Wokeism is a dumb emergent religion for idiots

I've seen board libs confused over why people here seem inclined towards "alt right" wrongthink. I don't agree with the label (seems like a general slur for anyone who doesn't accept what the left tells them to think), but we'll roll with it for now. 


1. "Systemic racism" has zero predictive value. If the theory were true, you'd expect Asians suffering under the horrors of White Supremacy™ to be unsuccessful. High crime rates, low rates of academic achievement. They aren't, they're more successful than whites. You would also expect Jewish people (who have faced persecution for centuries and withstood the most explicit and mechanical act of genocide in human history only ~75 years ago) to be unsuccessful. They aren't. Jewish people are roughly half of American billionaires, a third of our Supreme Court, and have a dominant presence in the upper levels of Wall Street, news media, social media, Hollywood etc. They're doing quite well, in spite of persecution. 


2. The number of unarmed black men shot by police annually is trivial. So few that you can spend ~30 minutes a year looking up who was killed and why. Libs, when polled, overestiamte this number by multiple orders of magnitude. The real answer is ten to twenty, depending on the year. And digging into those individual cases yields people who are severely mentally ill, threatening people in other ways, or shouting that they have a weapon when they actually don't. 


3. Our media focuses on the rare situations where white people harm black people. The reality of crime is that blacks do, indeed, commit ~50% while being ~13%. The media focuses on the relatively rare occurrence of whites attacking blacks and ignores the far more common occurence of blacks attacking other blacks and other racial groups. This is most egregious with Asians - we know exactly who is attacking Asian grandmas and grandpas. They know it too - but the media won't state it. 


4. Wokeism explains none of this. Simple, brute facts explain basically all of it. We know that intelligence matters (uncontroversial). We know that test scores correlate highly with intelligence (uncontroversial). We know that intelligence is highly heritable (uncontroversial). We know that test scores consistently differ between racial groups - with Asians and Jewish white people at the top (simple fact). It's a small jump then to infer that these differences might be genetic to some degree. If this were any less controversial trait (e.g. height) nobody would question it - and they don't. People are fine with saying that Asian people are generally shorter. The Dutch are tall. We're somewhat accepting of general athletic differences - Nicholas Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance" was a best seller and supposedly read by Barack Obama. But we're not allowed to ask why the list of top twenty cornerbacks and the list of top twenty physicists looks so different. Odd case. 


5. If you've grown up in this culture of hatred and irrationality, an alternative view bringing facts is attractive. Modern liberal bullshit is rooted in critical theory. The right is still grounded in a traditional Western rational-analytical framework. Where facts and logic are required to make your point. If you are reasonably intelligent, the butt of this hatred, and aren't so much of an NPC loser that you're willing to self-flagelate eternally, then you are receptive to alternative worldviews that don't sound like total bullshit. 


So that's why the board doesn't conform 100% to your latest NPC update patch. Sorry that not all of us believe exactly what we're told to believe. Fuckers. 

 

I agree with everything except point 4. Obviously intelligence is inherited but we don't know that it differs genetically between racial groups.

More than a century ago, Jews were scoring very poorly on intelligence tests because they didn't understand the questions due to cultural differences. Now they score very highly, which means the tests themselves can be flawed. Even today, standardized tests like the SAT require a certain level of preparation if you want to score well. So while genetics plays a role, someone who is inherently smarter but less hardworking can score lower than someone who is not as smart but more studious. Native born blacks and Latinos likely score less on the SATs because education is not ingrained in their culture, so they decide not to prepare for these exams. Blacks immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, however, score very highly because their family strongly value education. Using the average test scores of racial groups to conclude that there are genetic differences due to race doesn't add up.

 
iercurenc

I agree with everything except point 4. Obviously intelligence is inherited but we don't know that it differs genetically between racial groups.

More than a century ago, Jews were scoring very poorly on intelligence tests because they didn't understand the questions due to cultural differences. Now they score very highly, which means the tests themselves can be flawed. Even today, standardized tests like the SAT require a certain level of preparation if you want to score well. So while genetics plays a role, someone who is inherently smarter but less hardworking can score lower than someone who is not as smart but more studious. Native born blacks and Latinos likely score less on the SATs because education is not ingrained in their culture, so they decide not to prepare for these exams. Blacks immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, however, score very highly because their family strongly value education. Using the average test scores of racial groups to conclude that there are genetic differences due to race doesn't add up.

