January 21, 2014

Richard Sherman

Seattle Seahawks' cornerback Richard Sherman is getting a lot of attention for a postgame interview on Sunday that's more WWE than NFL.

I saw him play in high school in 2005. His team, Compton Dominguez, was so loaded with talent that they crushed my old high school, Notre Dame of Sherman Oaks, in the Southern California Division III finals without this future Super Bowl cornerback standing out in the game as a wide receiver (a position he played well for a couple of years at Stanford).

Compton's fast black backs just ran the ball over and over (19 times on the opening drive for a touchdown) behind an offensive line of giant Pacific Islanders, including a 319 pound tight end.

Compton Dominguez had gotten some major personal foul penalties in earlier playoff games, of the kind Sherman got at the end of the NFC championship game, but their conduct was exemplary in this one. Slum schools tend to blow up in high school playoffs, but Compton was very disciplined and didn't start celebrating after tackles until the last couple of minutes of the game.

Compton dominated so dominated on the ground, that NDHS only got one offensive play off in the first quarter, although it was a good one: Quarterback Garrett Green ran a draw 75 yards for a touchdown, pulling away from all four Compton defensive backs, including Sherman. Green was a remarkable athlete, a white guy faster than Richard Sherman, an excellent defensive back, and a quarterback with more or less a Division I passing arm, although not the NFL passing arm required by USC during those years at the top of the heap. So at USC Green just played quarterback on the practice squad, imitating the opponents' quarterback for the USC defense to tee off on, then went into the real estate business, which is a good business to go into if your years of service to the Trojans are appreciated by USC alums.
  

119 comments:

Mount Shasta Inquirer said...

It sure sounded like he was making a direct threat to shut the mouth of the female interviewer. Is it racist to mention this?

Anonymous said...

FYI, you're listed among Notre Dame High School's "Notable Alumni":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_High_School_%28Sherman_Oaks,_California%29#Notable_alumni

Anonymous said...

How did Sherman get into Stanford? His Wonderlic score was only 24.

Anonymous said...

Sherman is a sharp player: http://www.seahawks.com/videos-photos/videos/Richard-Sherman-Student-of-the-game/262c95e3-1c4e-45c5-91e7-cbc6fea433a9

football is a game of inches...and milliseconds. sherman studies tape and thinks quickly on that base of knowledge when hes in the game. that gives him more of an edge than having a slightly better 40 time.

so as a student of the game he calls peyton manning the smartest quarterback. this brings to mind your discussions about the nfl draft. why do we still not know what makes a good quarterback? arm strength is always discussed (and then called overrated, then called overrated, rinse, repeat). sherman says peyton manning has no arm. didnt stop him from having the best season of all time:

"What makes him special: When we played Peyton in the preseason, I found a new appreciation for the way he makes adjustments at the line of scrimmage; he controls the protections, and if he sees the blitz coming he slides it. The thing that sets him apart is that he’ll change it to a run play if you don’t have enough players in the box, and they’ll get five or six yards because you’re not ready for it. Nobody else has both the authority to do that within their offense and the understanding to know when it’s appropriate.
His arm, however, is another story. His passes will be accurate and on time, but he throws ducks."

Neal said...

Your brain cells are holding up pretty good Steve. No way I could remember details that far back not to mention a future pro who had little impact in a position he doesn't play.

Steve Sailer said...

106 is pretty good for a cornerback, and being reasonably smart helps him be a dominant personality.

Here's a 2005 Los Angeles Times article about Sherman's GPA at Compton Dominguez:

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/04/sports/sp-hssondcol4

Anonymous said...

Apparently Sherman was considered a highly intelligent student, and registered for M.A. courses during his last year.

His SAT was 900, his major was "Communications". I lived in SV for years, and met plenty of Stanford grads. I had no idea that Stanford offered a degree in Communications. Is it basically a mechanism to accept football and basketball players?

Anonymous said...

"Kurt Russell remembers Paul Walker at Sundance"

http://news.yahoo.com/kurt-russell-remembers-paul-walker-sundance-100124188.html

Reg Cæsar said...

I can't remember-- did Richard Sherman write the words to "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious", or was that his brother Robert? The documentary made it clear, but Wikipedia and other online sources don't tell you squat.

One of them came up with the perfect riposte to the commenter on the "gay" thread who said humor is ineffective: A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!

Anonymous said...

Sherman is a cool guy. Remember that sad LAT story about the kid from Compton struggling at Berkeley and complaining about how unfair it was?

Sherman ran into the same thing but figured it out pretty quickly:

"Kevin worried too, about culture shock in Palo Alto, but Stanford coaches found a way to ease the transition, making Sherman the rare incoming freshman football player to enroll in the summer. "I was with kids from prestigious private schools, and they were drawing comparisons between Plato and Aristotle," says Sherman. "A lot went over my head. I hadn't even read The Iliad yet. I had to check out all these books just so I could know what everybody was talking about."



This is a leader:

"Sherman squawked at teammates as much as opponents, but not with the standard material. He was an academic snob who saved his most biting remarks for those who ditched classes or failed exams. "Man, I'm going to love coming back from college and watching you guys at the J.C.," he'd bark. According to Donerson, eight players from Sherman's graduating class earned scholarships to Division I schools, several of whom had walked into the coach's office at one point or another to ask, "How do I get into college? Because if I don't, Sherm is never going to let me hear the end of it."

Sherman remembers one of his first scholarship offers coming from USC, when the Trojans were in the midst of their 34-game winning streak, back when Carroll could have been elected mayor of Compton. The first time the coach visited Sherman at Dominguez, Carroll had to wait 2½ hours in the football offices because his recruit had refused to duck out of an advanced placement course. "My son didn't win salutatorian for nothin'," says Beverly. "Petey had to wait."

Anonymous said...

World war T...and golf!

http://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/

Simmons:

http://grantland.com/features/the-dr-v-story-a-letter-from-the-editor/

2Degrees said...

Totally off-topic, but the Telegraph has a left-wing commentator who works for Demos. Apparently, he is now watching HBD sites.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/author/jamiebartlett/

For the edification of non-Brits, DEMOS is a group of left-wing enforcers of thought crime. It doesn't even occur to this little twerp that there's something wrong with arresting people for Tweets.

Like all Marxists, he is guiding us to a beautiful future. Unfortunately getting there might involve treading on a few million cockroaches.

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and
classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."

So he will be the Pharaoh while the rest of us slave on the pyramids.

I have two passports, NZ and UK. I'm beginning to think I might be better off without running the risk of being extradited to post-democratic jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

FYI, you're listed among Notre Dame High School's "Notable Alumni":

Steve, are you a big cheese at reunions and stuff? Do people know you?

Camlost said...

Communications = majoring in eligibility for athletes.

Sociology is the other biggie eligibility major. Easily "tutored" by having assigned academic helpers write your papers for you.

Camlost said...

And Sherman is very right that Peyton Manning will make the occasional fluttery "duck" throw much more frequently than the other top NFL quarterbacks such as Drew Brees or Tom Brady.

Geoff Matthews said...

Yeah, the communications degree doesn't look impressive, but pursuing a graduate degree while still having eligibility does look impressive.
And the anecdotes mentioned here add to it.
I watched most of the interview, and didn't see what the big deal was. He came off as a jerk, but I consider that par for the course for most athletes.
I thought it behavior towards Crabtree/49rs was in poor taste, but so what? He was flagged for it, and no one was injured.
Ready to move on with this one.

Burpleson AFB said...

Seems like a guy of average intelligence and extreme confidence. This makes him a titan amongst the Cornerback-American community.

Mr Lomez said...

I'm interested to see how the NFL deals with Sherman. On the one hand, at least in the short-term, his act is sure to draw a lot of eyeballs and the NFL likes eyeballs, especially during this two-week publicity push before the Super Bowl.

On the other hand, if Sherman is rewarded for this kind of behavior, you can bet it'll be parroted in the future. The problem is, middle-class white viewers are willing to take only so much urban black thuggery, and the NFL knows it.

Sherman's an exceptional case because of the Stanford thing and because his persona is at least to some degree calculated schtick (Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin made their ghetto-ness work for similar reasons). The average 85 IQ CB and WR pulling this same garbage, though, will be a major turn-off.

MC said...

"Slum schools tend to blow up in high school playoffs"

That's fascinating, isn't it? I remember attending a high school basketball playoff game in Ohio where the inner city school had multiple Division I prospects, and just seeing them swept off the court by a bunch of rich white 5-foot-10 suburban kids with floppy haircuts who knew what passing and defense were.

Dave Pinsen said...

Not racist, just uninformed. It's pretty clear from the full interview he was referring to the receiver Crabtree.

Sherman got a lot of heat on social media for that interview, but, objectively, what he said appears to be true. He's the best corner in the league now.

I'm also reminded of something Deon Sanders said once when asked about his over-the-top personality. He said it helped get him a better contract than he would have otherwise gotten, since CB was generally a lower profile position.

peterike said...

In a rare moment of giving a crap about football, I watched that mercifully short interview. What's the big deal? Crabtree said something to Sherman and Sherman decided to respond via the whole world in a perfect imitation of batshit roid-rage.

Just a brotha talkin' smack to anotha brotha, only with a pretty white girl holding the microphone.

In fact, after she says "Who was talking about you?" he almost seems to pause for a second before he has to gin up his faux outrage again. What a put on.

Anonymous said...

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=1850663

Richard Sherman scored a 990 on his SAT (NCAA minimum is 800). He retook it later, and scored a 1060.

Anonymous said...

Since it's crystal clear that Sherman was threatening the receiver on the 49ers, yes -Mount Shasta Inquirer, it is racist of you to charge that he was making a direct threat to the female interviewer.

candid_observer said...

Good Christ, do I have to read about how cool Sherman is, and all his fine attributes after his disgusting behavior after his play on the field?

The guy taunts Crabtree, then makes the choke sign to Kaepernick, then goes on in his interview to claim he is the best cornerback around, and Crabtree is mediocre, he grabs all the attention for himself and ignores even his own team, and we're supposed to admire his impressive intellect and values?

Have any of you played any sport? Do you have any concept whatsoever of sportsmanship, or even of just being a decent human being? On what planet was Sherman's behavior anything more than a perfect example of what sportsmanship is supposed to stand against?

Seriously, what's wrong with you people? Have you no values?

Anonymous said...

Here in the Bay Area, since the Niner loss there have been articles about Sherman's disdain for the Harbaugh "military disciplinarian" approach to coaching versus the "player's coaching" of Carroll.


Sherman was recruited, yes, as a wide receiver, and supposedly, Harbaugh didn't think much of his attitude and/or his talent at some point and moved him to a defensive back.

Looks like Harbaugh did Sherman a favor, but Sherman has not forgotten the move.

On a popular radio sports show here, a reporter who know the ins and outs of Stanford football was directed asked by the host if "kids" at Stanford liked Harbaugh. There was a pause, then a firm, "Not really, no, but they do, of course, respect his football knowledge and they like winning."

Pressed a bit, the host got out of the guest that his college players never got to know Harbaugh, never developed affection for him, that it's football 24-7 for him, and that he's cut-throat about things.

Then, he contrasted that with Carroll's personality and the building of relationships with his players, which remain intact even after the players leave.

candid_observer said...

One other point.

The number of people who have risen to the defense of this schmuck Sherman takes my breath away.

I guess I could see how someone might do so if they're complete homers for Seattle, or if the most important thing in all the world to them is that certain stereotypes be countered, however irrationally.

But for anyone else? Frankly I just don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Here's a sample of Sherman's writing (scroll to bottom)

albino bobb said...

Is that an accurate quotation of Sherman, or did some journo clean it up? If he actually speaks English like that, I don't care how much taunting he does. If any substantial part of the black population spoke perfect English like that, this country wouldn't have a crime problem (outside Wall Street I mean).

Anonymous said...

These comments are all BS. He's an ass. Acted like a buffoon and people rightly criticized him. Of course on Twitter a few three out the N word. Of course Sherman makes a big deal out of it saying he's saddened by the response esp on MLK day. F him.

Anonymous said...

