I hate to make so many posts, but I don’t want to leave the debate with that last one. I want to make it clear I think Asians do well in school both because of their higher than average IQ’s and because of a difference in philosophy. For example, the salutatorian of my high school class was Asian, and he admitted to studying 5 hours a day. Every day.

I would say that the Asian students were more likely to study for longer hours than their white counter-parts, irregardless of IQ. The explanation was almost always a residual influence from Chinese culture in the parents.

To be honest, a biological predisposition to sitting for hours focusing on homework could be a factor. But for whatever reason, I found that Asians were more likely to study more, and this helped them regardless of abstract reasoning ability. If white people studied more, they would also do better in an academic setting.

This is really good. As I remember, a large number of the Asians actually were foreign, or first generation. I don’t know how many it was, but it did seem like a lot. That would increase the pool size and could certainly help to explain the outcome.

“International students studying at U.S. colleges and universities also are now most likely to come from Asian countries, roughly 6 in 10, and some of them are able to live and work in the U.S. after graduation. Asian students, both foreign born and U.S. born, earned a plurality (45 percent) of all engineering Ph.D.s in 2010, as well as 38 percent of doctorates in math and computer sciences and 33 percent of doctorates in the physical sciences.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/asian-immigrants-surpass-hispanics_n_1608437.html

A little more than 10% of my class was “international,” 6/10 of which should have been Asian (and I’m not sure if that includes Indians). That would account for 4% of the total Asian figure.

Then we can assume that a lot of wealthy Asians come to America, and their first generation children should be more intelligent than the Northeast Asian average, since IQ is reportedly .711 heritable. Let’s say their parents have an average IQ of +1 SD and the pop average for these people is 105.

120 – 105 = 15 (difference from mean)
15*.711 = 10.665 (difference from mean attributable to genetics)
/2 = 5.3325 + 105 = 110.3325

110.3325 = child average IQ for Asians with parent IQ 120 (Let me know if this model is messed up)

So you can see how these numbers can be skewed by such effects.

chindians

Yes, I suppose this could actually explain the large numbers of Asians! Perhaps many of them are foreigners or practical foreigners. Good hypothesis. I had not thought of that.

Yes, it is true that he is not black but mulatto. But races are strange beasts that are based on genetics but also socially constructed. In other words, you have to believe you are a member of the race in order for you to be a member. For instance, the baganda tribe in Uganda believe they are a different people from the bguise. The Hutus believe they are different from the Tutsis. But ironically, to the average american, all of these people, some of whom hate each other bitterly, are simply “black.” I bet if we invaded their land they would reconsider this social arrangement, but for now, they are sometimes bitter enemies. So you can see that whom you allow into your group is a calculated rational decision based on resource competition and expected outcome for one’s own genes.

The phenomenon of race can occur when two populations are different from each other but alike to themselves.

In Latin America, the distinction between black and mulatto is made very clear. This is because there were less white females there, and the white males preferred to miscegenate with mulattos rather than blacks. In America, on the other hand, the social context is different, and so are the racial constructions. Whites basically wanted to consider themselves completely different from all blacks, since there were enough breeding couples to make this strategy feasible. Even the slightest mixing put an individual in the outgroup, due to fears of creating a mulatto political body (like Frederick Douglas).

A prime example of racial construction is the Jews! They are basically white people, even though they are more related to each other than the people in their host countries. I mean that they are certainly more related to white people than they are to black people or Mexicans. The only people they might be more related to are the people they hate even more than us, the Arabs! But that’s certainly debatable. I think they are probably more related to us.

However, their religion causes them to construct themselves as a new race, a “chosen people,” who historically have been considered by the Jews to be superior to other races and not fit for interbreeding. God, after all, doesn’t want his children mixing with the rif raff. It is very interesting to me that this mentality sometimes persists even after the Jews lose all vestige of their religiosity. I believe this occurs because of the IQ advantage and a rational decision making process to produce children who have the best chance at living good lives (ultimately at the expense of the host nation). In any case, it creates a racial distortion which is a moral problem for society.

I consider Barack Obama black simply because other people do. If I really wanted to get into it, I could subdivide his black heritage into whatever tribal group his father came from in Kenya, but that does not matter in the social context.

Hes about 48% White, with African DNA on both sides of his pedigree, but I dont believe his mama really had a blackie in her backie.

I agree with the comments about ‘networking’. And I will add, aggression. These 2 + average IQs go a long way.

Wow, you are probably right about that reference thing.

Personally, I am open to a more liberal interpretation of intelligence. If I found out tomorrow that every Jew had an IQ of 150 or above, I would not take that to mean they were superior to me in any way. What if they all had IQ’s of 150 but were compulsive creators of Ponzi schemes? And what say if they had built the entire world up around one of these diabolical swindles?

Then I could argue that it was superior to have a lower IQ.

When I think about this, I run into some problems. For example, this would mean that if we intelligence tested all the Asian students at an elite university, they would score lower than the other students. This is because out of a smaller pool of people, there can be fewer very intelligent individuals. Yet still, there is a huge number of this race at elite universities.

Assuming there is a 100% incentive for very intelligent people to attend elite universities (and I think that might be questionable in itself), there simply might not be as many intelligent Asians to fill their quota. So they would fill those spots with stupider Asians, and the entire IQ average of the Asian population at an elite university would be lower.

Without a quota, I don’t know how to explain Asian attendance with just a numbers and IQ premise, unless we factor culture. And then we would have to show that Jewish culture does not encourage attendence at elite universities moreso than does white culture.

Look, I’m not saying I think Jews are not a problem, but I do think that it’s a little bit of a cop out to say that their over-representation is racial persecution. While I would not rule it out, there are other explanations, too, some of them nefarious, some of them relying on nefarious premises. and some of them just neutral.

To be honest, even if it is neutral, I don’t think it’s a good idea to use spots at American universities to train a huge number of Israeli citizens.

You know, I really agree with the whole “aggressive mimic” argument. But I have a question. A little while ago, I read an article about how Jews are over-represented at elite universities. I actually attended one of these universities, and I can say this picture was a reality for me. But the argument that they are engaging in ethnic conflict through persecution of whites while filling the white quota has a hole in it for me.

Premise: Groups should be represented as a group at elite universities in proportion to their percentage of the population and their average group IQ.

Conclusion: Because Jewish representation at elite universities is higher than would be predicted by their proportion of the population and their average group IQ, racial persecution must be taking place.

I think this argument is flawed, ironically for a reason that was contained in the article itself; would Asian Americans not be over-represented, as well?

Premise 1: Asians are a non-preferred minority group.
Premise 2: The average Asian group IQ is lower than the Jewish group IQ, and only slightly higher than the white IQ.

Conclusion: Asians may be very over-represented, accounting for IQ, even though they are not a preferred minority.

I propose a different explanation for the over-representation of Jews at elite universities.

premise 1: Each race has a de facto quota.
premise 2: Asians are in a separate racial category than Jews, but Whites are not.
premise 3: There are many more intelligent Jews than intelligent Whites.

Conclusions:

1) Jews fill up most of the white quota, leaving very little room for the white people themselves. This fits into the “aggressive mimic” hypothesis very nicely, actually. Northeast Asians and Brahman Indians account for almost all of the Asian quota, leaving very little room for Cambodians or Vietnamese.

So basically, Jews may not even have to intentionally persecute whites (although I definitely do not rule it out.). It is just an artifact of the quota system.

I have not done any math here, but I think I have laid the groundwork for a good hypothesis.