Proof that Success is caused by Genetics

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don't whine at me if you and LP prefer sloppiness over accuracy.

So if a business discriminates between two candidates and choose the one that knows excel better compared to the traditional definiton of discrimination which would be the business choosing the male because they don't believe females know math as well, the two instances should be considered the same?

The traditional definition of discrimination is the one I am using because that term existed long before anyone worried this stuff. The two instances are examples of discrimination. The former example might be an example of discrimination based on relevant criteria and the latter an example of one based on irrelevant criteria.

No. You are trying to use the non-primary definition when using discriminate. Both words are definitions of discriminate, but when one things about discrimination, it is making a decision about someone based on the group, race, or class instead of individuality.

Since you wrote class, you think legacies and nepotism are discrimination?

Also, knowing excel better means better at math?? That's like saying people on AOL are better at social media. Your discriminant is a bit off.

By the definition, nepotism could be based on an individual trait instead of a group trait. But it should not be used in selection.

In theory it could be based on an individual trait on a case-by-case basis BUT collectively it is functionally similar to discrimination by class AND it is not based on individual qualifications, meaning someone more qualified may be replaced.

And the last part, I was using two different examples.

BUT I am telling you that your methodology is probably going to discriminate against people who don't like Excel because your discrimination method is flawed. A lot of math experts will use other tools like matlab, mathematica, R, SAS, etc. BUT then again that assumes you have access to computer software which maybe you don't. In which case you'd be discriminating against poor people.

I will add that you didn't mention nationality. Do you think unversities should exclude or include foreigners or not consider nationality? For example, should an American university allow millions of Chinese applicants from China?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

so if a word has multiple definitions and we are using the definition most understood with the word, it's not okay?

Don't whine at me if you and LP prefer sloppiness over accuracy.

So if a business discriminates between two candidates and choose the one that knows excel better compared to the traditional definiton of discrimination which would be the business choosing the male because they don't believe females know math as well, the two instances should be considered the same?

The traditional definition of discrimination is the one I am using because that term existed long before anyone worried this stuff. The two instances are examples of discrimination. The former example might be an example of discrimination based on relevant criteria and the latter an example of one based on irrelevant criteria.

While it might be the traditional definition it's not the one in common usage these days. I am using the common definition, you are using an older definition.

You know what meaning I'm using, continuing this nonsense is purely a derail as there is no question to about the meaning to resolve.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... continuing this nonsense is purely a derail ...

More proof of the genetics of success:
the Trumps,
Chelsea Clinton,
the Gores,
the Bushes.

*crickets*

 

[laughing dog]

While it might be the traditional definition it's not the one in common usage these days. I am using the common definition, you are using an older definition.

You know what meaning I'm using, continuing this nonsense is purely a derail as there is no question to about the meaning to resolve.

You can spin your sloppiness all you want. It does not deflect from your sloppy thinking. And your persistent mewling derails makes me accept your reluctance to engage in actual discussion over relevant content (that all hiring decisions require discrimination) with me.

So why not simply address the actual content of the OP as Don2 has repeatedly requested.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While it might be the traditional definition it's not the one in common usage these days. I am using the common definition, you are using an older definition.

You know what meaning I'm using, continuing this nonsense is purely a derail as there is no question to about the meaning to resolve.

You can spin your sloppiness all you want. It does not deflect from your sloppy thinking. And your persistent mewling derails makes me accept your reluctance to engage in actual discussion over relevant content (that all hiring decisions require discrimination) with me.

So why not simply address the actual content of the OP as Don2 has repeatedly requested.

Talk about projection! You're the one derailing rather than addressing the topic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You can spin your sloppiness all you want. It does not deflect from your sloppy thinking. And your persistent mewling derails makes me accept your reluctance to engage in actual discussion over relevant content (that all hiring decisions require discrimination) with me.

So why not simply address the actual content of the OP as Don2 has repeatedly requested.