Tests exist that are 100% culturally neutral, like Raven’s Progressive Matrices. They yield similar results to “biased” tests. In reality the result is the opposite of what you’re implying- the more neutral the test, the more consistent the gaps. What all of these tests are trying to get at is g-factor. The higher the “g loading” on the test, the bigger the gap.

 

Let these racist trolls tell their quasi-sudo science "facts," Africans have an average IQ of 70% according to them, yet everywhere I go - be-it in academia or wall street, there's always a Nigerian immigrant or some shit performing at the top of his peers. You have to understand these Caucasians that post nonsense like this, grew up in their bubble, brainwashed to regurgitate their "facts" without "context."

 

tgrillzey

Let these racist trolls tell their quasi-sudo science "facts," Africans have an average IQ of 70% according to them, yet everywhere I go - be-it in academia or wall street, there's always a Nigerian immigrant or some shit performing at the top of his peers. You have to understand these Caucasians that post nonsense like this, grew up in their bubble, brainwashed to regurgitate their "facts" without "context."

Nigerian immigrants are a self-selected "right tail" group in the West. They're generally intelligent - yes. One thing the left AND right get wrong about Africa is assuming it's mono-ethnic. It's not, far from it. There are a huge number of ethnicities - the Rwandan genocide involved the mass murder of the somewhat taller, more lithe Tutsis by the Hutus. Even within Nigeria, the "Igbo" people are clearly more intelligent than the rest. Most successful Nigerian Americans are Igbo. Ethiopia is currently in a civil war between its ethnic groups. 

Self-selection is also why Indian Americans are incredibly successful even though India itself sucks ass. America/Canada get the top tier of Indian people - the best the country has to offer. 

 

This is completely wrong, and you probably think you’re much smarter than you really are with your ill informed “facts.” We, society, already have massive genomic data sets that can predict with extremely high confidence a rough percentile of IQ, or “g”, while also being able to assign race (23&me obviously does this in regards to race, it’s so trivial). Overlap the two, which some wrongthink biophysicists have already done, and the evidence is abundantly clear that the different races have different IQs, on average.

And the above is extra evidence on top of decades of standardized testing across high school, colleges, and the military that all demonstrate the same. In short, stop spouting nonsense.

 

Wokeism is quite literally the new God of the gaps. The explanation for any disparity of outcome in its POV comes down to a proposed power dynamic driven through some form of inherent privilege that cannot be "disproven" in a short discussion by its own abstract nature. Any attempts to do so are then used as justification of its existence by declaring any refusal to accept the proposed dynamic as representing malicious or ignorant complicity. It is a weak form of argumentation taken on by midwits who are in and of themselves unimpressive. By virtue signaling they can immediately take on a position of implied social superiority or authority, bestowing upon them the right to tell the opposite party that they are in the wrong and must submit. If they do not, they will be labeled as something seen as socially undesirable (Nazi, Racist, Fascist, etc.) and risk social condemnation or in extreme cases retaliation (cancel culture mob coming for your job). 

"The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly" - Robert A. Wilson | "If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 

Exactly. Wokeism is in fact worse than the God of the gaps. There are some reasonable, evidence-backed answers for why the gaps between ethnic groups exist, and yet progressives still ignore all evidence and push this abstract idea of “privilege.”

 

No it isn't.  Alt right trolls love to narrow down the arguments into two things to make their argument easier, and then post statistics without context

Me, the super smart guy: "Every achievement gap is genetics"

Woke libtards: "Every achievement gap is due to oppression"

This is actually a trait of low IQ.  They fail to understand complex political issues and see things as black and white.

 

Drumpfy

No it isn't.  Alt right trolls love to narrow down the arguments into two things to make their argument easier, and then post statistics without context

Me, the super smart guy: "Every achievement gap is genetics"

Woke libtards: "Every achievement gap is due to oppression"

This is actually a trait of low IQ.  They fail to understand complex political issues and see things as black and white.

1) I am not alt-right. Defending the 2nd amendment, disliking criminals, believing that most governments are corrupt to the core, and pointing out that progressives have completely lost their minds in the last decade is not "alt-right".

