I recently saw the new movie Gone Girl staring Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike (spoiler alert). One of the characters is a Harvard grad who creates a fake identity as a working class person. While hanging out with working class friends, she accidentally drops a huge stash of cash on the ground, exposing the fact that she is much richer than she has been pretending to be. A little later, the two working class friends (a man and woman) show up at the Harvard grad’s apartment. They force their way in and start turning over furniture until they find all her cash and leave with it. The Harvard grad threatens to call the police, but one of the “friends” say something like “Lady, you’re hiding. I don’t what from, and I don’t care, but you ain’t calling no police.”
It was an interesting scene, because the Harvard grad had been placed at the top of society, artificially, by high SAT scores and the Ivy League caste system, but by making a dumb mistake in the real world (failing to hide her money) she was dominated by the Darwinian law of the jungle (might is right). In the end, nature always wins.
In reminded me of an episode of The Sopranos where Carmela (the wife of mobster Tony Soprano) wants to get their daughter into an elite school. She turns to a neighbor (who has a sister who works as a professor at the elite college) to ask if her sister can pull some strings. The neighbor dodges the question by saying something like “with your daughters great grades and SAT score, she doesn’t need my sister’s help getting in.” But Carmela explains that these days, elite colleges are so competitive that high grades and high test scores are not enough.
So reluctantly, the neighbor phones her professor sister to try to get her to write a letter of recommendation for Carmela’s daughter. Absolutely not, responds the professor, explaining that it’s a prestigious college so they can’t have the children of gangsters crawling around the campus. When the neighbor explains to Carmela that her sister can’t write the letter, Carmela is nonplussed.
Carmela decides to visit the professor at her office, bringing lazania as a gift. She introduces herself and asks if the professor can write the letter. The professor makes up some excuse about having to write a letter for some other worthy student. Carmela says the solution is simple, just explain to that student that you can’t write the letter for him. The professor explains that she can’t.
“I don’t think you understand,” says Carmela ominously. “I want you to write that letter”
“Are you threatening me?” asks the professor trembling.
“Who’s threatening? I brought you some lazania,” Carmela replies.
Being smart enough to take the hint and realize you don’t fuck with a mobster’s wife, the terrified professor panics and writes the letter as fast as she can and Carmela’s daughter is accepted into the school post haste. It was interesting, because you think of Tony Soprano as being the tough one in the family, but you can see that his wife has a little of the mobster toughness in her too, but is more subtle about it, and uses it to advance more feminine goals (getting their kid into a good college).
It’s interesting that the despite needing a letter of recommendation, the Soprano daughter was academically qualified to attend the elite school. She probably inherited high IQ genes from Tony Soprona who in one episode stated that his IQ is 136. I remembered thinking this is quite high because although mobsters are rich (a sign of high IQ), they’re also violent criminals with typically low education (both signs of low IQ), so on balance, their IQs should be above average, but nothing special. John Gotti for example had an IQ of 110. But then Tony Soprano seems to have a huge cranium.
Here’s me: “Buh-bye.” Here’s you: “I wanna say something important!” Me: “Buh-bye.” You: “I’m Joe Carry-on, let me through, I’m a big man. I don’t check nothing.” Me: “Buh-bye.” You: “I’m cool, I wear a suit, no way am I a loser.” Well, you’re wrong, now buh-bye!
http://rutube.ru/video/ca2b4a4db8aa26b5aec71767450520d6/
Spade and his family moved to Scottsdale, Arizona, when he was four years old.[7] His parents divorced soon thereafter, and he and his brothers were raised for the most part by their mother, in relative poverty.
“It’s interesting that the despite needing a letter of recommendation, the Soprano daughter was academically qualified to attend the elite school. … But then Tony Soprano seems to have a huge cranium”
Yeah, I wonder how the daughter is doing today. Did she inherit her father’s huge cranium?
rofl…yea I wonder what tony is up to these days, apparently he also goes by james gandolfini, who died a couple years ago
and it’s not like you couldn’t see it coming. he was fat and bloated. just like Tim Russert.
aging in modern Merca is another example of the plasticity of phenotype, the bullshit of hereditism.