Talk about projection! You're the one derailing rather than addressing the topic.

from post#35, written directly to Loren:

Speaking of ignoring content, why do people go off on some tangent where they can point the finger at someone/something else instead of addressing ops? We see that kind of thing in rape and murder threads where people blame the victim but this op is about an ideological position and we see something similar. I mean, I wrote the op about your and other's position about success due to genetics. Instead, you and others essentially yelled, "look, black people!!," thus distracting the issue elsewhere. And to top it off, you then went and started another thread about your topic. I invite you to instead address the real op here, but can you do it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Talk about projection! You're the one derailing rather than addressing the topic.

from post#35, written directly to Loren:

Speaking of ignoring content, why do people go off on some tangent where they can point the finger at someone/something else instead of addressing ops? We see that kind of thing in rape and murder threads where people blame the victim but this op is about an ideological position and we see something similar. I mean, I wrote the op about your and other's position about success due to genetics. Instead, you and others essentially yelled, "look, black people!!," thus distracting the issue elsewhere. And to top it off, you then went and started another thread about your topic. I invite you to instead address the real op here, but can you do it?

So, you presented a totally obvious case of power overriding picking the right person. It's so obvious there's nothing to discuss.

 

[laughing dog]

Talk about projection! You're the one derailing rather than addressing the topic.

What a combination of irony and wrongness.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

from post#35, written directly to Loren:

Speaking of ignoring content, why do people go off on some tangent where they can point the finger at someone/something else instead of addressing ops? We see that kind of thing in rape and murder threads where people blame the victim but this op is about an ideological position and we see something similar. I mean, I wrote the op about your and other's position about success due to genetics. Instead, you and others essentially yelled, "look, black people!!," thus distracting the issue elsewhere. And to top it off, you then went and started another thread about your topic. I invite you to instead address the real op here, but can you do it?

So, you presented a totally obvious case of power overriding picking the right person.

I actually more recently gave several examples which I already reposted above...to repeat: Bushes, Clintons, Trumps to include the young lady CEO in the op. What isn't mentioned is the gazillion lower-level connections where it's not the super rich and famous but instead upper middle class people using influence to give opportunities to their children.

It's so obvious there's nothing to discuss.

Given all the race->IQ->success talk around here, it's of course something to discuss. It just might not be the starting point you wanted.

 

[Trausti]

Given all the race->IQ->success talk around here, it's of course something to discuss. It just might not be the starting point you wanted.

Well, it may not have been. The subject in the OP is nepotism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Given all the race->IQ->success talk around here, it's of course something to discuss. It just might not be the starting point you wanted.

Well, it may not have been. The subject in the OP is nepotism.

Did you mean how nepotism can masquerade as genetic contribution to success?

 

[Trausti]

Well, it may not have been. The subject in the OP is nepotism.

Did you mean how nepotism can masquerade as genetic contribution to success?

Kinda think that's a non sequitur. It's quite well established now that IQ and factors related to intelligence are predominately heritable. In modern society the higher your IQ and intelligence the greater likelihood of academic and employment success. But that doesn't mean people won't try to help out their own kin. See Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Did you mean how nepotism can masquerade as genetic contribution to success?

Kinda think that's a non sequitur.

It is not a non sequitur since it is all over the op. Therefore, it is indeed the conversation to be had.

It's quite well established now that IQ and factors related to intelligence are predominately heritable. In modern society the higher your IQ and intelligence the greater likelihood of academic and employment success.

Such studies have most often used proxies such as SES, racial identification, and in adoption studies, whether twins live in the same location or not post-birth. They do not include what is discussed in the op, nor other important factors.

See Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

That was already brought up in the thread by me (twice). Did you read the thread?

I will add that helping one's kin will appear to be heritability of success since as one climbs the ladder of success their ability to help their kin increases.

 

[Trausti]

Kinda think that's a non sequitur.

It is not a non sequitur since it is all over the op. Therefore, it is indeed the conversation to be had.

It's quite well established now that IQ and factors related to intelligence are predominately heritable. In modern society the higher your IQ and intelligence the greater likelihood of academic and employment success.

