Sometimes I get really depressed by the evil of human nature. It seems like for a lot of middle income youths, beating the crap out of some poor defenseless homeless person is entertainment.
This shows that if you don’t have money, society looks at you as subhuman, worthy of being kicked around and in some cases even urinated on.
But there’s also something Darwinian about it. Those who can’t adapt to the environment (i.e. earn money) are victimized by those who can. We see this all over the animal kingdom but humans are unique in that they are one of the few animals that victimizes the weak just for the sheer sadistic pleasure it gives them, while other animals victimize only for food.
Some people like to talk about how the rich are evil because they make their money by exploiting the middle income earners, but it’s the middle income earners who go around beating up and urinating on the homeless. You don’t see millionaires going around beating up and urinating on average Americans. Nor do you see billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet beating up and urinating on millionaires. I suppose Marxists would say they do it metaphorically.
A lot of middle income people adopt the self-serving philosophy that the poor are poor because of stupidity and the rich are rich because of evil, and only they, the middle income people, have both brains and morality. But I think this only half true. Yes, the rich are probably more evil than middle income Americans (on average), but they’re also probably a lot smarter. And yes, the poor are probably a lot dumber than middle income Americans, but they are also probably a lot less evil.
So just as middle income Americans look down at the homeless for being stupid, the rich can also look down at the middle incomes for being stupid. And just as the middle incomes can look down at the rich for being evil, the homeless can look down down at the middle income for being evil. Occam’s razor implies that whatever positive or negative traits associated with money probably apply about as much as to those who are richer than you as to those who are poorer than you.
The video below, where a homeless person offers a middle income person a hug after getting beat up, demonstrates the superior morality of the homeless over the middle-income Americans that torment them.
Pumpkin Person 
‘But there’s also something Darwinian about it. Those who can’t adapt to the environment (i.e. earn money) are victimized by those who can.’
There’s nothing ‘Darwinian’ about it unless we misuse scientific terms.
‘Yes, the rich are probably more evil than middle income Americans (on average), but they’re also probably a lot smarter.’
If by middle income you mean 30k, maybe. If by middle income you mean 30-200k (actual middle income), then no. If they’re smarter, it’s not by ‘a lot.’
‘We see this all over the animal kingdom but humans are unique in that they are one of the few animals that victimizes the weak just for the sheer sadistic pleasure it gives them, while other animals victimize only for food.’
If you’re going with the ‘only humans have real intent’ view of humanity, then sure…but it’s just by default. If we go by what functionally looks a lot like torture and sadism, then I wouldn’t even say a ‘few’ animals display sadistic tendencies. Many do.
‘The video below, where a homeless person offers a middle income person a hug after getting beat up, demonstrates the superior morality of the homeless over the middle-income Americans that torment them.’
Not really. What else is the homeless man going to do, exactly?
There’s nothing ‘Darwinian’ about it unless we misuse scientific terms.
Darwinian means many things. You can’t pigeonhole it into whatever narrow definition you think scientists use.
If by middle income you mean 30k, maybe. If by middle income you mean 30-200k (actual middle income), then no. If they’re smarter, it’s not by ‘a lot.’
If you’re going to deny the rich are a lot smarter than middle income people (on average), you also need to define what you mean by rich and what you mean by “a lot”. And by middle income, I simply mean the middle of a normalized income distribution (25 percentile to 75 percentile income for one’s age).
‘Darwinian means many things. You can’t pigeonhole it into whatever narrow definition you think scientists use.’
There is a definition scientists use. I can pigeonhole it because it’s obvious why people use the terms outside their scientific contexts: to make the speculative seem scientific. It is a deceptive use of language.
‘A lot’ would be something on the order of 1 SD. And ‘rich’ as a matter of income would probably start at 1 million per year.
That definition of middle income is not one I agree with. Middle income should be synonymous with ‘middle class,’ which actually moves from 40-99+ percentile.
There is a definition scientists use. I can pigeonhole it because it’s obvious why people use the terms outside their scientific contexts: to make the speculative seem scientific. It is a deceptive use of language.
