>>14431507> There is no problem with my comperhension. How did jews got themselves into the position of such complete outsiders, if they are so smart?
Oh cocky undergrads... If you had been paying attention, in >>14430213
I was responding to >>14429633
who were disagreeing with >>14429607
where I said> Ashkenazi Jews are probably over-educated rather than intelligent.
As to a response to >>14429593
where anon was responding to >>14429554
which was my response to >>14429433
which was anon's response to >>14428856
which is a graphic I sent. His reasoning was "Jews smart; Jews ADHD; Thusly, why ADHD negative?" My response was "Perhaps Jews aren't as smart as they're portrayed as."
Essentially there is no disagreement between the two of us, and you just wanted to jerk off "arguing" with someone to make yourself feel smart, even though you're arguing for what I'd been establishing trying to portray it as a disagreement.
As for the genuine statements and questions of yours, which are not a consequence of miscomprehension, let me start from the top.> That would imply that any test is good, which is ridiculous.
Obviously, the tests back then were of a very poor accuracy, but that is irrelevant. For the first time in history people were selected for wits, even if poorly, from all sorts of backgrounds to be rapidly promoted to the top of the hierarchy, and actually, I'm uncertain whether it ever repeated in history, except for maybe the SATs, Wonderlic, and ASVAB.
What you have to understand is that psychometric g is a latent variable that loads to ALL cognitive skills/domains/etc. even if variably, and it is also the variable that represents why they are correlated with each other, so if someone is very good at many unrelated diverse cognitive skills/domains etc., then it can be assumed it's far more likely it's due to the fact that person has a high g, as opposed to the test just so selecting the skills which the person is good at net of g.