2) You are exemplifying the exact thing I'm talking about. I have not once on this forum said that "every achievement" has to do with genetics or anything remotely resembling such. If they did then I wouldn't have a fucking job. You are so utterly oblivious to your own stupidity and addicted to smelling your own self-righteous farts it is pathetically repulsive at this point. You are the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Honestly, the fact that you just resort to calling every person you disagree with on this board a troll or an alt-right racist demonstrates your inability to form a coherent argument. Having to jump directly to ad hominem is actually a trait of low IQ.

"The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly" - Robert A. Wilson | "If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 

"Western rational-analytical framework..." Is the PC dog whistle, fox news way of saying, "whites smart, high iq, and logical framework." You have to get in the mind of a racist cunt pretending to be a profound intellectual. He wants to say blatant racist shit but also doesn't want to be called out as it will be made so obvious. All this post is, is nothing but bait to all the other smooth brained racists on this platform as well.

For fucksake, the dumbass MBA associate responded to Drumpfy below by stating:

Seems like non-bullshit is in the majority here, so why would I leave?

He probably saw how "well" the other racist posts and commenters recently on this platform have performed and now feels emboldened. The coward cant say this nonesense in the real world so under the veil of anonymity, he's free to speak as much hate if "others" like him will embrace it. He's found a new home in Parler2.0Oasis and he's elated. Give it a few more months, they'll start saying the n-word straight up without the need to dog whistle or PC'fy their clearly racist posts. I think I might actually have more respect for them when that happens, than this pussyfooting around, and dog whistling.

 

I get that you're probably drunk, but this is a piss poor response. Literally nothing you've said has responded to any of my points. Not even close. 

Grr whites, grr. I get it - you're mad. But this isn't twitter or wherever else. You can't just anger the bad people away. You need reason - and you haven't brought it. 

 

We get it already. You're a sheltered racist Caucasian male, living in a bubble of his own that thinks everyone is born with the same privilege granted to him via skin tone since birth. We get it, you need allies in your racism so you'll pull asians into the mix. We get it, now take your racism to twitter or facebook or parler. Better yet, if you're so confident, speak up at your next meeting about it. Anonymous racist bitch.

 

tgrillzey

We get it already. You're a sheltered racist Caucasian male, living in a bubble of his own that thinks everyone is born with the same privilege granted to him via skin tone since birth. We get it, you need allies in your racism so you'll pull asians into the mix. We get it, now take your racism to twitter or facebook or parler. Better yet, if you're so confident, speak up at your next meeting about it. Anonymous racist bitch.

Non-responsive. Will convince nobody. Thanks for trying! Hopefully you will one day reach a place where facts don’t offend you!

 

Hopefully one day, you'll SMD and take your racist BS to twitter. Lmaoo this fuckhead said he stated "facts." Must be his autism talking. When you state the "facts" and include the "context" in your dog whistle rant, I'll be waiting.

 
tgrillzey

We get it already. You're a sheltered racist Caucasian male, living in a bubble of his own that thinks everyone is born with the same privilege granted to him via skin tone since birth. We get it, you need allies in your racism so you'll pull asians into the mix. We get it, now take your racism to twitter or facebook or parler. Better yet, if you're so confident, speak up at your next meeting about it. Anonymous racist bitch.

Posting garbage like this under an anonymous username is about as weak as it gets.  If a person is confident in his views, he should own them.

 

Someone must have gotten triggered by my post calling out the alt-right's presence on this board, and this just shows they exist.

You don't have to believe in "race realism" or other "redpills" which typically consist of posting statistics about ethnic groups without any kind of context.

You also don't have to believe in woke white guilt stuff.

Most well adjusted people don't believe in either

 

I legitimately thought you were trolling because your posts were so brainlet NPC-ish. I guess I was wrong - Jesus. I had you in the same bucket as esteemed poster "SKEET SKEET SKEET". I suppose the skeet stands alone. 

Note to everyone reading this - the left hasn't provided a single real argument in response. This shit is a religion and this is akin to evangelicals having no response to pushback on the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. Some people believe what they're told to believe and some people prefer evidence. Be in the latter group. 

 

financeabc

It is Saturday night, go out to a bar or something.  Why are you spending so much time ranting about people who do not share your views.  

not an argument.

also it's like 10 i'm pregaming chill 

You call people idiots in the subject to your topic and you want them to take you seriously?

 

I usually pregame with a beers, chicks and the boys... not hating on your style, but I’ll have to try throwing social theory into the mix sometime. 

 

Reminder - there isn't a single substantive shitlib response in this topic. Not one. Just a bunch of butthurt, ad-hominem bullshit. 