Actually, when HBD deniers like yourself cite Darwin, it’s a deceptive use of language because you’re trying to confer Darwinian legitimacy on your HBD denial, when Darwin himself was a hardcore HBDer.
Actually, when HBD deniers like yourself cite Darwin, it’s a deceptive use of language because you’re trying to confer Darwinian legitimacy on your HBD denial, when Darwin himself was a hardcore HBDer.
More deceptive language. First, there are the man’s scientific principles and theories so-named, and then there are the man’s personal viewpoints. You may as well have said citing Newton’s physics to disprove alchemy is a deceptive use of language. Second, it really depends on what you mean by ‘HBDer.’ If you mean to say that different populations of people are different (which is how HBDers present themselves, usually as a rhetorical conversion gambit), then sure. If you mean to say that, regarding the trait of intelligence, the differences between races are largely innate and immalleable (the core of HBD), then there’s significant debate over that.
I don’t know what Darwin’s personal beliefs were but scientifically he was more of an HBD extremist than any modern scholar I can think of. He believed some races were more ape-like than others & that these would go extinct via natural selection.
So if anyone is being deceptive when claiming Darwinian authority, it’s HBD deniers, because Darwin himself strongly rejected HBD denial
More importantly, the median ‘middle class’ income, if you include the upper middle class, is probably 80,000. That’s about 1.2 SD above average and *.4*15 ~ 107 IQ. If we assume the average income among the rich is around 5 million, which is 2.7 SD above average…*.4*15 ~ 116 IQ. So, a difference of 9 points predicted by the correlation.
‘I don’t know what Darwin’s personal beliefs were but scientifically he was more of an HBD extremist than any modern scholar I can think of. ‘
Eh….
‘He believed some races were more ape-like than others & that these would go extinct via natural selection.’
No, he did not believe that this would result from natural selection. Darwin took pains to distinguish between that which resulted from inheritance and that which resulted from culture.
‘The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people.’
‘Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man’s nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection;’
The statement about savage races seems to be his prediction that ‘savage’ cultures would be absorbed into civilized cultures. Darwin states that with savages, natural selection operates, while in civilized society, it does not. So, natural selection wouldn’t be what ‘weeded out’ the savage cultures.
‘So if anyone is being deceptive when claiming Darwinian authority, it’s HBD deniers, because Darwin himself strongly rejected HBD denial’
‘He who will read Mr. Tylor’s and Sir J. Lubbock’s interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.’
Now, this is an argument against the races constituting separate species of human — maybe that’s your out, but because the argument cuts so hard against the popular thinking of its day, it’s not unreasonable to infer that he didn’t believe there was much intraspecies difference, either.
Wiki seems to come out with my interpretation:
“Darwin reasoned that most of the visual differences between human races were superficial—issues of skin color and hair type—and that most of the mental differences were merely cases of “civilization” or a lack of it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex
Swank,
Darwin was a hardcore HBD extremist if ever there was one & no amount of liberal re-interpretation Wikipedia revisionist history can change that. Here are the man’s own words:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aboriginal] and the gorilla
Darwin states that with savages, natural selection operates, while in civilized society, it does not. So, natural selection wouldn’t be what ‘weeded out’ the savage cultures.
No natural selection within civilized groups doesn’t mean no natural selection causing civilized groups to replace primitive groups. In other words, he also believed in group selection
More importantly, the median ‘middle class’ income, if you include the upper middle class, is probably 80,000. That’s about 1.2 SD above average
I specifically used the term middle income instead of middle class because the latter is so ambiguous. By middle income, i meant median income.
Yes, I am familiar with that quote, and that’s the quote that is frequently debated. When read in the context of the other quotes I provided, my interpretation seems more reasonable, and indeed, that is what appears to be the prevailing interpretation.
It’s unsurprising that you’re attempting to file this under ‘revisionist conspiracy’ as well.
First, he notes that the superior status of these civilizations who will ‘wipe out’ the lower civilizations owes nothing to their inheritance. Then, he notes that natural selection does not operate within civilization. Then, he notes that among the races, there does not appear to be much innate difference in mental ability. The conclusion then is that this ‘extermination’ would be the result of superior culture, not biology or evolutionary inadequacy.