>>Steve Sailer said...
"106 is pretty good for a cornerback, and being reasonably smart helps him be a dominant personality.

Here's a 2005 Los Angeles Times article about Sherman's GPA at Compton Dominguez."




Now come come now. 106 certainly is NOT good enough for Stanford, is it?

I remember reading one of your articles on the subject few yrs back regarding Football and Basketball players and the role that 'special admits' plays in NCAA athletics. I think it is under your post 'surprise! College athletes not as smart as their....(whatever last word was just key in the rest and it should come up)

In the article you mentioned that UCLA has the highest number of special admits as well as the worst discrepancy between athletes and students something like 250 SAT points between athletes and non-athletes.

Another part was a graph chart where it listed average IQ and SAT for FB and BB 'students' and as compared to non-athlete students at the same schools.

Anyway, the IQ of non-athletic students at Stanford, if remembered correctly, averaged about 110. The Athletes IQs were around 99.

Bottom line: This Sherman would have to be considered a special admit. We don't have to do an Eddie Haskel and sing his praises as if he's soo great.

He was a special admit and most likely wouldn't have made it into Stanford, aside from athletics, if life depended upon it.

Just calling for consistency. 106 = not making it into Stanford.

Cal-Irvine, however, that's another story.

PS Berkeley also called for average IQ at 110.

Anonymous said...

>>"Sherman is a cool guy.
Sherman ran into the same thing but figured it out pretty quickly:"


Sounds as if you've found your Barack the magic...how's that go again? Going ga ga over a football jock, oh my!

You know him personally, huh? Sounds as if his agents and publicists are working overtime to help cement this image.

And to be fair, he is doing his part by staying out of jail and/or getting into any off field wrongdoings, at least for the present.



>>"This is a leader"


No, this is an opportunist. Learn to look a little more skeptically at the hype, the PR, etc.
Again, give it time, give it time.


A leader isn't all about number one 24/7 and does things for others far beyond the call of duty.

No one is implying that this is a future Aaron Hernandez. But....as NFLers do have a high proportion of off field problems....

Give it time, give it time.

Anonymous said...

>>"His SAT was 900, his major was "Communications"



Sounds like another dumb jock special admit. 900 SAT at Stanford is akin to 900 at Harvard and Yale.

Wont wash and cut the mustard in the classroom.

BUT...the magic (how does that go again?) the magic person is found. He does speak in complete sentences and these days that a huge plus for NFLers.

Conatus said...

I watched this vid of Richard Sherman after the controversy erupted. I was impressed by his modesty, actually acknowledging he has to watch the tape and work at playing corner back because he does not have the natural ability the other guys have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbQGlO0B5nY

I don't think the 49ers rant was calculated, he just has to get pumped up to high volume to get that...what is it? 'Give me 110%' the extra 10%.
Here is one old YT who'll be rootin' for Richard on Feb 2.

Anonymous said...

"Kurt Russell remembers Paul Walker at Sundance"

We should all be remembering Paul Walker wherever we are.

Kibernetika said...

Such poise, grace and demonstrated restraint; what a gentleman!

I just can't watch US pro sports anymore.

Alice said...

She clearly thought he was unhinged. And backed away for her own safety. Smart, that.

I know people are calling this just typical trash talk, but he was so crazed I immediately thought Roid Rage.

Anonymous said...

I can't reconcile his reading the classics voluntarily with a 900 SAT.

ben tillman said...

It sure sounded like he was making a direct threat to shut the mouth of the female interviewer. Is it racist to mention this?

Does it help you to know that the female interviewer is Jewish?

ben tillman said...

"What makes him special: When we played Peyton in the preseason, I found a new appreciation for the way he makes adjustments at the line of scrimmage; he controls the protections, and if he sees the blitz coming he slides it. The thing that sets him apart is that he’ll change it to a run play if you don’t have enough players in the box, and they’ll get five or six yards because you’re not ready for it. Nobody else has both the authority to do that within their offense and the understanding to know when it’s appropriate. His arm, however, is another story. His passes will be accurate and on time, but he throws ducks."

Did he really *say* that? That sounds like something a reasonably smart guy might *write* and review and possibly revise before hitting "submit". That's impressive.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Sherman's SAT was 990, still a special admit at Stanford.

But, why the h%ll does Stanford have a major in "Communications"? When I live in SF/SV the Stanford grads I knew had their degrees in Medicine, Engineering, Molecular Biology, English Lit and such. I didn't even know Stanford offer a Communications major.

Anonymous said...

>>ben tillman said:
"Does it help you to know that the female interviewer is Jewish?"


Sure, especially since if the interviewer was Erin Andrews, who is certainly NOT Jewish then sure, knock yourself out.

Not every single sports media-ette reporterette is Jewish. ANDREWS is a Scottish surname, you know.

Or did you know that?

AND there is also a former Miss Teen Ohio (daughter of Miss Ohio back in 70s) who is currently a sideline reporter at NFL games for CBS, Allie something or other. And she's not Jewish either, much as some would prefer that every single white media-ette reporter were of Jewish origin. Where does this obsession come from?




>>Anonymous said...
""Actually, Sherman's SAT was 990, still a special admit at Stanford."


Agreed. 990, even round it up to a 1,000. It would still be 300-400 SAT points below the average Stanford student.

Andrew Luck is another story. He was quite conceivably a legitimate student and may not have necessarily been a special admit. He could have been a special admit but in his case it's at least plausible that he had the grades to back it up.

But 990 at Stanford. Come come now. Who are we kidding?

If any of us applied to Stanford with those scores and were NOT elite athletes what are the chances of admittance into Stanford?

Crickets chirping.

And there's your answer.





Anonymous said...

SAT of 990 (IQ 106) is pretty good for a black kid from Compton. Sherman was prob. the smartest kid in his peer group growing up. Even without football skills, he would have been heavily recruited by colleges.

Still, I am surprised that Stanford reaches that low for its special admits.

Anonymous said...

>>Anonymous said...
""SAT of 990 (IQ 106) is pretty good for a black kid from Compton. Sherman was prob. the smartest kid in his peer group growing up. Even without football skills, he would have been heavily recruited by colleges."


Calling again for consistency. An IQ of 106 and 990 SAT will NOT get a non-athlete into Stanford.

Yes, he would certainly have been recruited by SEC schools. Also, the fact that USC was heavily recruiting him that would tend to make more sense since USC academically is not in the same ballpark as Berkeley or Stanford. Or even perhaps UCLA for that matter, though can't be positively certain about UCLA.

So its a safe bet Sherman would've attended by USC and he consciously chose to attend Stanford.



""Still, I am surprised that Stanford reaches that low for its special admits."


And why is that? NCAA football is billions. Stanford just received mega millions for a new football complex. To fill it, that requires special players to win right now.

Stanford is only second to UCLA in Div. 1 total sports championships in NCAA history.

Of course, Stanford's special admits are going to be somewhat higher in IQ and test scores than say those recruited by the SEC. Sherman would've aced U of Washington; Oregon; SEC and state schools in general whereas the typical SEC and state school special admit couldn't even spell the letters in Stanford if you spotted them the first six.

But then, as always,.....you get what you special admit.

Jack said...

I love Sherman. He's refreshingly un-PC. Sick of all the athletes praising the other team and being magnaninmous. This is fucking football, not golf. You're supposed to be gladiators. The Seahawks are SUPPOSED to hate the 49ers. It was great. He's not getting in bar fights or DUI's that I know of. Trash talking is good for sports.

He got a 990 SAT, so lets say 1,000. He was also black and from Compton, and had a very high high school GPA. I had heard Stanford dips as low as 1000 SAT for star athletes, so this would make sense. A black, from the inner city, with great talent would have the most leeway.

Don't think other schools don't do the same or worse. Almost every school dips to get great athletes. Harvard under Amaker has notoriously tweaked their bbal recruiting standards. I bet you find a few Sherman-like SAT scores on the Harvard bball team that won a first round NCAA game last year. And schools like Notre Dame and Duke will go almost to the very bottom if they really want someone.

Dave Pinsen said...

Sherman was a talented athlete who was smart enough to graduate from Stanford. Good for him and good for Stanford. I'm sure they've accepted wealthy legacies with similar scores.

Black Sea said...

Sherman's outburst was par for the course in the NFL. It was in bad taste, but so was Colin Kaepernick's mocking of Cam Newton's "Superman" gesture toward the end of SF's victory against Carolina. Of course Newton's "Superman" gesture is itself of questionable taste.

Why, for that matter, do half the players in the NFL need their own signature gestures? Aaron Rodgers does this weird touchdown dance that looks like he's trying to hump his handwarmer. You have situational players who make a decent tackle to prevent a first down, and go through a 20 second war dance like some kind of Maori chieftan. Every time someone catches a difficult pass, they act like they've just singlehandedly split the atom. Aren't NFL receivers supposed to make difficult catches?

Maybe one reason why Peyton Manning is more respected among his peers than any other NFL player is that he doesn't routinely act like a pre-schooler on the playeground when he does something well.

Mount Shasta Inquirer said...

"Not racist, just uninformed. It's pretty clear from the full interview he was referring to the receiver Crabtree."

Crabtree wasn't there. One uses the third person pronouns he and him in this case. The second person pronoun you, which he used, refers to the person with whom he was talking, the female sportscaster.

astorian said...

No question about it, Richard Sherman acted like a jerk, and OUGHT to be at least a little bit ashamed of himself.

The ONLY partial excuse I'll offer for him is this: over the course of a game, a lockdown cornerback and a star receiver are locked together constantly, and are always talking trash to each other.

If I had to guess, 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree was running his mouth at Sherman for 3 hours (and vice versa). So, not surprisingly, when Sherman made a big play against Crabtree to ice the NFC championship game, he was dying to yell, "IN YOUR FACE, CRABTREE!" And that's essentially what he did when a microphone was stuck in his face right after the final gun.

ben tillman said...

Sure, especially since if the interviewer was Erin Andrews, who is certainly NOT Jewish then sure, knock yourself out.

Not every single sports media-ette reporterette is Jewish. ANDREWS is a Scottish surname, you know.


Andrews is like a lot of names. It may exist in Britain and among British-Americans, but anyone who has that name and is the public eye is likely to be Jewish.

And Andrews is an old and prominent name among Jews in the Southern US:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_jewish_history/summary/v087/87.4ferris.html

Joseph Andrews, the founder of the Jewish community in Memphis, presents a familiar Jewish immigrant story. Prospering as a Memphis merchant, Andrews was involved in cotton, banking, and brokerage; served as an early city alderman; built the first three-story home in Memphis; and donated land for the Jewish cemetery.

Erin Andrews looks Jewish, has a Jewish name, and has reportedly said she's Jewish. What more do you want?

Anonymous said...

A science-fiction movie immediately came to mind when I saw the interview :-)

Antioco Dascalon said...

There were three types of Comm majors at Stanford when I was there in the late 1990s (and Stanford has a lot of majors and Comm isn't even considered the easiest. Think American Studies, African-American Studies, basically anything ending in "Studies").
The first kind were, yes, basketball and football players looking for an easy major. I never met any of those, since there were so many other options. Stanford had a policy that you could drop a class at any time before the final and it wouldn't show up on your transcript. You could also retake it for a higher grade and the old grad would be totally erased.
The second type were those wanting to go into TV or radio. They worked at the radio station, etc. I'd assume today they would be the ones making internet videos and podcasts. I knew a few of those.
But the largest group were people who just loved TV and loved the idea of writing a term paper on the Simpsons. I knew lots of these people. They tended to be white, from good backgrounds, and probably (rightly) figured that if you were not doing STEM, it didn't really matter what your major is. I mean, it is Stanford after all. Who cares if you major in English, History or Communications or Chicano Studies?
Stanford is one of those schools where it is very hard to get in but easy once you are in. You can even make your own major. You can "stop out" indefinitely and come back whenever you want. There are all sorts of supports: free counseling, writing tutors in every dorm, subject tutors, etc. And that's for all the students, I'm sure that the athletes got even more support.
People talking about the Iliad seems a bit fishy to me though. Stanford frosh don't tend to wear their reading on their sleeves that much. It's almost a badge of honor to do well without reading.