If they can't defend their own ideology, why should you believe in it? So don't - seek truth. 

The main reason that no one on the "other side" wants to respond qualitatively, is because all you are trying to do is to agitate people and start an argument.  You have disdain for people who have a view that is different from yours.  Most people on the "other side" do not want to communicate with people like you and may be that adds to your level of disdain. 

 

The other side has no basis to debate the facts OP presented.
 

Extremely disproportionate crime rates are facts, not opinions.

Number of police shooting incidents are facts, not opinions (the average retarded American who watches CNN basically thinks cops are hunting down black people, killing thousands per year, like it’s the Purge. The reality is what OP stated, and in fact, substantially more white people are killed by cops annually, but no one ever cares.).

IQ distributions by race are facts, backed up by dozens of studies, but it’s basically a career killer to bring this up. It’s literally impossible for this topic to be studied in academia now, as no one will grant funding for it. Extremely easy to look these things up, but it shows how lazy you and your ilk are for dismissing it outright. Something like this obviously has huge policy and decision implications, but that doesn’t matter to wokeism. 
 

In short, progressives aren’t serious people.

 

Yes there is, the OP assumes all types of racism are the same using the model minority trope.  Asians aren't being discriminated against by cops but there are some ugly stereotypes about them being bad with women, nerdy, workaholics, caused COVID etc.

 

Yes, anyone who doesn't think you like you can't possibly be part of your tribe. I'm a Jew, and I basically share all of OPs views, which are substantially based on facts.

I doubt you are a Jew because most Jews do not whine about this stuff.  Most Jews don’t say a member of “your” tribe.  At least get the lingo right.

 

Did you really learn that everyone else is a "subhuman" growing up, since you said you are Jewish?  Are you part of an ultra orthodox sect or something?

And let's not be delusional, there is a pretty big chunk of Christians and Muslims who believe members of other religions are gonna burn for the next trillion years.

 

Jews are notorious for holding supremacist views. Your lot openly believes that "the goyim" are barbarian subhumans.

And unlike all of the facts stated in this thread, Jewish supremacism actually does lead to horrific violence. When the alt right does something on the same scale as Israel then cry to me.

The only Jews that hold supremacist views are the orthodox and they are a bunch of ignorant fools.  Non orthodox Jews do not share these idiotic views.  If this is your only exposure to Jews, I can see why you come to this conclusion. 

 

This is a strong exaggeration. The vast majority of Jewish people are fairly secular. There's certainly an in-group bias to some degree, but the overwhelming majority of Jewish people are pretty affable and have mixed friend groups of Jews and non-Jews. Also most Jews don't like the Ultra-Orthos in the same way that people of other religions find radicals to be obnoxious. 

 

A lot of things to address here.

1. Asian people face a fair amount of bigotry within the United States as well, although it manifests itself in other ways, and overall, despite these forms of bigotry, for a variety of reasons, Americans of Asian descent tend to earn more money than other demographics within the United States. Asian people living in the United States were never subjected to 246 years of subjugation and enslavement. For over two centuries, the vast majority of Americans of African descent living within the United States were subject to constant expropriation of their labor, talents, and know-how. They were often separated from family members at the whims of their captors, which compromised and disrupted family relations. Many Americans of Jewish descent in the United States were never involved in the Holocaust, their forebears having immigrated here long before the Holocaust occurred. In no way do I wish to diminish the gravity of the Holocaust, but by the very nature of the attempted extermination, it was unable to traumatize many of its victims for an extended period of time (entire families were wiped out, so there were no relatives to survive in a traumatized state). This contrasts starkly with the system of American enslavement, which thrived upon keeping its victims alive and traumatizing them day after day.

2. The number of individuals killed by US police forces number approximately 1,000 per year, and this number has remained stable for the last 20 years and hasn't materially changed. Your analysis of this phenomenon is materially accurate, and your views are similar to my views. In particular, I'm troubled how the media has created an availability heuristic that leads people to grossly overestimate the number of times where the police make critical errors, as they have been shown to do (e.g. the death of Breonna Taylor based on a fraudulent warrant that was executed after an officer lied about the results of a Postal Inspector's investigation that was watching Taylor's mail). In these instances, the police have erred horribly and wrongfully taken the lives of the citizens they were tasked with protecting, and they should be held to account for that.