And the larger context of this quote is that he was just glibly attempting to illustrate why we would see large breaks between species even though species evolved incrementally.
So, at the very least your interpretation of Darwin’s viewpoint is debatable. But, once again cursory examination reveals that experts agree with me for the reasons I stated. I guess this is the liberal conspiracy theory randomly coming together.
No natural selection within civilized groups doesn’t mean no natural selection causing civilized groups to replace primitive groups. In other words, he also believed in group selection
In other words, you are making stuff up. You can choose to infer this from what we have been given, but there are several reasons to believe that he wasn’t talking about biological group selection. In fact, he himself may have been confused about the entire issue.
I specifically used the term middle income instead of middle class because the latter is so ambiguous. By middle income, i meant median income.
That’s fine, I just don’t believe that captures anything salient. Your post states that those with middle income prey on the homeless based on status. Middle income, as you have defined it, doesn’t tell us much about status. They could be middle class, or they could be lower class. If they are lower class, then it doesn’t seem like they are that far above the homeless man. You could be saying that lower class individuals beat on homeless individuals — which could be true, and lower class individuals may be more likely to engage in such behavior. But then it’s really not a ‘middle income’ phenomenon, because lower class includes ‘low income.’
In fact, Darwin himself states that tribes differ in survival based on the development of their moral faculties:
First, we know that he stated that “the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection;’
““When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. […] A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in turn overcome by some other tribe still more highly endowed.”
“He who was ready to sacrifice his life , as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature. The bravest men, who were always willing to come to the front in war, and who freely risked their lives for others, would on an average perish in larger numbers than others men. Therefore it hardly seems probable, that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the standard of their excellence, could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest; for we are not here speaking of one tribe being victorious over another.”
“But another and much more powerful stimulus to the development of the social virtues, is afforded by the praise and the blame of our fellow-men. To the instinct of sympathy, as we have already seen, it is primarily due, that we habitually bestow both praise and blame on others, whilst we love the former and dread the latter when applied to ourselves; and this instinct no doubt was originally acquired, like all the other social instincts, through natural selection.”
So, at bottom, the difference in tribal survival comes down to traits that themselves arise from the differential cultural development of an instinct. ‘Group selection’ on non-biological traits.
Swank, I responded to arguments about Darwin & HBD here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/02/19/did-darwin-believe-in-hbd/
That’s fine, I just don’t believe that captures anything salient. Your post states that those with middle income prey on the homeless based on status. Middle income, as you have defined it, doesn’t tell us much about status.
I think they prey on the homeless because they feel superior. They feel superior because they have more money & perhaps also because they have more status but because you need a very basic amount of money to have any status, the homeless are also way below them on that hierarchy too.
Ok but it has to be a certain amount of money-granted status. Too far of a gap and it is facially implausible.
Seeing as how it’s implausible that middle income suburban kids would resort to this type of violence, that leaves low income individuals, who a) are more prone to displays of violence as a group and b) only have one real income class beneath them to oppress.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”
Except that the two races that are heading toward extinction now are European Whites and North-East Asians. And the more their members are aware of this the more racist they become.
If Darwin was right, it’s probably in the opposite way of what Pumpkin Person thinks of.
But in fact, darwin was wrong. His theory would have worked if the different races of humans saw each other as part of a different species and found that the stronger could benefit from the extermination of the weaker as much as the cat lives off eating mice. Had Darwin been a social scientist, he would have understood that strong humans exploit weak humans instead of exterminating them, this is social Darwinism and Darwin was not part of that crowd.
You really can not get out of this dichotomy on groups. In all groups there is a built several types. This one’s text seems more an elite propaganda, victimizing the poor, generalizing the middle class and shamefully trying to give some morality and intelligence to self declared, “elites”. I do not know if you will get out of this dualistic game, I do not know if you want or if you can. You completely missed the point there, when generalizes the middle class and when he says “the elite does not do that.” Elite is one of the main culprits for the existence of homeless.
It should be the duty of the richest, to objectively help the poorest, when the state fails miserably.
Santoculto, the point is trends tend to be linear & symmetrical
If the rich are more evil than the average American, then average Americans are more evil than the poor.
If the poor are dumber than the average American, then the average American is dumber than the rich.
