sat

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-1480-on-SAT-or-33-on-the-ACT-Superscore

https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/act-to-sat-conversion

Here's the breakdown of your ACT 32 score to equivalent SAT scores:

• New 1600-scale SAT: Approximately 1420-1440.
• Old 2400-scale SAT: Approximately 2080-2110.

AI Solves the MacDonald-Cofnas Debate

Cofnas has meticulously denied MacDonald's theory that, as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, Jews (as pertaining to America but not as pertaining to Gaza/Palestine) have been social justice warriors (more than not) with regards to the Negro-civil-rights race issues of the last century and have been (more than not) for the increase of the political/vote power of the anti-white left-wing by opening immigration up to more non-whites. Cofnas maintains that Jewry's push (more than not) for the anti-white left-wing was owing to Jewry's high average IQ and had nothing to do with the biological phenomenon of Group Evolutionary Strategy (and Cofnas maintains that Jews also pushed in the opposite direction — also in a leading way because of their high average IQs). Cofnas says with the precision of the best of lawyers, “Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.” (Emphasis mine of his famous caveat.) This statement by Cofnas means that the Cofnas critique depends upon "denying the political." —The caveat "anti-", that means, in other words, in all games that are not "game theoretic", that is to say, in all games that are not "zero-sum games" (in classic game theory all games were zero-sum) — that is to say, in all games that are not political. See Carl Schmitt's identity politics "friend-enemy distinction" (which is game theoretically "zero-sum") as the definition of "political". Schmitt points out that liberals "deny the political" or, in christian-speak, deny the political by loving their enemies — liberals famously "don't take their own side." The Cofnas critique had to use the typical double bind caveat of wokeness logic. What follows is my chat with Google AI (gemini.google.com), copied word-for-word.

Me: Is religion sometimes a Group Evolutionary Strategy? 
AI: "Yes, evolutionary theorists propose that religion can function as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. Here's the idea:

• Social creatures, strong survival: Humans are social creatures, and historically, our survival depended heavily on group cooperation.
• Religion and group cohesion: Religious beliefs and practices can create strong group cohesion. Shared rituals, morals, and a sense of purpose can bind people together and encourage them to cooperate for the benefit of the group.
• Benefits of cooperation: Stronger groups would have advantages in competition for resources, defense against threats, and raising offspring. This could lead to those groups with religions being more likely to survive and reproduce.

Here are some additional points to consider:

• Beyond conscious strategy: It's important to note that religious beliefs likely weren't consciously created as an evolutionary strategy. They may be a byproduct of our social nature that just happened to have survival benefits."

Me: If religion is sometimes a Group Evolutionary Strategy, then the religion of Judaism is sometimes a Group Evolutionary Strategy?
AI: "Yes, Judaism could be seen as an example of a religion that potentially functioned as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. Here's why:

• Strong group identity [loyalty, endogomy]: Judaism emphasizes a strong sense of shared history, tradition, and identity among its people.
• Emphasis on community: Jewish practices like shared holidays, dietary laws, and charitable giving all encourage cooperation and social cohesion within the group.
• Education and literacy: Judaism traditionally values education and literacy, which could have provided intellectual advantages for the group."

However, it's important to consider some critiques:

• Focus on cooperation: Judaism also emphasizes ethical behavior and social justice, not just group survival."

Me: So the theory that Judaism was sometimes partially a Group Evolutionary Strategy was right?
AI: "The theory that Judaism functioned partly as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (GES) is a complex one. Here's a breakdown:

• Potential for GES: Judaism's emphasis on community, shared traditions, and education could have fostered group cohesion and offered survival advantages, aligning with the idea of GES.
• Criticisms:
  • Oversimplification: This theory can downplay the rich history and spiritual core of Judaism.
  • Misuse: The GES concept has been misused by some to promote anti-Semitic views.
  • Focus: Judaism's core values extend beyond mere survival, encompassing ethics and social justice.

So, while some aspects of Judaism might align with the idea of a GES, it's not the whole picture. It's important to understand Judaism on its own terms and avoid using this theory for negative purposes."