Anonymous said...

I’m an apologist for Stanford, so that’s my disclaimer. Graduate, former athlete, former admissions officer (briefly), still in the Bay Area and reasonably close to the athletic department. In no particular order:

1. As a private institution, Stanford does whatever it wants. I can vouch for the fact that there aren't many kids from any inner city environment at Stanford, so when you get a kid like Sherman who is close academically - and can handle the cultural differences - you grab him.
2. I’m guessing Sherman didn’t take an SAT prep course or have college counselors emphasizing the PSAT or AP courses. If one assumes preparing for the SAT adds 200-300 points, then you’re looking at a 1200. Still in the lower range, but think about the kids of Type A+ parents in Silicon Valley/Manhattan/Bel Air who spend thousands on prep courses and outside college counseling.
3. Stanford makes allowances each year for faculty/staff kids and donors, not just athletes. My understanding is that the going rate for “buying” admission starts at eight figures (and that's only if you have the right affiliations). That said, they strictly toe the line when it comes to assurances that the kid can do the work and graduate. The same goes for athletes. Never forget that fund raising is a bigger priority than education. Good/great football teams = more alumni donations. I know a number of Stanford people who never played a sport who have endowed athletic scholarships.
4. All athletes recruited to Stanford are required to complete the formal application (which includes teacher recommendations, etc.). Granted that doesn’t seem like much, but - to the best of my knowledge - it’s the only D-1 school with that requirement. Ask Coach K how “difficult” the admissions process is for his players.... Ask a Harvard kid about the hockey team.
5. No Stanford graduate was particularly pleased with Sherman’s outburst, but that was a big boy football game. How many of us have a job that involves a three hour period of time being subjected to roughly 20 or so 30 mile per hour car crashes? Add to that the fact that the winner reaches the pinnacle of his profession, and I’m not sure I’d want a microphone in my face after such an emotional event.
6. Football players have a demonstrably shorter life expectancy. For my entertainment dollar, I think they deserve whatever money they get. If Sherman can transform this media barrage to a bigger paycheck or additional endorsement dollars, more power to him. I know the Seahawks owner is ecstatic about the increase in jersey sales.
7. No one seems too worried about Bill Belichick calling out Wes Welker for his play....
8. What’s wrong with a Communications degree? Harvard has “Folklore and Mythology,” and Yale has “Ethnicity, Race and Migration.”
9. Sportsmanship matters in high school and college. Once you become a professional athlete, the entertainment part is more important. To think otherwise is naïve.

Svigor said...

The guy has poor judgement and impulse control, and acted like the kind of guy that gets put into solitary confinement. The AFC and NFC championships were the first NFL games I watched all year; I wondered what other viewers tuning in for a quick bit of football took away from that.

Nobody who dips his toe in for a moment wants to see a chimpout. Or sits around and watches the post-game for the "full interview," or goes to the website for his brilliant writing, or the full context, etc. He's some guy who runs fast and catches a ball for a living.

Svigor said...

On a popular radio sports show here, a reporter who know the ins and outs of Stanford football was directed asked by the host if "kids" at Stanford liked Harbaugh. There was a pause, then a firm, "Not really, no, but they do, of course, respect his football knowledge and they like winning."

Harbaughs an asshole/hardass, depending on one's POV. He made that pretty apparent in his camera appearances during the game.

The only thing that surprised me about the game was the Seattle fans. After all the hype, I'd expected more from them. At least it was a lot more fun to watch than the Patriots/Broncos stinker.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I’m guessing Sherman didn’t take an SAT prep course...If one assumes preparing for the SAT adds 200-300 points...
1/22/14, 9:26 AM

--------------------

*snorts*

To be charitable, I'll give you the opportunity to prove that (1) he didn't take test prep. (Why would you consider that obvious? Blacks use it more than whites.)

And also that (2) you can "assume" an increase of 300 points. Why assume that Sherman didn't get the prep, and would've gotten that increase?

Anonymous said...

>>Ben Tillman said:
"Andrews is like a lot of names. It may exist in Britain and among British-Americans, but anyone who has that name and is the public eye is likely to be Jewish."


And that is as much a bigoted statement on the level of "all black people are criminals". ALL? Every single one with that surname? (which ORIGINATED in SCOTLAND) Scotland's patron saint, is St. Andrew. St Andrew's golf course, is in Scotland.

It is a British-Celtic name. US has a sizable Scottish contingency that immigrated from Scotland during the 17, 18, and 19th centuries.



>>"And Andrews is an old and prominent name among Jews in the Southern US"

Again, it's something. Lets speak frank and drop the deceptions. If there are Jews with that surname (and very few Jews are from Scotland btw) then that simply means they anglicized whatever Eastern European names they originally had INTO that name. Andrews = Scottish (as in WASP)
Maybe it was Andrewski or Andreshevsky or something along those types of lines.


Also what is overlooked is that the total number of Jews in America has never exceeded 2-3%, which means that there are tons named Andrews who are....WASP (of Scottish origin).


>>"Prospering as a Memphis merchant, Andrews was involved in cotton, banking, and brokerage""


AHA! You went there. You went there.

FACT: Of history. There are Jews who immigrated to the South before the Civil War, and many prospered.

FACT: The South's ENTIRE economy was slave based and/or directly tied to Slavery.

FACT: Only reasonable and rational conclusion to come to: Jews living in the Antebellum South benefitted from slavery.

FACT: Some Jews owned slaves. No one wants to mention that unpleasant fact but a fact nevertheless.

FACT: Jews owned slaves AND/OR directly benefitted from the slavery economy during the antebellum era.

FACT: ANY and ALL Southerners who made their money during the antebellum era (circa 1650-1865) and this includes Jews who lived in the South, did so because of slavery. Either thru owning slaves, plantations, directly involved in the slave trade, slave market, and/or profited in the economy which was entirely slave based.

FACT: IF you say "well they all did it" you make the point that they were not any special or more noble ethical or just during that historical period.

Anonymous said...



>>"Erin Andrews looks Jewish""

This is bigoted if not racial type of statement. No one "looks" Jewish. Although, granted that 99% of Jews in US are white and that it is a white majority faith.

From a scientific view, a person resembles a female or a male. They resemble a particular racial identity. That's about it.

Anything else is nurture, society, and thus subjective feelings (stereotypes) and thus not based upon scientific objective facts.

I say, that she does NOT "look" Jewish. She looks white and looks like she is a woman. Anything else is not based on demonstrable fact.





<<"has a Jewish name"

Andrews is a Scottish surname. It originated in Scotland. Perhaps there are Jews who anglicized or gentilized their original ethnic surnames to be sure.

But Andrews is a Scottish surname. The patron Saint of Scotland is Andrew.



>>"and has reportedly said she's Jewish."

Never found that alleged statement. At best, perhaps she converted.

ALSO, I notice that you had nothing to say regarding the other sideline reporter from Ohio

Allie laForce. Or are you going to argue that Allie is a jew as well without any direct evidence?


But you did make an interesting point, though perhaps unintentional and that is that Southern Jews directly benefitted and participated in slavery. They owned slaves, a fact. They participated in the slave trade during the antebellum era.

Facts are facts whether we like them or not. Remember: The entire southern economy pre Civil War was totally based on slavery. There was no other way to make a profit in the South during the antebellum era (1650-1865) without directly involving slavery. That's a fact. So there were Jewish slave owners and slave traders.




>>"What more do you want?"


That Andrews is a Scottish name, that's an historical fact. The only way is if some Jews decided to anglicize their original name to that.

But Andrews is a Scottish (WASP) surname.



You have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

I don't care that he called out some other player. You don't threaten to shut a woman's mouth. And you especially don't do it if you're a big black guy talking to a white woman. People are clearly worried that they'll be "playing into" the idea of black men hurting white women, but you know what? Sometimes stereotypes develop for a reason.

Anonymous said...

>>""Anonymous said...
I’m an apologist for Stanford, so that’s my disclaimer. Graduate, former athlete, former admissions officer (briefly), still in the Bay Area and reasonably close to the athletic department."


Good for you. I'd expect more pride and honor when defending a prestigious Alma Mater such as Stanford, one of the few West Coast schools that can compete with the Ivies in terms of academics alone.


1. As a private institution, Stanford does whatever it wants. I can vouch for the fact that there aren't many kids from any inner city environment at Stanford, so when you get a kid like Sherman who is close academically - and can handle the cultural differences - you grab him.


The only reason you "grab" him is because Stanford wants to win. Only reason. FACT: If a non athlete had the same test score and IQ then Stanford would NOT grab him. In other words they make exceptions for special admits cause spec. ads help put money and profits into the athletic dept. Facts are facts. We're not children, so man up and say it.




"" I’m guessing Sherman didn’t take an SAT prep course or have college counselors emphasizing the PSAT or AP courses. If one assumes preparing for the SAT adds 200-300 points, then you’re looking at a 1200."


This is total BS. IQ determines these things. There has been NO credible study that has proven that you can raise your test scores hundreds of points. It doesnt matter in Sherman's case. He's a special admit. Be man enough and admit it. He didn't have to try and raise his grades, he knew he was in cause Stanford heavily recruited him! Come on.







>>""Still in the lower range, but think about the kids of Type A+ parents in Silicon Valley/Manhattan/Bel Air who spend thousands on prep courses and outside college counseling."


What is it with athletes that makes people go ga ga? You don't want to sleep with him, right? It's the money factor, obviously. Sherman and athletes like him are NOT there for their smarts. They're there to play and put profits into the athletic dept and ultimately into the University's alumni giving fund.








>>"3. Stanford makes allowances each year for faculty/staff kids and donors, not just athletes."

Now we get to it. EVERY Div 1 and 2 and 3 for that matter makes allowances for their athletes.

"they all do it to" is not an answer, its an excuse. Athletes historically and right now currently are STiLL the inferior (for the most part on the whole in the two biggest NCAA sports) students. They are not there for their smarts or IQ or grades etc. They're there for the lottery ticket into the NBA and NFL. That's it!

At least alumnus of wealthy donors and legacies are there plausibly for a reason. Example: Bill Gates kids decide to attend Stanford, its fairly reasonable to assume that they probably could do well enough AND will go on to prestigious careers.

Anonymous said...

""That said, they strictly toe the line when it comes to assurances that the kid can do the work and graduate. The same goes for athletes."


Now that's a lie. That last part...is a lie. The same does NOT go for athletes. But then you have to say that to maintain the fiction. Ever hear of one and done in the NBA? Stanford doesnt stop their players from leaving and going into the draft.

Steve has highlighted a story before on colleges who have a wide discrepancy between their athletes and non athletes. UCLA was the worst offender. Stanford is somewhat in the middle.

Credit given: Stanford usually does not stoop so low and grab the special admits that the SEC and East Coast schools do. That said, it could conceivably change over time depending upon whether or not they want to continue to compete at the championship level with the other conferences who are under no compunction whatsoever to recruit special admits who cant spell their own names. Stanford at present has not sunk to those depths. But give it time, give it time and we shall see.

Anonymous said...

>>""All athletes recruited to Stanford are required to complete the formal application (which includes teacher recommendations, etc.). Granted that doesn’t seem like much, but - to the best of my knowledge - it’s the only D-1 school with that requirement. Ask Coach K how “difficult” the admissions process is for his players.... Ask a Harvard kid about the hockey team."


Ok, this is so laughably ludicrous and unreality based as to...just stop.

FACT: There are wide discrepancies between athletes (football and basketball) and non athletes on campus in their IQs and grades.

FACT: I remember reading that STANFORD has a SPECIAL COURSE BOOK ONLY FOR ATHLETES. IT detailed which classes (read easy, no difficulty) to take and these are totally closed to non-athletes.

I don't blame Stanford for this per se. It is naive to assume that nearly all Div 1 schools dont have a similar policy in place for their athletes.

If schools such as Stanford and other Div 1 schools really had to abide by the penalties of the NCAA rules where a student can lose his eligibility if his GPA dips below a certain number then that would result in no championship, bowl game, and less money given by the alumnus.