Jennifer Aniston is 45 and her ex-husband Pitt is 51. they’re not faking it. it’s not surgery or botox. it’s just exercise, diet, and low stress.
watch old movies. there’re a lot of characters who look like they’re in their 60s, who are under 40. Bogart was actually older than Rick by 6 years iirc.
But James Gandolfini wasn’t chose for play Tony Soprano because he had a huge cranium
It’s a lucky coincidence. But James was chosen perhaps partly because he exuded the street smarts they wanted in the character, and a massive cranium helped make those street smarts possible.
There’s a reason these scenarios happen in the movies…..
Reasons have always interested me. Do you mean it happens because the screenwriter has insight and tells it like it is, or he makes it up to tickle the viewers?
By reasons I mean wish fulfillment.
Fulfillment, in a tv-series? Who is wishing what?
I think he means TV writers are pandering to an audience who wants to see Ivy Leaguers taken down a peg
I doubt it, but possible
It’s the same reason the awkward nerdy shy good guy gets the girl in many movies, the underdog wins ,etc .
Pumpkin doubts it, why? I’m not sure. The majority of individuals watching live in a world ruled by “those people” so the movies provide an escape.
“Some IQ denialists get tied up on the idea that some some races possibly score much lower others, thus invalidating IQ, but this is a red herring to distract from their opposition to the idea that some people are simply cognitively better than others. There are culture-fair IQ tests, and IQ tests are most useful when evaluating and identifying talented and disabled individuals from roughly the same socioeconomic backgrounds. You take 1000 white suburbanites and test their IQ; the higher scoring kids will, by conventional measures of intelligence, be smarter. They will also have a greater likelihood of completing higher education and earning more money (when matched with lower IQ students). There are caveats, but an IQ test is a very good predictor of future life performance.”
From a comment at the SSC article by “grey enlightenment”
From same comments section, “grey enlightenment” points us to this amazing TED talk, check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4
and i must relate to some stranger(s) and on the issue of beauty…
my Irish Setter…I can’t take him for a walk without a perfect stranger exclaiming your dog is beautiful!
i’m not exaggerating…at all.
it’s weird and it’s not me. i wish it were…some sort of flirtation. women, men, old men see this creature in front of them and feel the need to exclaim “your dog is beautiful!”
maybe it’s that since King Timahoe the breed has been rare. or maybe my dog is special.
King Timahoe:

It is a beautiful dog, both predator and prey, what’s the name of that actress in pretty woman, reminds me of her.
It’s situations like these that demand a more precise delineation between the various forms of “intelligence”.
For example, the “intelligence” necessary to get a higher score on standardized testing doesn’t necessarily entail the independent thinking necessary to realize that college admission (and life, in general) isn’t really the meritocratic game it purports itself to be, and that to gain a leg above the competition born ahead of you, you’ll either have to a) cheat, or b) innovate.
I’m thinking of all of the Asians –not including myself, of course– that studied their asses off to achieve stellar scores and grades, only to be rejected from their top schools of choice because they weren’t “holistic enough”. In reality, what they should have done instead was get high– but not perfect– scores, and instead use the remaining time to cultivate relationships with professors at the schools they wanted to attend, and have them write letters of recommendation (this happens already for people connected to the school).
Now, I know people are going to say “well, the latter trait is a result of experience, not intelligence”. And I agree that it’s easy to think of such things after the fact. But I will say that some people tend to “get it” faster than others.
just a language game d-bag.
if it doesn;t add years to your life it’s shit. and is rightly floccinaucinihilipilificated.
AAPL is proof of the vaginalization, sheeple-fication, pp-fying of the world. 18b in profits last q. 680b market cap, more than XOM. for a toy maker run by a butt pirate.
as Denham Harman said it’s totally absurd!
Nietsche’s wildest over-exaggeration was paradise compared to the modern world.
i really wouldn’t be surprised if most of the ubermenschen lived in an airstream in the desert.