3. For certain crimes that are considered violent, such as homicide, the numbers do end up as you say. Most of these homicides are as the result of organized crime and gang violence, and these gangs arise because of a lack of economic opportunity. Historically, you had the Irish Mob, which was a very powerful organization in Boston and New York, but this was during the days of "No Irish Need Apply" signs, which created a serious dearth of economic opportunity. Does this organization still really exist? No. Why? Because Irish people have now been assimilated into whiteness which has afforded them every economic opportunity that is available to other Americans of European descent living in the United States.

4. Can populations of humans differ on the basis of genetics in virtually any characteristic you can think of? Yes, of course they can. But before anyone points the finger and says that one population MUST be genetically inferior to another in some respect such as intelligence, I would advise them to first consider the plenitude of other reasons that standardized test scores might differ among demographics. The SAT used to have questions about yachts and regatta races. These items are not a matter of intelligence; they are a highly specialized canon of cultural knowledge that only make sense if you are familiar with the concepts. Someone who has never heard of a regatta isn't stupid; they just haven't heard of a regatta. The Stanford-Binet and Wechsler tests for intelligence also contain questions which presume understanding of a cultural canon of concepts that are not necessarily integrally linked to intelligence. And besides, even if these tests were an excellent measure of intelligence, intelligence is plastic. It's a skill that is carefully honed and cultivated. And when you have a history of United States schools that are funded on the basis of ad valorem property taxes, this creates the conditions for wealthy schools to prosper and poorer schools to flounder. If you forced a child who would otherwise attend a wealthy school to attend one of these less funded schools for their entire childhood, would one not expect their performance on these standardized assessments to also be compromised? The answer is a clear yes. I find it easier to believe that intelligence tests are a culturally specific canon that depends on economic resources rather than human beings that are 99.9% the same genetically being all that much different.

 
kellycriterion

A lot of things to address here.

4. Can populations of humans differ on the basis of genetics in virtually any characteristic you can think of? Yes, of course they can. But before anyone points the finger and says that one population MUST be genetically inferior to another in some respect such as intelligence, I would advise them to first consider the plenitude of other reasons that standardized test scores might differ among demographics. The SAT used to have questions about yachts and regatta races. These items are not a matter of intelligence; they are a highly specialized canon of cultural knowledge that only make sense if you are familiar with the concepts. Someone who has never heard of a regatta isn't stupid; they just haven't heard of a regatta. The Stanford-Binet and Wechsler tests for intelligence also contain questions which presume understanding of a cultural canon of concepts that are not necessarily integrally linked to intelligence. And besides, even if these tests were an excellent measure of intelligence, intelligence is plastic. It's a skill that is carefully honed and cultivated. And when you have a history of United States schools that are funded on the basis of ad valorem property taxes, this creates the conditions for wealthy schools to prosper and poorer schools to flounder. If you forced a child who would otherwise attend a wealthy school to attend one of these less funded schools for their entire childhood, would one not expect their performance on these standardized assessments to also be compromised? The answer is a clear yes. I find it easier to believe that intelligence tests are a culturally specific canon that depends on economic resources rather than human beings that are 99.9% the same genetically being all that much different.

We have intelligence tests that have zero cultural bias whatsoever and the results are directionally the same (e.g. Raven's Progressive Matrices). "Cultural bias" can't explain the gaps. That's more of a just-so story. Almost like religious apologetics for the acceptable narrative. The reality is the opposite in that the more random variation you add to a test, the smaller the gaps. Imagine a test that was pure nonsense with random words strung together for questions and random answers. That test would have no gaps at all. Psychometricians are careful about these things, none of this is new. What they're aiming to capture is "Spearman's G" or G factor. A test that has a ton of cultural bias would have a relatively low "g-loading". A test that has zero cultural bias would have a very high "g-loading", i.e. it's better at capturing g factor. Gaps increase with higher g-loaded tests.

And school quality doesn't seem to have much of an impact on intelligence. Knowledge, sure. IQ is more like clock speed on a computer processor. Knowledge is what you have on your hard drive. And no - I don't really agree with your point around putting kids from wealthy schools into poor schools. Bad schools are bad because they're full of low-IQ kids. School quality is largely dictated by the intelligence of the people being taught. You see a similar sort of thing with adopted kids where their achievement in life is much closer to their biological parents than their adopted parents.  