The stakes are high and schools are doing whatever it takes to win and to keep their heavily recruited athletes on the field so that the money and profits to the school continue unabated.


But do NOT patronize us that athletes at Stanford or anywhere else are NOT ever ever given special treatment. They are.

Stanford had (perhaps still does) special classes that are reserved only for their athletes. They are closed to the rest of the campus. The classes exist ONLY and SOLELY for the reason of helping their special admits maintain their eligibility.


Again, other schools have been caught. UNC's recent scandal with athletes taking bogus classes to maintain their eligibility speaks volumes as well. Stanford's not the only one cheating to help its special admits. But they are indeed involved in the deception of maintaing the fictitious canard of "student" athlete.

You get what you special admit.

Svigor said...

This is bigoted if not racial type of statement. No one "looks" Jewish.

Lol, what a load of horseshit. You sure you got the right blog?

Anonymous said...

>> No Stanford graduate was particularly pleased with Sherman’s outburst, but that was a big boy football game. How many of us have a job that involves a three hour period of time being subjected to roughly 20 or so 30 mile per hour car crashes? Add to that the fact that the winner reaches the pinnacle of his profession, and I’m not sure I’d want a microphone in my face after such an emotional event.""


Seriously, are you part of this Sherman's PR? Sounds as if you're an agent of his or...never mind.

Do continue...



>>"Football players have a demonstrably shorter life expectancy."


And the point is...? Or there isnt one. Gotcha.





>>"For my entertainment dollar, I think they deserve whatever money they get. If Sherman can transform this media barrage to a bigger paycheck or additional endorsement dollars, more power to him. I know the Seahawks owner is ecstatic about the increase in jersey sales.""


Now come, come now. Lets be fully honest here and full disclosure.

You're also pleased because from a Stanford position, players like Sherman give additional revenue to Stanford's merchandise as well. Depending on how Sherman's NFL career pans out, Stanford can sell his NCAA jersey for...forever. He will always be indelibly linked to Stanford and that's additional money at no cost to the school. Stanford could even do a retro thing one day and sell Sherman's jersey as part of the schools retro all time greats series. Money in the bank.

Example: USC was selling OJ Simpson's Trojans jersey up until the unpleasantness occurred. If he had never been indicted they still would be seling it. Other schools do the same thing. They sell their biggest historical stars jersey decades and decades into the future cause its money in the bank and it also says to various fans and young players "See? he played at Stanford here first and made it to the NFL. Play with the Cardinals and one day just maybe the Cowboys will draft you."







Anonymous said...

>>"What’s wrong with a Communications degree? Harvard has “Folklore and Mythology,” and Yale has “Ethnicity, Race and Migration.”"


Now just stop. This is not the 1950s any longer. USA today and other newspapers indepth analysis have uncovered the term called "clustering" among athletes, perhaps you are familiar with it?

Clustering = athletes 'cluster' or group together in a few majors carefully selected by their coaches and athletic department heads and counselors. These majors are "suggested" to the athletes on the sole basis that from an academic standpoint they are very easy, require very little work, and most importantly will help the athlete maintain his eligibility.

Among the various majors that the schools have been found guilty of their athletes clustering in:

1. Communications
2. Sociology
3. Criminal Justice

In some conferences, athletes up to 60% major or cluster around these few fields. Whereas the vast majority of their fellow non athletic students don't major in these disciplines.

Why is that???

All we have to do is a computer check: If 40% of Stanford's athletes are majoring in sociology, and only 3% of its non-athletic students are majoring in sociology, what's that tell you?

ANSWER: The athletes' counselors are telling them to chose this major so as to avoid any hard work and potential risk to their eligibility.

IF athletes were/are a legitimate representation of their schools, then they should be chosing majors in the same proportion as the rest of the campus.

Example: Suppose that 40% of Stanford's undergrads major in 3 disciplines, pre-med; computer science; biochemistry. We should expect to see this percentage equally represented among their athletes. But we never do. Why? Answer is because clustering is taking place.

Clustering isn't illegal. It's a way for athletes to survive.

I'd be more impressed if Sherman had majored in a STEM field (STEM disciplines as everyone knows are one of Stanford's nationally renowned fields) or biochemistry. But he didnt and most athletes (basketball and football primarily) seldom ever do. Why?
Because the majors are too challenging, time consuming, and the athlete risks losing eligibility.

Dave Pinsen said...

Crabtree also put his hand on Sherman's face mask after the play and shoved him.

Incidentally, I just saw a live press conference where Richard Sherman answered questions. He was well-spoken and genial.

Anonymous said...

>>"9. Sportsmanship matters in high school and college. Once you become a professional athlete, the entertainment part is more important. To think otherwise is naïve.""




Now THAT is naive. The business of sports begins earlier and earlier now. High school sports are big business for the schools and it is beginning to trickle down to the middle school level as well.

College athletics is billions a year and for the top Div 1 schools and this would obviously include Stanford it is worth sizable profits. NCAA is a sacred cash cow that can't be gored and must be maintained no matter the costs.


FACT: In high school and NCAA there are athletes who are juicing. Taking steroids. What exactly is good sportsmanship about that?

FACT: In high school the nations best recruits are showed with incentives (free inducements to come play at the school) in addition to the totally paid scholarship they receive. These athletes are given forms of endorsements by McDonalds, Nike, Gatorade, etc. IN HIGH SCHOOL.

FACT: The NCAA still has several abuses that it appears not yet willing to correct. They want to keep their cash cow of profits most of which goes to the athletic dept. Those two sports, basketball and football, absorb the loses incurred by all the rest of the campus sports and help subsidize each year those sports. They help the rest of the sports stay in business, so to speak.

But sportsmanship? That stopped a long time ago.

As the Great All Time NBA Center Bill Russell used to say "ALL athletes have been on scholarship.....since the third grade."

Steve Sailer said...

Compton Dominguez has lots of Division I football prospects, but Sherman was the first in a dozen years to be offered a scholarship by Stanford. The testing evidence and his high school and college grades suggest he has a 3-digit IQ.

The question I'm interested in is whether coach Jim Harbaugh significantly lowered standards at Stanford for recruiting football players or whether he actually did get a bigger share of the 3-digit-IQ football star cohort -- e.g., Andrew Luck, Toby Gerhart, that pre-med who played both offense and defense, etc. -- the way Duke appears to do well among 3-digit-IQ basketball players.

Dave Pinsen said...

Andrew Luck was impressive in his playoff loss against Manning. He's going to be a great NFL QB.

Anonymous said...

>>Steve Sailer said...
""Compton Dominguez has lots of Division I football prospects, but Sherman was the first in a dozen years to be offered a scholarship by Stanford. The testing evidence and his high school and college grades suggest he has a 3-digit IQ."



So this is now the standard, whether or not an NCAA athlete attending school has in fact a three digit IQ? What about the non-athletic student body? May we also assume that they too have a 3 digit IQ? It cuts both ways.


3 digit IQ, perhaps. The question is, is it high enough for Stanford? And the answer would appear to be no.

All we have to do, is ask the question. If a non athlete student applied to Stanford with Shermans IQ; HSgrades; test scores etc. would they in fact gain entrance into Stanford? Answer: No.

IF someone wants to say "Yeah, but that non-athletic student needs to have something more on the ball equivalent to being an amazing US HS top recruit pick." Fine. Suppose this non-athletic student applicant to Stanford has participated in scientific pre-med research at the age of 17?

Obviously this would in fact be the academic equivalent of a non-athletic student. Someone who's an "Einstein" in his field. HOWEVER, once we admit to that, then we have to close the circle and say "But of course, if THAT kind of non-athletic applicant did apply to Stanford, he'd most likely have the IQ and grades and test scores well beyond the minimum Stanford requirement."

So see? Special treatment will always be given to the lower IQ athlete whereas the top recruited academic non-athletic student HAS TO and MUST obviously have the IQ and grades and smarts to go with the total package if he even expects a looksie at getting into such as school as Stanford.

So: For the Richard Shermans of the world. You can slack off in smarts; tests; grades; IQ can be well below average for the required. You're vital to our allumni fund and athletic depts. You count.

But for non-athletic student who doesnt have the required smarts, IQ, tests, grades etc to make it into Stanford? There's the door. State schools down the road and to the left. There's always Cal-Irvine for you.

Don't call us....because we certainly aren't gonna call you.







The question I'm interested in is whether coach Jim Harbaugh significantly lowered standards at Stanford for recruiting football players or whether he actually did get a bigger share of the 3-digit-IQ football star cohort -- e.g., Andrew Luck, Toby Gerhart, that pre-med who played both offense and defense, etc. -- the way Duke appears to do well among 3-digit-IQ basketball players.

Anonymous said...

>>Steve Sailer said:
"'The question I'm interested in is whether coach Jim Harbaugh significantly lowered standards at Stanford for recruiting football players or whether he actually did get a bigger share of the 3-digit-IQ football star cohort."



Also, lets not forget that Compton is still Compton. Its not the academic counterpart of Harvard-Westlake, right? Its still a school with various "problems" (metal detectors, discipline problems etc) so just the fact that Sherman avoided those pitfalls speaks volumes. But as he himself said, he was woefully unprepared for his incoming freshman yr from an academic standpoint.

So a question well asked would be: Which HS would better prepare one for Stanford all things considered? Harvard-Westlake, or Compton???

Wouldn't Harbaugh have to take orders from the Athletic Dept head? Dont the ADs usually call the shots on which players can be recruited? At least in theory anyway since it's their dept that reaps most of the profits.

Of course these are just the starters. What about the scrubs? Those on the roster who just sit on the bench and never play a single down their entire NCAA career? Are they special admits as well?

There you might be able to skimp and not draft special admits for subs. since they're not going to play anyway and just draft players who most likely will go on to major in legitimate fields as opposed to clustering like special admits.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I just watched that ESPN piece on Sherman on YouTube. The level of sophistication in the DB play is amazing. I would say very few people-- even diehard NFL fans-- can appreciate the sophistication of the game. Lombardi would have had all the respect in the world for Richard Sherman.

Dave Pinsen said...

"All we have to do, is ask the question. If a non athlete student applied to Stanford with Shermans IQ; HSgrades; test scores etc. would they in fact gain entrance into Stanford? Answer: No."

No, the answer is it depends: is the student a NAM, a legacy, the child of a wealthy donor, or some combination thereof?

IQ is not the only attribute that has value. Athletic ability has a value too. So do looks, for that matter.

I found out years ago that an attractive blonde woman with lower standardized test scores than me got accepted to a prestigious school that rejected me. Is that some kind of injustice? No. I may have been marginally smarter than her, but a smart and pretty woman can fill some roles in an organization better than me. Just like Richard Sherman could fill a role on the Stanford football team better than some kid with a 1400 SAT and a 5.6 second 40-yard dash time.

Steve Sailer said...

Of course, one well could argue that because Sherman is reasonably intelligent and well-educated, he should hold himself (and be held by others) to higher standards of behavior than those that are the norm for his 85 IQ colleagues. We shouldn't excuse worse than average behavior on his part on the grounds that "he does know better."

Anonymous said...

I think that the Stanford athlete-admits mostly do have 3-digit IQ's. However, recent stories suggests its Bay-area rival (Berkeley) has really stupid players on its football team.

It should be pointed out that a Stanford non-STEM degree is not a guaranteed entry to a lucrative career.

A friend's daughter graduated there with a soft-science degree, didn't get into med school, spent a few years teaching SAT prep and assisting home-births, and now is a house-wife.
(Luckily, she married a fellow Stanford grad with a Computer Engineering major who now is senior management at a Big_Time tech firm.)

Another colleague's son was basically an unemployed bum for a couple of years after his Stanford degree; not sure what he is doing now.


Anonymous said...

>>Dave Pinsen said...
"No, the answer is it depends: is the student a NAM, a legacy, the child of a wealthy donor, or some combination thereof?

NO, the answer is: NO. You're missing the overall. The Big Picture.

Who do you THINK are these legacies/wealthy donors of the Ivies and Stanford like schools? The janitors son? The McDonald's/Wal-Mart cashier?
Try again. Those folks are not only on the radar, it simply doesnt occur to them to apply to a two yr school much less Stanford.