High-IQ people (as measured by a conventional intelligence test or a suitable proxy such as the SAT) have the potential to succeed wildly without an Ivy League education, or without college altogether. It’s not all bad news
Asian Prole, I would say that knowing how to work the system requires social IQ, and Asians may lack that because my theory is there was an evolutionary trade-off between social IQ and technological IQ as humans evolved from Negroids into Caucasoids and finally into Mongoloids.
But to paraphrase my high school chemistry teacher, when you talk about intelligence, there are so many different parts to it. It’s social IQ, it’s verbal IQ, it’s technological IQ, it’s spatial IQ, it’s math IQ, it’s musical IQ…
But if you want a single umbrella to cover ALL of intelligence, it’s the ability to adapt. To take whatever situation you’re in, and turn it around to your advantage.
Who is the most intelligent (adaptable) person you’ve ever met?
Question #2:
One of the smartest people that I have encountered is an ex-special intelligence guy that now works as a wealth manager for one of the big bulge bracket investment banks. Tripled majored in physics, maths, and chem, and is also physically gifted– after his service, he played professional basketball overseas. He’s just a stud. However, he was born with zero social capital (poor).
Here’s the thing: he works in a very “unprestigious” part of finance– you don’t even need a college degree for what he does! He’s much, much, much smarter than people doing the same job. He makes a “low 7 figure salary”, but he’s no billionaire, which is what you’d expect when you encounter someone that smart. Is he a failure? And if so, why?
Who is the most intelligent (adaptable) person you’ve ever met?
Well my theory is that IQ tests are the best measure of adaptability we currently have, so I would have to say the most intelligent person I ever met was an especially brilliant member of the Prometheus society. He wasn’t especially adaptable as measured by success, but then people that brilliant often define success very differently from the rest of us.
Here’s the thing: he works in a very “unprestigious” part of finance– you don’t even need a college degree for what he does! He’s much, much, much smarter than people doing the same job. He makes a “low 7 figure salary”, but he’s no billionaire, which is what you’d expect when you encounter someone that smart. Is he a failure? And if so, why?
It depends what his goals are. But almost nobody who makes 7 figures a year is a failure. Money is arguably the most objective universal measure of success there is. Once you have money, you can buy almost anything else. It’s like a magic wand.
…special intelligence…
wtf is that?
military intelligence is an oxymoron guy.
you can buy almost anything else
wtf? i thought people like pp were a fiction of dystopian scifi. a person thoroughly emptied of any human sentiment or taste at all.
in Merca the data show that income has no effect on happiness above about 70k per year. but it would depend on where you live obviously. 70k is fucking bubkes! median household income in the US is a little more than 50k iirc.
it’s called the hedonic treadmill pp.
money can’t buy the two most important things:
1. health.
2. the love of another human being.
try it!
after you’ve got houses all over the world, a giant yacht, and a jet…tell me how manically happy you are.
in Merca the data show that income has no effect on happiness above about 70k per year. but it would depend on where you live obviously. 70k is fucking bubkes! median household income in the US is a little more than 50k iirc
You’re confusing correlation with causation. Money buys happiness way above $70 K, but the people who pursue more than $70 K tend to be unhappy to begin with, and the pursuit of money itself causes unhappiness.
money can’t buy the two most important things:
1. health.
2. the love of another human being.
The most important thing is time, and money can certainly buy that. And of course money can buy health and love, but the problem is you often have to sacrifice both to get money in the first place, or the lack of human love inspires the need for money to compensate.
Money can definitely buy love, a regular boring guy turns into a hot guy, especially if it’s believed he earned the money. And it can buy health if you’re not already seriously ill. Healthy food, no labor, time to exercise equals health for most.
I agree with Robert Gabriel Mugabe. Money doesn’t buy happiness. Happiness comes from within.
if that were the case pp then one would expect that lottery winners are super duper happy.
are they?
if that were the case pp then one would expect that lottery winners are super duper happy.
Money can buy happiness, but you have to know where to shop. Lottery winners tend to be stupid so they use the money to buy stupid stuff like drugs and the friendship of people who are just using them. Money is just a tool. A tool can make you happy if you know how to use it, but if you don’t it will destroy you. Like an ax, if you’re smart, you’ll use it to chop wood for a fire. If you’re dumb, you’ll end up chopping your foot off, but don’t say the tool is useless just because you don’t know how to use it.
