rampant liberalism works in theory (not really), but not in practice.
Regardless very few people are going to argue with a strong male role model or a positive self-image being decreasers of violence in any race.
The point of my “just-so story” claim about this theory is that it it is untestable because you can always change the definition of a positive stereotype vs. negative stereotype, or to what degree certain experiences factor in, etc. the same arguments that RR uses against IQ testing. It’s a hypothesis made after the fact that aligns with the data (if you agree the data represents what is claimed) but you can’t actually state what variable was selected-for if you can’t isolate it and show causality.
And no one really cares about any of this here, just the possibly innate differences between races making blacks more likely to respond to these sorts of experiences with violence.
Also, why is aggression a cause of testosterone in the first place? The only adaptive explanation I can see is that higher levels of testosterone make aggression more successful. If that’s the case, then one would assume other features of a phenotype that make physical aggression more likely to be successful (such as denser bones, more musculature, a smaller, less vulnerable brain, greater motor coordination, etc.) might be found in individuals or groups that have propensities to commit violence… and these traits also seem to be increased in African Americans (especially relative to other traits that make physical aggression less viable relative to the surrounding population). They seem to be higher in males and lower in females cross-racially.
Why does aggression increase testosterone? That seems to be the important question.
>Why does aggression increase testosterone?
When I fight people usually I feel stronger and healthier.
I feel less depressed, feel less pain, and even feel smarter.
I suppose that was necessary in primitive times?
Modern people do not move their bodies enough.
It’s good that you agree with those two propositions.
“Is being vifwd as physically strong positive or negative?”
It’s context-dependent.
When it comes to media representations, yea I agree with that. That is a very good question. I think it is answerable by empirical means. Regarding the second part of the first question, there are some studies on how there is positive media representation that’s reflective of the black population of the US as a whole. Still yet other studies show how black athletes are, for example, portrayed in the media over a 10 year period showed that only a small minority of the article directly addressed race, and that it showed they highlighted correcting wrongs of the past, being the first black to accomplish something, and the decease and small number of blacks in a certain sport. Nevertheless, as for your last question, it depends on how you look at it. Media-as-effect reflects social realities or commercial interests. Media-as-cause reflects stereotype reinforcement, normalization of violence, and impact on self-perception (these three would of course reflect back on TAAO). And when it comes to TAAO, it reflects back on stereotype reinforcement, normalization of violence, impact on self-perception, and it also recognizes that media representations are influenced by the broader societal context. So while TAAO doesn’t solely attribute the cause of AAO on media portrayals, it emphasizes the importance of understanding how historical and contemporary influences, including the media, shape criminal behavior while recognizing that media representations are influenced by and influencing social perceptions and behaviors.
When it comes to implicit racial BIAS (IRB), that’s distinguished from explicit racial bias on the basis of being unintentional and unconscious, so basically microaggreesions (this can be discussed separately), contrasted with explicit racial bias which manifests itself in overt racism and discrimination. IRB also contributes to, for example, disparities in set bails between blacks and whites. IRBs can then eventually translate into microaggreesions which then have real physiological consequences for health.
Regarding the just-so story claim, I think my defense in my previous comment was apt. However, I disagree with your claim that it’s a post hoc theory. TAAO generates testable predictions and hypotheses based on its empirical framework. The predictions are derived from the core framework, and so it can be subject to empirical tests, and as I stated earlier, they pass the muster of empirical examination. It goes beyond merely aligning wkth existing data and generates testable predictions.
Regarding why aggression is a cause of testosterone, I’ll give a short explanation (let me know if you want a more complex one). There’s (1) A perception of a threat or challenge, (2) The HPA axis is activated, (3) the adrenal gland is activated, (4) testosterone is released which leads to (5) a short term testosterone increase, this then leads to (6) competition due to the initial start of the chain in (1), and finally it leads to a feedback mechanism. It’s been empirically shown that T doesn’t increase A, A increases T.