FACT: The wealthy donors/legacies have already been in the pipeline, have the access and are well prepared (after a fashion) for Stanford since about age 5. THe top 1% economically prepare their kids for these schools.

Mark Zuckerberg. Once he starts having a few kids, its well possible that he will send one of them to Stanford, it's in his backyard so to speak. Plus, with his IQ and his fellow Harvard educated wife, its well likely that their offspring will do just fine at Stanford or an Ivy.

This myth....that ALL, ALL and every single one of the legacies offspring are stupid, idiotic (a la the wal-mart cashier/mcdonald's burger flipper, etc) is mostly a canard from hollywood films and pulp fiction. It isn't reality based, for the most part. A few jealous folks in the 2nd tier level who thought they should be admitted to Stanford-like schools and didnt, they take out their aggression in



TRANSLATION: Oftentimes we get our stereotypes from passed over people in the top 2% who have a personal vendetta vs the top 1% (e.g. why didnt they recognize true talent and let me in their club?etc) they have an ulterior motive, so to speak. And so they help to popularize (perhaps unconsciously) people's attitudes about the top 1%.

"don't go to that Stanford school, it's really not all that and its just full of rich snobs."--That attitude often comes from those who didn't quite make it in or couldn't cut the mustard during brief time there.

If those schools aren't all that, then why do the top 1% continue to send their kids there? If attending Stanford isn't all that, why go there when you could simply go to a two year school and get that associate degree? If all schools in quality are the same with no difference then it doesnt matter, right?

EVEN among NCAA Div 1, this attitude isn't followed. Everyone knows that attending a Div 1 school in the NCAA will all but guarantee an athlete's chances for getting to the NBA or NFL and they don't waste their time on Div 3 or a 2yr college.

Bottom line: The offspring of the top 1% are well prepared by age 5 to attend the schools that they do. They're already in the pipeline and they meet the right people. They have the access. They're being groomed for attending the right school.

What seldom happens is the hollywood ideal where Bill Gates the third says "No what grandpa? I don't wanna go to Harvard or the equivalent. I'm MUCH RATHER attend DeVry or U of Phoenix and get my degree in two years. I LOOVVEEE DeVry. It's a cool campus and they have great teachers."

Does that happen? In the real world, does that really every happen?

NO!





IQ is not the only attribute that has value. Athletic ability has a value too.


Canard. IQ is the ONLY thing that matters in the classroom. It still remains the best predictor of academic success. The Bell Curve pretty much established this aspect of intelligence.

IF IQ wasn't all that, why would the armed forces still administer their IQ based tests?

In the NFL at least, there has long been via the Wonderlich test (IQ based) an IQ component.

Bottom line: IQ matters in the classroom. Period. And no, Mitt Romney the third, Obama's kids, Zuckerberg's offspring will NOT be attending state school in Huntsville Alabama or down in the swamps of Tallahassee Florida.

Sorry to disappoint, but they've got a full time career (one with total access) to attend to.

Anonymous said...

I may have been marginally smarter than her, but a smart and pretty woman can fill some roles in an organization better than me.

Spoken like a true beta.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 12:11 PM said: And that is as much a bigoted statement on the level of "all black people are criminals". ALL? Every single one with that surname?

Hunsdon said: Reading is fundamental. Ben Tillman said anyone who has that name "is likely to be Jewish."

(Same?) Anonydroid at 12:12 PM said: No one "looks" Jewish.

Hunsdon said: Harvey Weinstein? Ariel Sharon? Rachel Weisz? Really? Is this just a Jewish thing, or does no one "look" English? Or Somali? (I'll spot you Sammy Davis Jr. as a convert.)

Same Anonydroid said: There was no other way to make a profit in the South during the antebellum era (1650-1865) without directly involving slavery.

Hunsdon asked: Is this true for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker? Do you deal in sweeping generalities, or is it a sideline?

Gringo said...

Richard Sherman, while a loudmouth,was a good student at a high school where being a good student was not a popular thing to do. That takes some guts. No, he isn't a Mensa candidate, but he appears to have used his mind more than most professional athletes.

Just wish the Pats had drafted him.

the question answers itself said...

The unstudied but much discussed group (measured in the mid-five figures) of "high-IQ" Stanford grads of the last 30 years, just like the unstudied but much discussed group of the thousands of American athletes roughly as good as or better than Sherman from the last 30 years (also measured, by those who know, in the five figures, to include winners and non-winners of quickly forgotten Dorito-selling championship games), are similar in that each group contains very few people who have done much to make the world a better place, unless they took on the non-fungible and hard job of taking good care of their family, those they loved, or the poor. Does indulging oneself in "roid rage" or "vengeful trash talk" on national TV help in such a goal? The question answers itself.

Dave Pinsen said...

"Who do you THINK are these legacies/wealthy donors of the Ivies and Stanford like schools?"

You think the children of the wealthy all have high IQs? Ever heard of reversion to the mean?

"IF IQ wasn't all that, why would the armed forces still administer their IQ based tests?"

The armed forces would have taken Sherman too.

Anonymous said...

>>Hunsdon said...


Are you sure it's you, really YOU saying this? But do continue then...

>>"Hunsdon said: Reading is fundamental. Ben Tillman said anyone who has that name "is likely to be Jewish."


Hunsdon, Hunsdon, Hunsdon. That's what was answered. TILLMAN was using generalities to make a claim that a WASP oriented (Scottish or Celtic-British) surname is likely to be or the majority of those wearing those surnames are going to be Jewish. What was stated is....Bull. There is no direct proof of that, and THAT is a generality. I'm not going to further generalize this by stating that I know several WASPs surnamed Andrews (although I do) because that would be generality based, much as what Tillman was doing.

By the way....PAT Tillman,....was NOT Jewish. Might want to think over that one. NOT That Ben Tillman himself is claiming any Jewish ancestry either way, BUT it is interesting to note that merely wearing the name Tillman does not equate to jewish ancestry.

LARGER QUESTION: Did I ever claim that you can't tell Jewish ancestry by surnames? Answer: Of course not. BUT...in this particular instance, Andrews, it is not a slam dunk. Try another surname and I'll most likely agree.





>>""(Same?)"

Same what???



>>""Hunsdon said: Harvey Weinstein? Ariel Sharon? Rachel Weisz? Really? Is this just a Jewish thing, or does no one "look" English? Or Somali? (I'll spot you Sammy Davis Jr. as a convert.)



AGAIN, try reading what was stated. Those examples are mere stereotypes. AGAIN, WHAT exactly constitutes what a Jew "looks" like? Answer: There is NO direct example for 100% accuracy. Or even 66% accuracy. Or 50%; 33%; 25%; etc. etc. There's no scientific way to prove it based on "looks". People may THINK they can "guess" based on various nurture based stereotypes, but in the end, these are mere guesses.

Perhaps they are making guesses basd on a stereotypical mediterranean, swarthy, mid eastern look, but who can really say. It is entirely subjective.


Somalis are NOT Jews. They tend to mostly be Arab and Islamic. You know that already though. These Samali pirates a few yrs back that attempted to raid a US naval ship...they were also ISLAMIC. But you already knew that one.


FACT: Especially since US Jewry is roughly 99% white. US Judaism is more caucasian persuasion based than even Mormonism. (The LDS now contains a significant percentage of Pacific Islanders, which is certainly more than we can say for Jews)



Anonymous said...


>>"Hunsdon asked: Is this true for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker? Do you deal in sweeping generalities, or is it a sideline?


Hunsdon, Hunsdon. I deal in FACTS. The butcher, baker, candlestick maker were NOT super wealthy in antebellum Southern society. ALSO, we cannot assume point blank that these jobs were majority Jew based.

The butcher and the baker didn't ship out the meat, they had to in those days, do it yourself so to speak. Towns were quite small especially in the Southern states thus butcher/baker tended to be home based (as in FARM based. As in living on small farms) Aside from SLAVE based Ports (e.g. Baltimore; Atlanta; Savannah; N.Orleans; etc) most Southerners lived on subsistence family farms. We also know that the vast majority were WASPS. Verry few Jews resided on farms (then as now) and they were not living in the Appalachian mts.

THEREFORE: Since Jews in Antebellum society tended to reside in towns and the few southern cities (small in population compared to the North and certainly small in population when compared to now) and since we know that most of the Southern cities served as:
Slave Ports
Slave Markets (buying and selling, something which was localized as well as small business run, in fact one of the most significant small businesses throughout the south in ante bellum era was the Slave markets. DC's slave market was public and existed until the 1850s when it simply became less public so as not to offend Northern sensibilities)

FACT: The entire Southern economy during the antebellum era was directly based entirely on SLAVERY. This is basic historical fact 101.

FULL DISCLAIMER: NO ON HERE is attempting to bash the South. Simply stating a fact of history.

Mega farming a la Agro com did not exist. Farms were quite small. Think Little House on the Prairie. This is largely the reason why the south, once the region's land was strategically divided during the civil war nearly starved into surrender. Their supply lines were completely devastated. They didnt have the numbers of people a la the North, nor did they have a diverse economy.

WHY did they soooo want so desperately to have England as an ally? They depended on the Brits for finished goods in trade. The South would trade with Britian their cotton and in return Britian would trade to the south finished goods.

By the mid 19th century the North didn't have this problem. Their economy was industrial based and they were leaving the south economically behind so to speak. It would be decades and decades post Civil War for Dixie to catch up.

Bottom line: Dixies entire economy was slave based. Basic fact of history. But I sincerely doubt you didnt know this nor did you really care.

Only thing that didnt want said was that if Jews living in the South prospered then they directly benefitted in some way from the slavery system.

This isn't intended as a put down. It's a fact. Accept it and move on. No one living back then could have it both ways "(I'm rich but I didn't make a single dollar off of slavery in any single way, and yet I've lived my whole live in the slave region") That is simply impossible.

And as Mr Spock might say...."Simply Illogical".

Dave Pinsen said...

"Spoken like a true beta."

Yes, because only a beta would acknowledge the utility of smart, attractive women. Very alpha of you to comment anonymously, btw.

Anonymous said...

>>Dave Pinsen said...
""You think the children of the wealthy all have high IQs? Ever heard of reversion to the mean?"


Uh....yes I do since I use basic common sense, a trait that does appear to be sorely lacking these days.

Children of the wealthy have a much much higher starting point or base line than do the children of...oh, say wal-mart cashiers; food stamp recipients; criminal and serial rapists; uh....certainly higher than....say...drug dealers. You get the point.

Example: These 85 or 90IQ people that Steve sometimes remarks upon.

Lets use as an example, Rachel Jeantel. Now then. If Rachel should have a child one day, even allowing that the child has a higher IQ than she does, how high would it be? High enough for Stanford? Child, please.

Suppose Rachel's child's IQ is lower and reverts to the mean? That would make it even worse.

See? Works both ways.

Reversion to the mean...you have to look at the family tree's particular individualized familial mean.

Example that Steve has written about. Darwin's offspring and Galton's kids as well as Aldous Huxley's kids.

Ever notice that most if not all those offspring from these famous historical persons do appear to be doing quite well from either an educational or economic standpoint? Notice a pattern? Its staring us in the face.


For the opposite side: Rachel Jeantel's offspring that she may have one day. What exactly do you suppose from a realistic dispassionate assessment will happen to them? Will they deal drugs? Be in a gang? Be imprisoned or dead by age 25? The odds would suggest as much. If she has a girl, what profession would the girl take up? Prostitution? Work the counter at McDonalds? What exactly?

Look at the opposite side. The George Bushes of all various family lines. Tons of Harvard grads and politically well connected. Think that's just a mere happenstance, an accident, or fate??

Larger Point: Reverting to the IQ's mean for offspring, well, it does really depend upon which individual family you're talking about.

One advantage that the top 1% appear to have, and that is that they do still tend to actually marry their women. Aside from athletes and entertainers there are very few baby mommas within the top 1% as a whole. This makes it easier to follow the children and watch how they revert to whatever familiar mean that their family genetic IQs have.

In other words, its best to revert to George W or Mitt Romney's familiar IQ mean than it would be to revert to Rachel Jeantel's familial IQ mean.