Me: The "social justice" part could sometimes partially be a GES?
AI: "You raise an interesting point about 'social justice' within Judaism functioning as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (GES). Here's how to think about it:

Arguments for Social Justice as GES:

• Strength through Fairness: Practices like charity (tzedakah) and fair treatment of the vulnerable [...], leading to a stronger group.
• Reduced Conflict: Social justice principles could have minimized internal conflict within the Jewish community, allowing them to focus on external threats.

Arguments Against Social Justice as Sole Purpose:

• Moral and Ethical Core: Judaism emphasizes ethical behavior and social justice as core values, not just for survival.
• Long-Term Benefits: Social justice could also attract people to the group, increasing its size and potential for survival.

A More Nuanced View:

• Social justice may have been intertwined with other factors like religious belief and cultural practices.
• It's likely a combination of factors, not just social justice alone, that contributed to Jewish survival.

Overall:

While the 'social justice' aspect of Judaism might have offered some evolutionary benefits, it's difficult to say definitively that it was solely a GES tactic. It's more likely a complex interplay of religious beliefs, cultural practices, and a desire for a just society.

Here are some additional points to consider:

• The concept of social justice has evolved over time within Judaism.
• The effectiveness of social justice as a GES strategy would depend on the specific historical context.

It's important to remember that Judaism is a rich and diverse religion with a long history. Social justice is a core value, but it's just one piece of the puzzle."

Me: If "social justice" within Judaism was potentially functioning as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (GES), then the theory that Judaism is sometimes partially a GES is right?
AI: "Yes, under that specific lens, the theory that Judaism is sometimes partially a Group Evolutionary Strategy (GES) could be considered valid. Here's why:

• Social justice promoting group benefit: If, as discussed, social justice practices like charity and fair treatment [of Negros] helped [...] Jewish community, this would align with a GES. A strong, cohesive group would have advantages in survival.
• Not the sole factor: It's important to remember this is just one piece of the puzzle. Judaism's emphasis on shared traditions, education, and religious beliefs likely all played a role in group survival as well.

However, there are still some reasons for caution:

• Oversimplification: Attributing social justice solely to a survival strategy can downplay its deeper moral and ethical significance within Judaism.
• Misinterpretation: The GES concept has been misused to promote negative stereotypes about Judaism. It's crucial to recognize social justice as a core value.

[...]

In conclusion, while social justice within Judaism could be seen as partially aligning with a GES, it's not the whole story. It's a rich tradition with social justice as a core tenet, existing alongside other factors that contributed to the religion's survival and development."

Me: Do Jews pursue social justice [ex. for non-whites] because of their high average IQ?
AI: "No, there is no relationship between social justice and high average IQ. [But there was a relationship between Judaism's "social justice" core and GES.] While studies suggest Ashkenazi Jews may have a higher average IQ, focusing on IQ can be misleading."

This chat was all lifted word-for-word from a single chat with Google AI (the AI chat receipts: https://g.co/gemini/share/3696b14a7dd0). AI has spoken: "Yes, under that specific lens [social justice, ex. Negro-civil-rights], the theory that Judaism is sometimes partially a Group Evolutionary Strategy (GES) could be considered valid." Cofnas stands condemned.

"[i]f… the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other." —On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Charles Darwin

Multicultural US Murder Rate by Culture-of-offenders vs Ireland: Nearly Identical

The US Murder Rate Question

"Gun violence" offenders are an enormous problem in the US.

As a diaspora European from "multicultural" US now living permanently in (just newly Multikulti) Western Europe, forever the European locals raise the problem of US gun deaths (murder) to me (in debate) and they need be always thoroughly convinced of their rightness that there can be no nuances in particular whatsoever concerning this problem. (—Dropping the truth-bomb “racist” on me after I say, “No, murders by white offenders in America [even with the enormous amount of gun ownership] is nearly the same rate as in Europe.”) Forcing me to finally just type out (thanks to the sourcing power of Gab.AI) the calculation solution particulars of the problem question for such indoctrinated European ideologues to ponder with every fibre of their universalistic being — at a glance . . .