 

Thanks so much for your response. I'll assume that you're OP from the identical anonymous tag. Keenly interested in your thoughts about 1-3, although you're under no obligation to discuss those, and I'm very pleased that you responded to what you did. Raven's Progressive Matrices is a test that shows test-takers a series of images with different colored patterns that appear to progress in a uniform manner. The goal is pattern recognition: recognize how the progression is already going and extrapolate that into future patterns. While this appears to be a perfectly useful skill (we make all kinds of extrapolations in all facets of life and certainly in the finance profession), I don't think that being able to discern that the correct answer is "shaded square in the bottom left quadrant" is all that close a proxy to a concept as broadly sweeping as Spearman's "g." It is far more likely that the Raven's test is parametrically measuring something like pattern recognition or working memory.

A much more accurate model is Gardner's multiple intelligences, which includes musical, spatial, linguistic, mathematical, bodily, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dynamics among others. Someone who jumps hurdles in the Olympics has a bodily talent that I don't have, but they aren't working in finance, so my skillset might differ from theirs. And to preemptively address the criticism that some of Gardner's categories of intelligence are not truly intelligence, if you think through it, each and every one of these domains requires some kind of thought, even if only at some autonomic level. For this reason, "g" is not a very useful concept, and is an attempt to reify or make overly concrete the notion of intelligence in the first place. People have many talents, and there's no unifying number that can describe all of those things. The better thing by far is to measure domains with specificity.

I agree that the more a test relies upon random chance, the less likely it is that there will be gaps. But one would also expect that a test based upon cultural factors would have wider gaps if they doubled down on the cultural aspects, no? To pull from the SAT example, if all my questions are "regatta" questions, the results will be spread more widely than if I asked 100% gibberish questions with gibberish answer choices. As another thought, is "g-loading" a measurable parameter in the first place? My answer is no, because it's a circular argument. To know how accurately one has measured "g," one must first presume that they know "g," except there's no benchmark against which we can measure these things. To assert that an "intelligence assessment" has accurately measured "g" when one does not already know what "g" is (because it hasn't already been measured) is merely a blind assertion, not some sort of evidence-based benchmarking. Your statements presume that one already knows "g," otherwise "g-loading" is not parametrically estimable using any test that we have.

Intelligence is what you have. "Intelligence tests" that we use today involve applied reasoning or knowledge. Knowledge requires some amount of intelligence, but it is also honed through the nurturing care of others. If I coached someone to take the Raven's test, they could do far better than if I didn't coach them. It would be naive to think otherwise. Do I think there are some people who would not be physically able to understand the concept of the Raven's test and be more or less wholly incapable of completing it? Sure, but for a lot of people exposure to the concept that there are these shaded geometric patterns makes a difference. There are few tests that you could furnish that a teacher or other influential figure like a parent couldn't positively influence. Let's grant that people in poorer schools are less intelligent; could this effect arise from environmental factors such as the food one eats, the water one drinks, and the air one breathes rather than just genetics? Of course it could, and that's why there's so many different things going into this. The average age of an adopted child in the United States in 2019 was approximately 5.89 years (manually calculated from https://www.statista.com/statistics/633415/age-distribution-at-time-of-…). Assuming this is true, the biological parents and/or the foster care system have already exerted SO much influence on the children. Those first few years are the very most important for shaping the child's future. There are many points to make here, but the chief one I'll make here is that if kids go almost 6 years before being adopted, much of the story has already been decided for them on a cultural basis, so this need not be biological. Thanks again for your time and for being so respectful.

 
Most Helpful

Et eos possimus id quod laboriosam veritatis aliquid. Officia qui modi sit.

 

Voluptatem temporibus praesentium deleniti voluptatum nihil. Cumque at aut corporis voluptas quia debitis non. Ipsa est voluptas expedita natus aspernatur voluptas beatae.

Ipsum cumque rerum quae blanditiis non iusto. Aliquid eveniet suscipit et. Voluptatibus occaecati error ipsam autem pariatur natus sit. Harum itaque itaque iusto.

Quia tempore harum sed corrupti doloribus animi numquam itaque. Voluptatem mollitia et quos voluptatem maxime. Incidunt minima ab velit aspernatur. Cum labore aperiam dolorum iure. Dolor temporibus fugiat aut et velit aliquam. Quos numquam alias et. Ducimus ex eveniet quos.

Odit nihil sit mollitia alias et mollitia quo. Odit optio dolorem aperiam dolorem. Rerum et sit suscipit et culpa.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”