QED



Hunsdon said...

I've listened to a few clips of Sherman speaking. While I wouldn't say he puts William F. Buckley in the shade, he is certainly leaps and bounds* above the typical athlete in terms of coherence and cogency.

(* ha ha, that's an HBD joke, try the veal, I'll be here all week)

Dave Pinsen said...

Rachel Jeantel is a non-sequitur. As Steve notes above, the evidence suggests Sherman has a 3 digit IQ. There are almost certainly non-athletes with similar IQs who have been admitted because they fit into one of the categories I mentioned previously.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 8:12 PM said: That's what was answered.

Hunsdon said: When Ben Tillman said "likely" you responded with "ALL? Every single one with that surname?" Whether "likely" means "probably" or "a reasonable chance" it certainly doesn't mean "all." To me, that indicated that you were eliding the question, attempting to mis-state what Ben Tillman said in order to discredit him.

If you meant something different, you should have written something different.

When I wrote (Same?) I was inferring that the same anonymous poster posted at 12:12 as had posted at 12:11.

Anonydroid said: Those examples are mere stereotypes.

Hunsdon said: Well shut my mouth.

Anonydroid said: Somalis are NOT Jews. They tend to mostly be Arab and Islamic. You know that already though. These Samali pirates a few yrs back that attempted to raid a US naval ship...they were also ISLAMIC. But you already knew that one.

Hunsdon said: Actually, I don't think most Somalis are Arab. Just as not all Arabs are Muslim, not all Muslims are Arab.

Anonydroid said: Try another surname and I'll most likely agree.

Hunsdon said: How about Stewart? (Jon Stewart.) What about Leibowitz? I don't know if Ben Tillman is Jewish, I never thought that Pat Tillman was Jewish.

Ball's in your court.

Reg Cæsar said...

Andrews is not particularly Scottish a surname. Basil Cottle placed it mainly on the southwest coast of England. Scots much preferred Anderson, along with Davidson, Robertson, Stevenson, and other long patronymics. (Wilson being a notable exception.)

Couldn't tell you if Erin's Andrewses are Jewish or not-- but "Erin" is definitely neither Scottish nor Jewish!

Gordon is an iconic Scottish name, but I've read that a full third of US Gordons are Jewish, possibly with some connection to Grodno. Irving is also quite Scottish. But if you run into an "Irving Gordon", that thing on his head is probably not a tam o'shanter.

Finally, this is what Cottle has to say about the name Sherman:

Sherman. See Sharman. But often also a respelt German-Jewish surname.

Anonymous said...

>>Dave Pinsen said...
""Rachel Jeantel is a non-sequitur."

No, she is certainly not. She is an example of the other end of the spectrum. As in, many many many of the opposite side of the bell curve are nearer to her than would be to say, Charles Darwin or Marc Zuckerberg.


>>As Steve notes above, the evidence suggests Sherman has a 3 digit IQ.

To which we say, "Yippy yigh yay, sing Polly wolly doodle all the day." So. What. It. Does. Not. Make. A. Flippin'. Bit. O'. Difference.

A whole entire 3 digit IQ, you say? Woop woop. Go out and celebrate cause automatically that means that Seattle's gonna hoist the Lombardi Trophy.

The question still remains: IS his IQ HIGH ENOUGH....for Stanford.

Answer: NO!



>>There are almost certainly non-athletes with similar IQs who have been admitted because they fit into one of the categories I mentioned previously.


Excepting perhaps for NAMs although this isn't a slam dunk either, since there conceivably could be a few NAMs who might be admitted based IQ. Possible.

But as to the other examples, NO, it isnt so. Bill Gates offspring? Not smart enough for Stanford when they have a few generations who attended Harvard? Come on.

Regarding the legacies and wealthy offspring of the 1%, I'm gonna quote myself here:

Reversion to the mean...you have to look at the family tree's particular individualized familial mean.

Example that Steve has written about. Darwin's offspring and Galton's kids as well as Aldous Huxley's kids.

Ever notice that most if not all those offspring from these famous historical persons do appear to be doing quite well from either an educational or economic standpoint? Notice a pattern? Its staring us in the face.


For the opposite side: Rachel Jeantel's offspring that she may have one day. What exactly do you suppose from a realistic dispassionate assessment will happen to them? Will they deal drugs? Be in a gang? Be imprisoned or dead by age 25? The odds would suggest as much. If she has a girl, what profession would the girl take up? Prostitution? Work the counter at McDonalds? What exactly?

Look at the opposite side. The George Bushes of all various family lines. Tons of Harvard grads and politically well connected. Think that's just a mere happenstance, an accident, or fate??

Larger Point: Reverting to the IQ's mean for offspring, well, it does really depend upon which individual family you're talking about.

One advantage that the top 1% appear to have, and that is that they do still tend to actually marry their women. Aside from athletes and entertainers there are very few baby mommas within the top 1% as a whole. This makes it easier to follow the children and watch how they revert to whatever familiar mean that their family genetic IQs have.

In other words, its best to revert to George W or Mitt Romney's familiar IQ mean than it would be to revert to Rachel Jeantel's familial IQ mean.

QED





There you go, free of charge. No problem, glad to do it and no, I gave it free of charge.

You have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

>>Reg Cæsar said...

Oh no, you tu Caesar? Er, et tu, Caesar? Oy Vey!



""Andrews is not particularly Scottish a surname."

But it does have a Scottish linkage. Cheney is also a Scottish surname but has origins in Wales, Southern England and Norman France, for example.

St Andrew of Scotland, St. Andrews golf course is located in Scotland so there is a linkage.


>>Basil Cottle placed it mainly on the southwest coast of England. Scots much preferred Anderson, along with Davidson, Robertson, Stevenson, and other long patronymics. (Wilson being a notable exception.)

Well, this certainly proves one thing and that quite clearly definitively. Southwest England is about as WASPish Gentile as you can possibly get, so to speak.




""Couldn't tell you if Erin's Andrewses are Jewish or not--""

And that's the thing. If it were the case it would be quite well known. She's definitely known for an off field incident but not that in particular.
Plus it's not enough that Bonnie Bernstein's one, nope, now they allll have to be.

""but "Erin" is definitely neither Scottish nor Jewish!"

True, true. Little surprised they haven't tried to appropriate that one as they have with Berlin, for example. Leads one to surmise there simply aren't very many Shamrock Bagels around.



""Gordon is an iconic Scottish name,"

Most indeed it is. And Andrew is a Scottish name as well (the first name) still maintain a linkage for surname else why name your national sport's chief golf course with a non Scottish name?



""I've read that a full third of US Gordons are Jewish, possibly with some connection to Grodno."

This makes my point exactly. They generally anglicized their surnames when they passed thru Ellis to make it easier. They wanted their names to sound somewhat WASPish.



""Irving is also quite Scottish. But if you run into an "Irving Gordon", that thing on his head is probably not a tam o'shanter.""


Same thing with Norman. It originated in France (by way of Scandinavia) but most first namd Normans are generally Jews.



""Finally, this is what Cottle has to say about the name Sherman:
Sherman. See Sharman. But often also a respelt German-Jewish surname.""


Or Yiddish-Jewish, but the point is taken. But remember, Gen. William T. Sherman was not Jewish. Was Scottish or Scotch-Irish among other things.

Sherman still remains a WASP surname overall but its not entirely common so it could go either way in US.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I see what is going on here!

Is anyone now trying after the fact to claim that Richard Sherman is Jewish?

Really?

Seriously?

Should we all try and tweet him about it to see if he responds??

Seriously?

Some people here are now trying to retroactively claim without any basis of fact that the NFLer is Jewish? And then go on to try and state "well, no wonder he made it into Stanford."

Seriously? Some here are trying to attempt to make that claim for him?

Wow, totally missed that one.

Steve Sailer said...

Well, he did coin the word "supercalifragalisticexpealidocious," didn't he?

Dave Pinsen said...

Yes, Rachel Jeantel is a non-sequitur, because we aren't discussing the admittance of someone of her (presumed) low IQ to Stanford. If Stanford admitted an 80 IQ football player, that would be wrong, because the player wouldn't be able to graduate. That wasn't the case with Sherman, who was clearly smart enough to graduate from Stanford. I bet he is also smart enough to comment more concisely than you.

Cail Corishev said...

I don't blame Stanford for this per se. It is naive to assume that nearly all Div 1 schools don't have a similar policy in place for their athletes.

Heck, the athletes at DIII liberal arts colleges get special treatment. Maybe not to the extent of the D1 guys who are expected to go on to the pros, but they still live better than the other students in a variety of ways.

I assume that every -- and I mean every -- scholarship athlete is getting some money/gifts under the table, that his grades are being inflated in some way if necessary, and that any crimes he commits short of murder will be covered up by the school and local media and cops if it's possible. There's no reason to think one particular institution is an exception to that.

I read I Am Charlotte Simmons and thought he had to be exaggerating about the corruption at our colleges. So I went looking for reviews, and mostly found people saying, "Yeah, I went to [prestigious school] and that's pretty much how it was. He might even have toned it down a little."

Cail Corishev said...

IF someone wants to say "Yeah, but that non-athletic student needs to have something more on the ball equivalent to being an amazing US HS top recruit pick."

I don't know the answer to this: if an applicant has Sherman's SAT scores and is not an athlete, but appears to be a genius at playing the flute or dance or something, does Stanford have a "special admit" for that student?

If the claim is that they admit some lower-IQ students who happen to have great talents in other areas which should be encouraged, and athletes fall into that category, then fine, but there should be other students in that category too. There are other things besides sports that you can be talented at without being book smart. If those kids aren't getting in and getting the special consideration that the athletes are getting, then it's obviously just about the sports -- and the sports money.

Anonymous said...

>>Dave Pinsen said...
""Yes, Rachel Jeantel is a non-sequitur, because we aren't discussing the admittance of someone of her (presumed) low IQ to Stanford.""

No, she is NOT a non-sequitur, we are discussing someone of ANY low IQ that does not measure up to Stanford's qualifications.

Sorry that you seem to have a problem with Rachael Jeantel as a symbol of the left side of the bell curve, but factually that would also include Richard Sherman since he does not measure up to Stanford's qualifications. He's a special admit and therefore Stanford lowered its bar so to speak to allow him admittance.




""If Stanford admitted an 80 IQ football player, that would be wrong, because the player wouldn't be able to graduate.""

IF Stanford allowed an any athlete with an IQ even of three digits say about 105, that athlete would STILL not be able to graduate from Stanford. According to Steve's article (and admittedly you have to dig further to find the particular charts) the charts show the wide and vast discrepancy between football and basketball students and non students. It shows the SAT and IQ average of each.

The IQ the average Stanford non-athlete student, was 110. The average IQ of Stanford's football and basketball athletes were around 99. THAT is totally unacceptable for Stanford.

Admittedly, this average is much higher than other NCAA DIV 1 schools (e.g. SEC comes to mind) but it is still at least for Stanford's standards of excellence totally unacceptable.


Anonymous said...


""That wasn't the case with Sherman, who was clearly smart enough to graduate from Stanford."

See, we technically dont really know that. DID he? His wonderlich test suggests 106IQ and that is NOT sufficient for Stanford. For the SEC, no question. Stanford and Ivies, no way. That means he's a special admit.

Remember, as a special admit he would be given special treatment that is unavailable to the rest of the student body. Some here remarked that his major was Communications and that is definitely a clustering major among athletes.

This jibes in with USA Today's investigative report few yrs back regarding athletes clustering around a few select majors in order to maintain their eligibility. Some of the more popular majors in all NCAA DIV 1 conferences for BB and FB athletes which strong demonstrate clustering, were:

1 Communications
2 Sociologiy
3 Criminal Justice
4 Clapping to the music Er Music

ALSO, in the case of Stanford, there was revealed a couple years ago the existence of a "private" course book that was ONLY reserved for football and basketball players. These classes were totally closed to all but the FB and BB players. They were designed specifically for them in order to allow them to keep their eligibility.