Money changes your life and lottery winners are too stupid to adapt.. They’re so stupid that they take the ultimate advantage (money) and turn it to their disadvantage.
And there’s also just the fact that happiness didn’t evolve to be a permanent condition. It’s just nature’s way of rewarding us temporarily when we succeed at goals that advance our genetic interests, but it evolved to be temporary, otherwise we’d become complacent and never pursue other goals. If you’re permanently happy, there’s something wrong with you; it’s considered a disorder.
‘Money can definitely buy love, a regular boring guy turns into a hot guy, especially if it’s believed he earned the money’
Money turns a loser into a loser who can afford hookers — either professional or implicit (golddiggers). Dumb people may be fooled into believing everyone loves them now — which is why they are soon parted from their money in many cases. Smart people understand that not much has changed. Whatever additional happiness there is mostly comes from being able to maintain and provide for the necessities without worry.
maybe you didn’t get me.
you said that money makes you happier ceteris paribus, but that what it takes to make a lot can make you unhappy or that people who are bent on getting rich are unhappy people.
that doesn’t apply to most lottery winners.
you said that money makes you happier ceteris paribus, but that what it takes to make a lot can make you unhappy or that people who are bent on getting rich are unhappy people.
that doesn’t apply to most lottery winners.
I understood why you brought up lottery winners and it’s a good point, but I fear the lowish IQs and impulsivity of lottery winners might be a confounding factor. But I think that if you compared two groups of equally rich, responsible, and brilliant people, one which earned their money and the other which won their money…the one that won their money would be happier on average, and the more money they won, the happier they would be.
“Money turns a loser into a loser who can afford hookers — either professional or implicit (golddiggers).”
Money turns a struggling guy into a relaxed confident guy. That gets noticed by women, so the first hurdle is taken care of, from that point the guy has to have some innate qualities too, and most do.
‘Money turns a struggling guy into a relaxed confident guy. ‘
Not really. People who inherit wealth actually often face self-esteem issues. Earning (whatever that means) money does increase self-esteem.
I will say that, if a man has money, it is easier for him to change himself from an introverted loser to a more outgoing individual, all things being equal, but it’s far from a guaranteed or even likely transition.
I’m sure someone by now has brought up the fact that happiness seems to have a relatively set point for all of us. Drastic life events shock the system, but the system returns to ‘normal’ pretty quickly.
‘that gets noticed by women, so the first hurdle is taken care of, from that point the guy has to have some innate qualities too, and most do.’
What will ‘get noticed’ by women is our individual in question starting to advertise that he has money — wearing fancy suits, driving a nice car, having a nice watch, etc. It won’t be his ‘relaxed confidence,’ even though possessing these items may, in fact, make him feel more relaxed and confident.
But there’s no guarantee that our individual will start behaving like this. And if he does start behaving like this, he will likely squander his money soon enough — like many lottery winners.
”She probably inherited high IQ genes from Tony Soprona who in one episode stated that his IQ is 136. I remembered thinking this is quite high because although mobsters are rich (a sign of high IQ), they’re also violent criminals with typically low education (both signs of low IQ), so on balance, their IQs should be above average, but nothing special. John Gotti for example had an IQ of 110. But then Tony Soprano seems to have a huge cranium.”
Performance iq 110,
and verbal iq** spatial iq** and psychopathic component**
You know create new math formules but don’t know how working basic statistic, period.
Iq of ”Tony Soprona”, based on its calculations was 1-3-6****** wow, how you come with this number**
Soprona came from endogamic, hypo-sarracen and possibly negroid quasi-tunisian family. Your family out of Sicily, but Sicily not leave them.
”mobsters are rich (a sign of high IQ)”
And not high real intelligence. People aren’t OR intelligent OR stupid. Many technically smart people can be stupid too, and they are. Individual as well collectivities have PROPORTION of intelligence’s and stupiditie’s.
Soprona is 73,67… % stupid and 23,33% smart.
Real smart people produce things, ideas, to improve their macro-environment and not compete like primates one against each other.