Such studies have most often used proxies such as SES, racial identification, and in adoption studies, whether twins live in the same location or not post-birth. They do not include what is discussed in the op, nor other important factors.

See Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

That was already brought up in the thread by me (twice). Did you read the thread?

I will add that helping one's kin will appear to be heritability of success since as one climbs the ladder of success their ability to help their kin increases.

Again, comparing the relationship between the heredity of intelligence and success with nepotism is a non sequitur. Otherwise, the below chart is a thing that should not be.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is not a non sequitur since it is all over the op. Therefore, it is indeed the conversation to be had.

It's quite well established now that IQ and factors related to intelligence are predominately heritable. In modern society the higher your IQ and intelligence the greater likelihood of academic and employment success.

Such studies have most often used proxies such as SES, racial identification, and in adoption studies, whether twins live in the same location or not post-birth. They do not include what is discussed in the op, nor other important factors.

See Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

That was already brought up in the thread by me (twice). Did you read the thread?

I will add that helping one's kin will appear to be heritability of success since as one climbs the ladder of success their ability to help their kin increases.

Again, comparing the relationship between the heredity of intelligence and success with nepotism is a non sequitur. Otherwise, the below chart is a thing that should not be.

It isn't a non sequitur since it's the op. You are just being political, trying to make a political argument for your favorite ideology. You are what I call a "single-variable ideologue." You look at the world through a fundamentalist lens of a single-variable and hold fast to it, getting more and more confirmation bias for your ideology.

As to the chart, there are many variables to consider that simply are not facts in your bubble (world-view). The most glaring problem for you is that there is a wide range of earnings among Asians, almost half as much as Whites to almost twice as much as Whites. The secondary observation is that the government has different policies toward different populations, including emergency refugee statuses for Hmong (the lowest earners) to allowing many educated Asian Indians to emigrate and have children (the highest) out of a pool of many. Then, you've got smaller issues of White+Korean earning less than both Koreans and Whites, White+Filipino earning less than both Whites and Filipinos, and Pakistani versus Indian (genetically similar) being very different.

I will add that it was just yesterday that people who measure IQs were saying that Asian Indians and Africans were both in the lowest ranks.*

*IQ and Wealth of Nations has Pakistanis at 85 IQ points and Indians at 83.

 

[Trausti]

It is not a non sequitur since it is all over the op. Therefore, it is indeed the conversation to be had.

It's quite well established now that IQ and factors related to intelligence are predominately heritable. In modern society the higher your IQ and intelligence the greater likelihood of academic and employment success.

Such studies have most often used proxies such as SES, racial identification, and in adoption studies, whether twins live in the same location or not post-birth. They do not include what is discussed in the op, nor other important factors.

See Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

That was already brought up in the thread by me (twice). Did you read the thread?

I will add that helping one's kin will appear to be heritability of success since as one climbs the ladder of success their ability to help their kin increases.

Again, comparing the relationship between the heredity of intelligence and success with nepotism is a non sequitur. Otherwise, the below chart is a thing that should not be.

It isn't a non sequitur since it's the op. You are just being political, trying to make a political argument for your favorite ideology. You are what I call a "single-variable ideologue." You look at the world through a fundamentalist lens of a single-variable and hold fast to it, getting more and more confirmation bias for your ideology.

As to the chart, there are many variables to consider that simply are not facts in your bubble (world-view). The most glaring problem for you is that there is a wide range of earnings among Asians, almost half as much as Whites to almost twice as much as Whites. The secondary observation is that the government has different policies toward different populations, including emergency refugee statuses for Hmong (the lowest earners) to allowing many educated Asian Indians to emigrate and have children (the highest) out of a pool of many. Then, you've got smaller issues of White+Korean earning less than both Koreans and Whites, White+Filipino earning less than both Whites and Filipinos, and Pakistani versus Indian (genetically similar) being very different.

I will add that it was just yesterday that people who measure IQs were saying that Asian Indians and Africans were both in the lowest ranks.*

*IQ and Wealth of Nations has Pakistanis at 85 IQ points and Indians at 83.