Since we now know that Sherman's major was a very popular one that has found athletes clustering around throughout DIV 1 NCAA, perhaps its best not too go completely ga ga with boisterous hand clapping that this special admit "graduated".l

I begin to wonder if you are not his good friend, or perhaps assisted him in graduating or at least are a member of his PR team or his agent that you evince such an interest that this person is the 2nd coming of Mark Zuckerberg.

Lets see...

A special admit, who clustered around a semi-bogus major at a school while extremely prestigious, has been known to have a secret court book that is completely unavailable to the entire student body and is ONLY available to FB and BB students, strongly demonstrating that he more than benefitted from additional help (e.g. perhaps ringers taking tests for him? Perhaps answers fed to him in advance?) that is not available to the rest of the student body?

Yes, Rachel Jeantel and the rest of the left side of the bell curve is very, very much relevant and apt in this particular situation.

The overall point: Stanford is not beneath making an occasional Faustian Bargain: Winning or potentially winning NCAA championships in order to increase revenue to their athletic dept as well as increase funds from the alumni giving funds. If a few technicalities and additional special admits have to be granted access to Stanford, then so be it. While it may seem regrettable for mighty Stanford to allow such subterfuge among its "STUDENT"" Athletes, the end (profits, revenue, increased endowments in the future etc) more than justify the means.

I do not find fault with Stanford for this. Such is the way of the world and most every NCAA school participates in the deception. In this case, subterfuge is understandable.





""I bet he is also smart enough to comment more concisely than you.""


And that is a non-sequitor, but I'm sure that you, if you are indeed part of his PR firm and/or his agent, will see to that, I'm sure.

You have a nice day.

Svigor said...

FACT: Especially since US Jewry is roughly 99% white. US Judaism is more caucasian persuasion based than even Mormonism. (The LDS now contains a significant percentage of Pacific Islanders, which is certainly more than we can say for Jews)

US Jewry is mostly non-white. "White" being of entirely, or almost-entirely, European ancestry.

And the Judaism to Mormonism comparison is a non-sequitur; we're discussing blood, not religion.

And yes, there is such a thing as "Jewish looks." That's why I can take such accurate guesses. Much more accurate guesses than for other Caucasoid nationalities, btw.

Anonymous said...

>>"Svigor said...
""US Jewry is mostly non-white. "White" being of entirely, or almost-entirely, European ancestry.""


AGAIN, Judaism in US is almost ENTIRELY white. Wow, amazing how so many Jews feel soooo insulted to be called white. Have to remember that one down the road. "worst insult to call a Jew is 'you honkie cracker white dude!' Of all the things to call them, THAT one is the worst and takes the cake.

The rest, 2nd part, is a lie. Caucasians are also indigenous to Asia, hence the term CaucASIAN. DUH.

Not even almost entirely. NORTH Africa does in fact contain some native caucasians.



>>And the Judaism to Mormonism comparison is a non-sequitur; we're discussing blood, not religion.


Yes, we ARE talking blood. Mormonism is derived via blood (the orignal members of the noble 12 and the original 70 are all blood lines) AND water Baptism. Baptism in this regard, is similar to ancient Judaic Circumcision which was a visible outward sign that one was in fact a Jew and part of the racial bloodline.




>>And yes, there is such a thing as "Jewish looks."

And no, no, no...there simply is not. You and others may suppose and assume that some appear or "look" or resemble to be Jewish but point of fact is that modern science has relegated that pseudo-ness to the ash heap, along with alchemy and sexual astrological signs or whatever the ancient fads were in the pagans temple rites.




>>That's why I can take such accurate guesses.

And that's all they are...guesses.
"The wrong view of science constantly betrays itself in the desire to be right"---Economist and Philosher Karl Popper.

Popper's assessment of this childish nonsense was apt and it fits perfectly here.

FACT: We can no more "guess" our way into who and who isn't a Jew than we can "guess" who is a native Irishman. And Ireland has as many Irish/Gaelic members as the US does of Jews.



>>Much more accurate guesses than for other Caucasoid nationalities, btw.



Right, yes, of course. Sure.
Ok, now you are simply pulling my leg. Make him stop!

Svigor said...

AGAIN, Judaism in US is almost ENTIRELY white. Wow, amazing how so many Jews feel soooo insulted to be called white. Have to remember that one down the road. "worst insult to call a Jew is 'you honkie cracker white dude!' Of all the things to call them, THAT one is the worst and takes the cake.

The rest, 2nd part, is a lie. Caucasians are also indigenous to Asia, hence the term CaucASIAN. DUH.

Not even almost entirely. NORTH Africa does in fact contain some native caucasians.


Not sure what you're smoking, but I have no idea what you're on about. No, Jews are not remotely "entirely white." White = European, and the vast majority of Jews have substantial non-European ancestry.

Caucasian != white. Nobody means Arabs, Indians, west Asians, south Asians, north Africans, etc., when they say "white."

Yes, Jews are almost entirely Caucasian/Caucasoid. No, they are not almost entirely white.

Yes, we ARE talking blood. Mormonism is derived via blood (the orignal members of the noble 12 and the original 70 are all blood lines) AND water Baptism. Baptism in this regard, is similar to ancient Judaic Circumcision which was a visible outward sign that one was in fact a Jew and part of the racial bloodline.

Oh, nonsense. There are tons of secular Jews, agnostic Jews, atheistic Jews, non-observant Jews, etc. The Jewish community accepts them as Jews (e.g., never heard a Jew say Einstein wasn't a Jew) because Judaism is not what makes Jews - tribal membership is. Mormonism is what makes Mormons.

And no, no, no...there simply is not.

Yes, there is. My Jewdar is pretty durn good, actually.

And that's all they are...guesses.

Really accurate ones. Hence, the reality of Jewish looks.

Fella, Jews are just more inbred. That, plus their non-European ancestry, makes them relatively easy to spot.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 1:18 PM said: AGAIN, Judaism in US is almost ENTIRELY white. Wow, amazing how so many Jews feel soooo insulted to be called white. Have to remember that one down the road. "worst insult to call a Jew is 'you honkie cracker white dude!' Of all the things to call them, THAT one is the worst and takes the cake.

Hunsdon asked: Are you quite new here? Are you phrasing your arguments in the way you wish to? You seem to be thinking that Svigor is a) Jewish, and b) offended that someone would mistake him for a cracker.

Either you're trying to be funny, or you're making fundamental errors.

Anonydroid continued: Caucasians are also indigenous to Asia, hence the term CaucASIAN. DUH.

Hunsdon: Words fail me.

Anonymous said...

Exactly I personally love what Sherman did and painting him as a thug just don't fly.

Have folks checked out Colin Kapernick's Instagram? That's a thug or thug wannabe at least.

Anonymous said...

>>Hunsdon said...
""You seem to be thinking that Svigor is a) Jewish, and b) offended that someone would mistake him for a cracker.""


Unlike yourself and some others here, I don't assume anything. ASSUMING makes an ass out of you (perhaps not that difficult) and me (of which I prefer to avoid doing. Usually this is avoided by clear thinking and common sense) But do continue.

I was simply stating that perhaps Jews in general would be insulted at being called white. If it was implied that I was stating that the particular person was Jewish then that was my responsibility of which I correct here. It wasn't directly intended toward him per se.




>>Either you're trying to be funny, or you're making fundamental errors.


I wasn't trying to be funny. Simply stating facts. From a scientific standpoint, there is no such thing as a "Jewish" color or....biological race in the strictest term of the word as it is used.
Negroid; Caucasoid; Australiasoid; Mongoloid; but nope....no Judaicaoid or Jew-oid race. Sorry, but it simply isn't recognized by modern science any more than there is in existence a Gaelic-oid race or a Germanic-oid race or an Ibernian-oid race. These terms are non-existent and for good reason: They don't exist.





""Hunsdon: Words fail me."


Well, if common sense and facts fail you then must admit I'm not entirely surprised. Apparently there are people here (including you but not limited to you per se) who appear under this delusion that this Richard Sherman (the subject of this particular post) is some kind of exemplary former student of Stanford as well as being a near perfect representative.

Lets....state it here an now.


For the most part, unless people are avid Seattle; NFC's Western Division; Stanford Cardinals; or any other team of which Sherman played, chances are very good that most haven't a clue as to who he was BEFORE the postseason in particular AFTER his national interview on Sunday.

People just aren't interested in Cornerbacks in general even the best ones currently playing in the NFL.

FOR INSTANCE: Denver's Champ Bailey. He is a 12time Pro Bowler and has an excellent chance of making the HOF after his career. He is an excellent CB, BUT you dont generally hear tons and tons and tons of media coverage of Champ Bailey from a national standpoint. Granted, he will now receive some coverage since his teams in the superbowl and he'll do the obligatory media day.

But still. For the most part.......CBs in particular and Defensive players in general do not receive the amount of media coverage during the super bowl as compared to QBs WRs or even RBs.

I'll give the player this much: The fact that Richard Sherman deliberately inserted himself into the national conversation re:Super Bowl, NFL, etc etc means he is definitely meda savvy. He saw his opportunity and took it. Some have remarked on the similarities between him and media savvy HOFer Deion Sanders, who was/is quite adept at garnering media attention to himself.

The fact that Sherman is receiving more than QB Russell Wilson at the moment is something. Obviously this won't last but it is quite interesting and so one must conclude that Richard Sherman knows how to garner attention, not to the team but to himself.

Whether this leads to major endorsements is entirely up to him, agent, PR etc. Should he have a great game then most likely he will succeed in this area.

Anonymous said...

>>Anonymous said...
""Exactly I personally love what Sherman did and painting him as a thug just don't fly."


Don't miss what's happening. Sherman himself wants to be thought of in that way. HE wants it. He knows damn well that that's how you get the endorsements etc. He wants the image, the cred within the community etc.


Here's an interesting thing: NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE between how Richard Sherman is being portrayed (on the whole exactly the way he wants and he likes it) AND CONTRAST IT WITH...Miami's Jonathan Martin WHO ALSO ATTENDED STANFORD, he was Sherman's teammate!


QUESTION: WHICH PLAYER...is receiving the cred, the most respect within the black community at large?

We saw how it panned out regarding Martin. He was considered soft, sissy, effeminate, etc. NO ONE would think that Jonathan Martin didnt get into Stanford legitimately. His family tree more than gives him cred in that sense.

But Sherman? He is the idealized black NFLer in both worlds. For the whites, cause he attended Stanford (and some here even want to assume that he's smart smart smart enough for Stanford)

For the blacks, he has the cred because he plays a badass position, Cornerback. He's physical, trash talking, and backs it up on the field.

In other words, while his speech (relatively free of ebonics) will please the whites, his on field as well as "feud" with Crabtree (who is a known thug) gives him the legitimate cred that never has nor ever will be given to Jonathan Martin.

Perhaps Steve could do a post on this contrast.

2 Stanford grads (or at least one legitimate one) both in the NFL.

One was taunted and pittied.

The other does the taunting both verbally and physically and dares others to do something about it. AND he backs it up on the field.

Which one do NFL fans respect? In BOTH communities, WHICH ONE do both respect???

Sherman.

Very telling.

He knows what he's doing and is playing it for all its worth. "Not gonna put me in that category like you did with J. Martin!" He's saying. "I back it up al the time!" And yet he gets cred with whites cause he went to Stanford as opposed to an SEC school.

Interesting.

Nobody wants to be seen "acting" white in that community and Sherman just made sure that no one will accuse him of doing that, but since Stanford attended and reasonably spoken, he gets the white cred and ultimately their dollars.

Brilliant

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid: Caucasians are also indigenous to Asia, hence the term CaucASIAN. DUH.

Hunsdon: Please, if you have anything to support this, could you provide me with a link? Pretty please, with sugar on top? I would love to see a supporting cite. I'm begging you.

Anonymous said...

>>Hunsdon said...



Yes, I know what you said.

Caucaus mountain region is Western Asia; That region of all those Islamic "stan" nations. You know, Afghanistan; etc cities like Kabul; etc.

So is the middle east, by the way. Western Asia, but still Asia.


There's your sugar. Still waiting for YOUR proof that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Sherman has the IQ for Stanford. I know that he's such a "good friend" what with you constantly singing his praises and all, but well...go work in his PR because frankly this verbal fellatio of yours regarding his big IQ is getting a bit annoying to listen to.