The Final Solution of the US Murder Rate Question

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, in 2020, the total estimated number of murders committed by "white" offenders was 3,511. (The US Census and crime statistics defines "white" as including people "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa." This means people from the whole Middle East and even sometimes mulattoes, mestizos, and Siberia, besides Europe and "Hispanic Whites," are counted as White in police records and stats. —Thus the real rate of real whites perpetrating “gun violence” is actually lower.)

What rate would that be?

To calculate the rate of murders by "white" offenders, we need to use the total US (white) population as the denominator. In 2020, the estimated white population of the US was approximately 253,053,000 people. To express the murder rate as a percentage, we would use the following formula:

(Number of murders by white offenders ÷ US "white" population)  × 100

(3,511 ÷ 253,053,000) × 100 = 0.0139

So, in 2020 the murder rate by "white" offenders was approximately 1.39 per 100,000 people.

a US "white" gun violence offender statistic

"white" according to the US census.

(Thus America is nowhere near 59 percent “Non-Hispanic whites”. And it is reported that only 44 percent of Americans under age 5 are “whites” — but it is nowhere near that much. So, 45 percent white Brazil is now a whiter county than the US.)

In 2020, the murder rate in Ireland was 1.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, according to the Central Statistics Office of Ireland. (And 82 percent of the "Irish" population was "white-only" in 2020.)

Similarly to the (entire) US murders by "white" offenders rate in 2020, the murder rate in (86 percent "white-only") New Hampshire was 1.3 per 100,000 inhabitants, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

Note:

— Some 91 percent of gun deaths in New Hampshire are suicide. With the next two spots being cops firing and accidental discharges (hunting).

— Some 26 percent of US "households" own guns. This ranks third highest in the world. Finland and Switzerland being the highest. . . . The leading cause of gun deaths in Finland and Switzerland is also (like 86 percent "white-only" New Hampshire) nearly entirely suicide. . . . In 2020, after Vermont, the states with the next highest percentage of "white-only" population were Maine (90 percent), New Hampshire (86 percent), and West Virginia (89 percent), according to the US Census Bureau.

liberal (capitalist) corporate media — the establishment

Conclusion 

The US's stats and rates are multicultural, not monocultural. (—Every culture in multi-cultural US is different as for rates.) So they can only be rationally discussed (compared) in that way (in context).

critical thinking means particularistic thinking

Liberal Mindset Fun-fact:

Throughout modern history Sweden has always had the strictest gun control laws in the Western world (and, pre non-European "mass-migration", the lowest "gun violence" rates). As of 2023 Sweden (still with the strictest of gun control laws/bans in the world) now has "the highest 'gun violence' rate in Europe," as reported in the Swedish news. . . .Elsewhere, France's prison population is estimated to be 70% musulman (the majority of négros being Christian).

Footnotes

1. For the help of readers in Western Europe: "whites" (or blancos in the Spanish-speaking world) is simply a slang word (not used in scientific papers) used in some government documents (and informal talk) to ecumenically refer to diaspora Europeans and autochthonous Europeans.

2. 

   more multicultural stats

3. liberal: ethno-masochism, Christian universalism, capitalism

Why do Indians talk on-the-phone so much?

"I think this can be explained by taking a look at Indian culture. The automatic concern for strangers that western culture has, is lacking in Indian culture. There is only an obligation to your family and friends, not to strangers. They're talking loudly on the phone on the train because they literally 'DON'T CARE' about the comfort of the other passengers.

If you come to India, you will see this utter disregard for public places in it's glorious entirety. Spitting, littering, even peeing and shitting in public places is common. It's a culture of disrespecting public places and it's not about to change once they get to a foreign country. They don't know that they're doing anything offensive. If you politely request them to lower the volume, they might do it temporarily. But, in the long run, we are used to criticism and rather immune to it by now.." --Indian woman, quora.com/Why-do-Indian-people-who-take-the-Caltrain-talk-on-the-phone-so-much