Your hypothesis, as I perceive it, is that it is not so much nepotism but inherited wealth and privilege that accounts for income differences. My counter is that this does not explain why first, second, and third generation Americans can outperform "native" Americans (White, Black, Latino) whose ancestors have been in the US for many generations. Nor does it explain how people from modest backgrounds can nonetheless achieve great wealth and success (Gates, Jobs, Musk, Cuban). As to South Asians, you're aware that there's a strict social hierarchy there. The average Indian may have a low IQ; but it's not the average ones who make their way to the US to start up tech companies.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is not a non sequitur since it is all over the op. Therefore, it is indeed the conversation to be had.

It's quite well established now that IQ and factors related to intelligence are predominately heritable. In modern society the higher your IQ and intelligence the greater likelihood of academic and employment success.

Such studies have most often used proxies such as SES, racial identification, and in adoption studies, whether twins live in the same location or not post-birth. They do not include what is discussed in the op, nor other important factors.

See Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

That was already brought up in the thread by me (twice). Did you read the thread?

I will add that helping one's kin will appear to be heritability of success since as one climbs the ladder of success their ability to help their kin increases.

Again, comparing the relationship between the heredity of intelligence and success with nepotism is a non sequitur. Otherwise, the below chart is a thing that should not be.

It isn't a non sequitur since it's the op. You are just being political, trying to make a political argument for your favorite ideology. You are what I call a "single-variable ideologue." You look at the world through a fundamentalist lens of a single-variable and hold fast to it, getting more and more confirmation bias for your ideology.

As to the chart, there are many variables to consider that simply are not facts in your bubble (world-view). The most glaring problem for you is that there is a wide range of earnings among Asians, almost half as much as Whites to almost twice as much as Whites. The secondary observation is that the government has different policies toward different populations, including emergency refugee statuses for Hmong (the lowest earners) to allowing many educated Asian Indians to emigrate and have children (the highest) out of a pool of many. Then, you've got smaller issues of White+Korean earning less than both Koreans and Whites, White+Filipino earning less than both Whites and Filipinos, and Pakistani versus Indian (genetically similar) being very different.

I will add that it was just yesterday that people who measure IQs were saying that Asian Indians and Africans were both in the lowest ranks.*

*IQ and Wealth of Nations has Pakistanis at 85 IQ points and Indians at 83.

Your hypothesis, as I perceive it, is that it is not so much nepotism but inherited wealth and privilege that accounts for income differences.

I am not a single-variable ideologue like you and therefore I would not say that "inherited wealth and privilege" ONLY "account for income differences." In fact, I even wrote about government policy in my last post to you. However, just like I initially wrote to you, I would say that inherited wealth and privilege (or a type thereof, such as nepotism) can masquerade as a genetic component to success.

My counter is that this does not explain why first, second, and third generation Americans can outperform "native" Americans (White, Black, Latino) whose ancestors have been in the US for many generations.

Asian Indians are extremely strict with their children with respect to academics. I know someone who would ground his daughter for a month for having a B, for example. The daughter has several college degrees now.

Nor does it explain how people from modest backgrounds can nonetheless achieve great wealth and success (Gates, Jobs, Musk, Cuban).

Again, I am not a single-variable ideologue. So why would my position on the matter lead one to conclude that nepotism would lead to Gates's success?? Gates is a psychopathic control freak. Who knows how that came to be, but if it weren't him becoming a top dog in anti-trust violations, then it would be some other psychopathic control freak who did. How many psychopathic control freaks also end up in institutions versus being successful? I don't know. Ask one of them?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/confessions-sociopath

As to South Asians, you're aware that there's a strict social hierarchy there. The average Indian may have a low IQ; but it's not the average ones who make their way to the US to start up tech companies.

Right, they are not average because the US tends to let them in when they have degrees already. I already wrote that. Also, the Hmong are poor refugees with special status and hardly any great educational infrastructure in their home country.

So your chart is bogus. It doesn't correlate to IQ.