When it comes to denser bones, more musculature, and greater motor coordinatation along with smaller brains thsg might be found in individuals or groups that have propensities to commit violence, and that the traits seem to be increase in blacks, I fail to see how a “smaller brain” would make aggression more successful. If you’re saying that most of the traits you named seem to be higher in males and lower in females cross-racially, it depends what you mean by that. The recent empirical data is clear on that relationship between T and A.
Now when it comes to the empirical test of TAAO, let’s just discuss one of the many papers which discuss the empirical success of the TAAO: Racial Discrimination, Weakened School Bonds, and Problematic Behaviors: Testing a Theory of African American Offending, Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes 2016
So they examined a core hypothesis of the TAAO, namely that racial discrimination should diminish school bonds which then increases the likelihood of engaging in criminal actions later on. They used data from two cohorts, abbreviated as PHDCN-LCS. So they texted whether racial discrimination (RD) predicted changes in “externalizing behavior” longitudinally, from wave 1 to wave 3. They also examined whether black youths are attached to their school, their teachers and whether or not they’re committed to their education. They also tested whether or not RD is relevant to school ties after controlling for parental bonds. So they state that almost half of blacks in the discussed dataset stated that they perceived RD in school. So they cited evidence that blacks that perceive RD in school are more likely to commit “externalizing behavior” outside of school.
So they had 3 hypotheses: RD predicts changes in externalizing behavior between wave 1 and 3; school bonds predict changes in externalizing behavior (EB) after controlling for attachment and other covariates, and school bonds should attenuate influence of RD on changes in EB after controlling for attachment to parents and other covariates.
So here is how they constructed their index:
“We constructed a racial discrimination index based on questions included in the personal identity questionnaire that was completed at wave 3. Each respondent was prompted with the following statement: ‘‘Now I have a few questions about discrimination. Sometimes people feel they are discriminated against, or treated badly or differently because of their race, ethnicity, color, language, or the country they or their family came from. Please tell me if you have felt discriminated against for this reason IN THE PAST YEAR at any of the places listed on this card’’ (emphasis in original). The respondents were then given the following options: (1) in your own neighborhood; (2) when you were outside your own neighborhood (3) when you were at school; (4) when you saw a doctor, nurse or other health provider; (5) when you wanted service—for example buying something at a store or a restaurant;(6) when you met someone for the first time; (7) In the past year, have you felt discriminated against by the police (emphasis in original); and (8) In the past year, have you felt discriminated against because of your race, ethnicity, color, language, or the country you or your family came from anywhere else or by anyone else (emphasis in original). Each question had two responses that were coded 0 ¼ no and 1 ¼ yes. Responses were summed across the eight items and higher scores indicated that the youths perceived more discrimination. African American youths were coded 0 (42 percent) if they reported that they were not discriminated against in the past year. The values on the racial discrimination index range from 0 to 7 and the a value was .626. Note that our measure of racial discrimination is based on whether the African American youths perceived that they were discriminated against.”
So the longitudinal basis of the study shows whether or not there is an increase or decrease in perceived RD (PRD).
So the more they perceived discrimination, the more it led to EBs and those that reported more attachment to their parents reported fewer EBs. In the end, the analysis lends support the the TAAO. This is but one of the many empirical tests that lend support to it. And I will end with this prediction and the references that verified it. The prediction follows from the theory and it’s been found to hold across different datasets.
Black Americans with a stronger sense of racial identity are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than black Americans with a weak sense of racial identity. How does this prediction follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that a strong racial identity can act as a protective factor against criminal involvement. Those with a stronger sense of racial identity may be less likely to engage in criminal behavior as a way to cope with racial discrimination and societal marginalization. (Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
Again, thanks for an insightful and thought provoking comment.
Do you think Oprah knew about Cosby like she did about Harvey Puppy?
no evidence she knew about either
Gavin Newsom would be an excellent candidate to run against this dude