You have a good day.

Anonymous said...

You don't have to look at Harvard's hockey team anymore. Since Tommy Amaker took over as basketball coach, they've been surprisingly competitive. I'm sure all of his athletes are potential Rhodes Scolars. Fight Fiercely, boyz.

Anonymous said...

>>Anonymous said...
""You don't have to look at Harvard's hockey team anymore. ""


Er, yes. Speaking of Harvard athletes, anyone still remember Harvard grad Jeremy Lin?

Lin graduated from Harvard with a respectable 3.5 in economics. The major is not as clustered for athletes as is Communications (Sherman's major); Sociology; Criminal Justice.

If Lin indeed were a special admit (highly unlikely) this is proving once and for all that what Ivies and Stanford consider to be special admits are quite, quite well suited for all the rest of the schools out there.

Remember: no on is claiming that Sherman couldn't ace or cut it in most colleges.

I'm saying he got into Stanford cause he was a special admit.

Jeremy Lin, however, probably could have gotten into Harvard legitimately on his own without major difficulty, perhaps.


And the other thing: 2 Stanford Grads and former teammates: Sherman and Jonathan Martin. Each one now in the NFL and each treated very differently by their peers.

Which one does both communities (black and white) respect the most? Which player is pitied an which player is respected?

Pretty much sums up how the black community views those legitimately smart bros whom it considers to be acting white.

Which player is respected, Martin or Sherman?

Which one?

The answer....is staring us...in the face.

Anonymous said...

If IQ mayter so much how come asian american kids on average have to score about 80 points higher on the sat than white kids to get into top ivies? The difference is about 40 points for uc schools.

Svigor said...

AGAIN, Judaism in US is almost ENTIRELY white. Wow, amazing how so many Jews feel soooo insulted to be called white. Have to remember that one down the road. "worst insult to call a Jew is 'you honkie cracker white dude!' Of all the things to call them, THAT one is the worst and takes the cake.

The rest, 2nd part, is a lie. Caucasians are also indigenous to Asia, hence the term CaucASIAN. DUH.

Not even almost entirely. NORTH Africa does in fact contain some native caucasians.


Not sure what you're smoking, but I have no idea what you're on about. No, Jews are not remotely "entirely white." White = European, and the vast majority of Jews have substantial non-European ancestry.

Caucasian != white. Nobody means Arabs, Indians, west Asians, south Asians, north Africans, etc., when they say "white."

Yes, Jews are almost entirely Caucasian/Caucasoid. No, they are not almost entirely white.

Yes, we ARE talking blood. Mormonism is derived via blood (the orignal members of the noble 12 and the original 70 are all blood lines) AND water Baptism. Baptism in this regard, is similar to ancient Judaic Circumcision which was a visible outward sign that one was in fact a Jew and part of the racial bloodline.

Oh, nonsense. There are tons of secular Jews, agnostic Jews, atheistic Jews, non-observant Jews, etc. The Jewish community accepts them as Jews (e.g., never heard a Jew say Einstein wasn't a Jew) because Judaism is not what makes Jews - tribal membership is. Mormonism is what makes Mormons.

And no, no, no...there simply is not.

Yes, there is. My Jewdar is pretty durn good, actually.

And that's all they are...guesses.

Really accurate ones. Hence, the reality of Jewish looks.

Fella, Jews are just more inbred. That, plus their non-European ancestry, makes them relatively easy to spot.

Anonymous said...

>>Svigor said:
""Not sure what you're smoking, but I have no idea what you're on about. No, Jews are not remotely "entirely white." White = European, and the vast majority of Jews have substantial non-European ancestry.""


Ziggy, I'm a non smoker unlike yourself, apparently. Jews are almost ENTIRELY white. What are they, black? Really? You're saying that Jews are of the Negroid race? I don't think so and not even the most open minded Jew will attest to that. They may be many many things but stupid is not one of them.

AGAIN. Whites = EUROPE, AND ASIA (Western Asia, the middle east); PARTS OF INDIA; PARTS OF AFRICA (as in NORTH); etc. They are not just found on the continent of Europe.
But keep trying, old boy, keep trying...




"Caucasian != white. Nobody means Arabs, Indians, west Asians, south Asians, north Africans, etc., when they say "white."""

Doesnt matter. From a scientific perspective that would be most accurate. Anyone who doesnt like it can go lump it.




""Yes, Jews are almost entirely Caucasian/Caucasoid. No, they are not almost entirely white.""

Uh..yes they are. Are they negroid? ANSWER: NO!
Are they Mongoloid (East Asia and South East Asia)
Answer: NO! Are they Australiasian? Answer: NO!

ERGO....they be white folks. Any way you slice, they're racially white.

Why do you have such a bugaboo about admitting Jews into the white club?

Cause IF....IF....IF.......you state that you can "tell" by "guessin" exactly WHO and who is NOT Jewish...THEN...you also have to be consistent and say that those folks be WHITE as well.

Bottom line: Judaism is by bloodline and and that blood (for the most part from DNA standpoint) is WHITE and that's right.


AGAIN. NON-EUROPEAN does NOT necessarily mean NOT WHITE. DONT FALL INTO Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan's "logic" reasoning along the lines of 'if ya'll ain't wearing no blue eyes an' blondie hair then you automatically be a brotha'

NO
NO
and...
NO

I think you're engaging in the leg pulling. Do stop.

And have a good day.

Notice you dont want to take up what the post originally was about, namely, Richard Sherman.

FOR INSTANCE: How come 2 Stanford grads in the NFL: Sherman and Jonathan Martin are treated very differently by their peers as well as by the black and white communities???

Any answer? Anyone?????

Both Stanford grads. Both NFLers. Yet both are receiving different treatment.

Why?
Why is that?

Anyone?




David said...

I love how some Jews boast they know almost instantly if a stranger is a Jew or a gentile, how an Italian can detect another Italian, how intelligent people gravitate toward each other even outside of Mensa, how gays have gaydar, but when someone says "that guy looks Jewish," a heated demand is made for an affidavit or for an explanation studded with scholarly cites.

Note also the double standard with names. If the name is Rothstein, we hear, "What's in a name? Could be an ethnic German." But if the name is Smith, we hear, "That isn't a Jewish name."

Anonymous said...

>>David said...
""I love how some Jews boast they know almost instantly if a stranger is a Jew or a gentile,...but when someone says "that guy looks Jewish," a heated demand is made for an affidavit or for an explanation studded with scholarly cites.""


You just contradicted yourself there. Guess the point is that every ethnic is "certain" that he can "most definitely" tell whether or not that that individual definitely belongs to a particular ethnicity and sometimes it happens to be their own.

The overall better point here would've been made stronger if you'd finished it with...."But as we all know....everyone is full of it since countless and tons of examples prove the exception. Thus its silly to try and claim a particular "-dar" regarding who and who isn't part of a particular ethnic (which are mostly of the caucasian persuasion."

That would've been the better point, which I just helped. You welcome.




""Note also the double standard with names.""

What double standard? Various ethnics have simply anglicized their names when passing thru Ellis Island in late 19thcent. Notice, John Smith and forebears of Geo. Washington and John Adams didn't anglicize their names when they stepped off the Mayflower (as well as few generations afterwards) they basically were content to keep what they had been named.

Self confidence in their identity as well as a natural confidence that they were forging a new ....e.g. terrority, nation, etc etc.

And there's a lesson to be learned from that, particularly from all the Sherman come latelys.

Speaking of Richard Sherman (which this post is about)...

You know how Vegas gives odds on Superbowl?

Would like to get a bet/wager going regarding Richard Sherman.

1. Did he really graduate from Stanford?
2. The major attributed to him, communications. Did he really choose it on his own or was he "persuaded" to chose one that many athletes have clustered around over all DIV1 NCAA Conferences.

True, true, not the ordinary Super Bowl wager but creative nonetheless.







Anonymous said...

>>David said

"But if the name is Smith, we hear, "That isn't a Jewish name." ""

Smith isn't a Jewish name, unless the person worked in Hollywood back in the early 20th cent.

Of course you don't find many US Jews today consciously anglicizing their surnames so that particular example is moot.

Anonymous said...

"I love how some Jews boast they know almost instantly if a stranger is a Jew or a gentile,...but when someone says "that guy looks Jewish," a heated demand is made for an affidavit or for an explanation studded with scholarly cites."

Same thing with 'gaydar'.

David said...

>You just contradicted yourself there.<

No. I said Jews can recognize gentiles.

>What double standard?<

"You can never tell from a name" vs. "That is not a Jewish name."

Anonymous said...

>>David said
""No. I said Jews can recognize gentiles.""

Sure they can. What color's the sky in your world that affords this magical non-scientific powers afforded to Jews? Answer: Non-existent.

Similar to "gaydar". perhaps there is some overlapping.





>>"You can never tell from a name" vs. "That is not a Jewish name."



NO, it's quite apt, period. You can't tell SPECIFICALLY whether or not a surname is automatically a "Jewish" surname, especially since vast majority of European surnames originated with Non-Jews who were indigenous to Europe.

For the most part, what Judaism has done is merely "Judaize" various surnames (or make them outright their own)

Example from Billy Wilder's stalag 17 "What was that man's name? You know, the one who STOLE HIS NAME FROM OUR CAPITAL...something or other Berlin."

You can't tell SPECIFICALLY if a surname is automatically Jewish (actually point of fact, if the surname's of European origin then it most likely did NOT originate among Judaism but among non-Jews since Europe was not originally indigenous to Jews per se.





So then:
1. Jews "borrowed" gentile surnames of European orign
or
2. Jews gave some surnames a few cosmetic touches to make them their own.

OK

NOW THEN. Notice how he does not or cannot competently address....RICHARD SHERMAN (what the post is about)

He attended Stanford and compare his treatment with that of former Stanford teammate Jonathan Martin.








Anonymous said...

>>Anonymous said...
"""I love how some Jews boast they know almost instantly if a stranger is a Jew or a gentile,...but when someone says "that guy looks Jewish," a heated demand is made for an affidavit or for an explanation studded with scholarly cites."

Same thing with 'gaydar"""


Yeah, that's true. Is there any overlap between gaydar and whether or not one's Jewish? Is there?
Of course there would have to be a significant percentage of gay Jews for it to be possible.

Svigor said...

Ziggy, I'm a non smoker unlike yourself, apparently. Jews are almost ENTIRELY white. What are they, black? Really? You're saying that Jews are of the Negroid race? I don't think so and not even the most open minded Jew will attest to that. They may be many many things but stupid is not one of them.

Again, I define white to mean European. Not as yet another word for "Caucasoid." Caucasoid means Caucasoid. I might as well ask you if you're arguing that Nilotics are white if you say that they aren't Bantu.

AGAIN. Whites = EUROPE, AND ASIA (Western Asia, the middle east); PARTS OF INDIA; PARTS OF AFRICA (as in NORTH); etc. They are not just found on the continent of Europe.
But keep trying, old boy, keep trying...


Nah. Nobody means Arab, North African, West Asian, South Asian, Indian, etc., when they say "white." They mean European.

Doesnt matter. From a scientific perspective that would be most accurate. Anyone who doesnt like it can go lump it.

Nah. "White" isn't a scientific term.

Why do you have such a bugaboo about admitting Jews into the white club?

Because it's not a club, and people don't get admission for asking nicely?

Bottom line: Judaism is by bloodline and and that blood (for the most part from DNA standpoint) is WHITE and that's right.

It might help if Jews were consistent about this. Better get them in line, first, and get back to me. They change their tune, according to which audience they're playing to; e.g., when they're playing to lefties, Jews claim to be "Diverse," and mention converts, Sammy Davis Jr., etc. Speaking of which, are the Ethiopian Jews really Jews, or not? Because if they are...if in fact any non-whites are real Jews, then "Jews are white" is obviously not a true statement.

Can't have it both ways.

Obviously Jewry is a tribe, which includes non-religious members, non-Caucasoid members, non-white members, etc. So it's really not accurate at all to categorically state they are white.