Santoculto, the character on the show said his IQ was 136. My estimate would have been a lot lower.
Ok. Sorry!!
Only argument for HBD is if Russell Wilson called that play.
but he’s pretty light skinned.
then again Julian Edelman is half Jewish.
and i thought Koufax was the last Jew in pro sports.
btw, Jews love Koufax. but for good reason. there’s not going to be a Taki article on the Jews hyping Koufax. he was the real deal. up there with Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Clemens, Pedro Martinez, etc.
It was Bevell, a white man, showing us all that HBD is false. For shame.
NOTHIING is 100% false, right or wrong, and HBD is more diverse (different than zombileft) than you think.
Relax santo, I’m joking around.
Sorry again!!!
honey swanky,
‘our’ loved cognitive elites make the world today “better” because don’t happen real increase of real intelligence during medievo and industrial urbanization, if the criteria to higher reproductive fitness was “capacity to earn more money” and not “intrinsical joy for acquire knowledge or to inovate”. Creativity is like big bang, brain irritation or intrinsical motivation= obsession = profoundity = associative expansion. [= off topic %]
”You’re confusing correlation with causation. Money buys happiness way above $70 K, but the people who pursue more than $70 K tend to be unhappy to begin with, and the pursuit of money itself causes unhappiness.”
LESS to ”longeve” people in Japan, Georgia (in caucasus) and Sardinia….
MOST ‘white’ people are very confortable in your big houses. They aren’t apt to sacrifice to “white cause”, if money is a fundamental power to their own disgrace. The will of destruction is winning.
Yes, but Southern Euros have the best protests in the Western World.
The Spanish youth destroyed the Starbucks in Barcelona a few years ago. Of course, American White people will never do that. They will keep supporting corporations that harm them.
Santo Oculto – I’m ready to leave the USA. I hate it and the people here. Most are fakers, with no purpose in life, except spending money for nothing.
‘Most are fakers, with no purpose in life, except spending money for nothing.’
Common ground found there.
Good luck to you!!!
I hate Amurrica. They mistake individuality (is important, specially to creativity) with individualism (primate competition).
Yes, ”white people” tend to be very dumb because its naivety.
I don’t know about south euros. Look at Greece and Spain, they elect two extreme left parties.
It is another bad day for HBD deniers. Here a massive GWAS discovers more of the genetic underpinnings of IQ: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp2014188a.html
We conducted a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of 31 cohorts.
totally meaningless, because each cohort is confined both in G and in E.
We report 13 genome-wide significant single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations in three genomic regions.
which will, like ALL previous findings fail reproducibility.
We report one gene-based significant association with the HMGN1 gene located on chromosome 21 (P=1 × 10−6)
only one? if you look at enough genes, you’ll find one with the p value you’re looking for.
These genes have previously been associated with neuropsychiatric phenotypes.
to date not a single gene-psychological trait association has passed the test of reproducibility.
To estimate SNP-based heritability, the genome-wide complex trait analysis procedure was applied to two large cohorts.
why only two? because they are sufficiently similar in G and E, that’s why. were all cohorts included the GWAS would find neglible heritability.
The proportion of phenotypic variation accounted for by all genotyped common SNPs was 29% (s.e.=5%) and 28% (s.e.=7%).
and even then WUNDERBAR. 29%!!! fucking nothing.
like i said Kev, you’re too dumb to talk to.
Every single statistical traits related with genetics, like, people who like cats and people who like dogs, but, it no there in reality as ”cognitive trait”. Intelligence should be measured, not only by achievements and will to achieve objectively, but also, in physiological terms, by bio-marks specially, brain size, simmetry, number of neurons, number of convolutions….
http://www.publico.pt/ciencias/jornal/este-nao-e-o-cerebro-do-matematico-genial-carl-friedrich-gauss–e-aquele-27388656
If iq were related completely with gens that produce intelligence, and mean ”iq= intelligence”, apples=fruits, the correlations would be much higher. As i ever talk, iq express part of intelligence. We need more…
Iq no there because is not a biological phenotype, like ”racism”…
Mugabe, what do you think??? Racism no there because is not a biological phenotype???