I’m not an apologist for the rich but I’m also not an apologist for the average American because compared to the poor, the average American is rich.
Me too. Exactly, linear and symmetrical, fundamental problem here.
”Poor” people on average, are more primitive. Its ”evilness” is more based on impulsivity and proximity of natural world.
Me too. Exactly, linear and symmetrical, fundamental problem here.
In science we seek the simplest explanations first (i.e. linear, symmetrical). Only when simple explanations fail to explain reality do we look for more complexity. It’s called Occam’s razor.
Of course, the most intelligent people, purely intelligent, who use their intelligence to think logically, thus, do good to each other, because it is logical to do so, especially with wisdom. Think logically is to avoid greed, financial greed to win a huge sum of money. If the most intelligent were the elite, I’m sure that disappeared poverty of human societies.
The elite, as a class, is in fact the most intelligent, but the most intelligent individuals who are more empathic (intelligently empathetic), very rarely will be part of the elite. The example of St. Francis of Assisi, who rejected a comfortable life offered by his father in favor of a transcendental perfection.
Perhaps the money will attract the most technically intelligent and this leads to technological developments, but without wisdom and true compassion, which is not the same as pity, technology will turn against its creator and even, will not be worth continuing to support a brutal regime.
Good comment!
The elite today is all about, control, greed, money and power.
JS,
i think always was like that.
Pumpkin,
i will repeat. You are very simplistic and not also synthetic.
Homeless are homeless because they are less smart ( aka, lower “iq” ).
You are despising familiar problems which are very common among them and generally, is the most important factor to explain their vulnerable social conditions.
This “linear and symmetric” perspective could be sense if average “iq” them were 70 or less. Environmental factors, gene-gene interactions, explain much better the situation of most of homeless. Without job, Family support and personal desilusions. And remember, are stats.
Your explanations are not simples, are simplistic. It is different. My explanation in this comment is simples: didatic, easy to understand, logic and synthetic. Your explanation have only two component which aren’t the fundamental causes to homeless. You, without job, Family support and with personal desilusion can finish living in the streets. Everyone. Intelligence is a secondary factor, even that correlate very well with homeless.
The middle class need to buy into the fiction because they can rationalize away the thought of their precarious position by saying only dumb and irresponsible people find themselves in real hardship, also they need to make themselves believe they can advance in income/status based on their ability.
The rich are set and don’t need to tell themselves lies, they only need to tell others lies.
Interesting…middle income Americans need to believe in meritocracy because it gives them hope for the future. Good point
And the dark side of believing in meritocracy is you believe the poor have no merit
Interesting:…… The homeless man is most likely much less intelligent than average and therefore unable to earn as much money as others…… Hypotheticaly…if he were to save up let’s say 1500 dollars and move to a country with a lower iq… Say 85…would he get beat up less and have an Easter time in life?
Even in a low IQ country they would have trouble adapting because they wouldn’t know the culture or language & they would look different from the natives. And on top of that, many homeless are alcoholic schizophrenics
Most of homeless have familiar problems. Not only low iq, lol.
Right on target. The middle class are the worst.
The assailant’s name is Taylor Giresi and he has an iq of 74.
On another note, did swank disagree with literally everything you said? Talk about a nit picker. I guess he was trying to level you stone by stone.
The assailant’s name is Taylor Giresi and he has an iq of 74.
Interesting discovery. He might end up homeless one day himself. In a sense he might have been beating up his future self. Stupid people often hurt their own, and therein lies their stupidity.
On another note, did swank disagree with literally everything you said? Talk about a nit picker. I guess he was trying to level you stone by stone.
Swank would throw everything at the wall, hoping something would stick. Very hard to reach common ground. I told him he would be better off had he conceded a few minor points, and focused on his strong arguments.
Hilarious !
“This shows that if you don’t have money, society looks at you as subhuman, worthy of being kicked around and in some cases even urinated on.”
You know what ? I even know about some bloggers who pretend that those who don’t have money are congenital social scum. Can you believe it ?
Actually, all the nonsense you post on your blog equals to a sort of cyber and sissy beating of millions of people you know nothing about. Don’t believe you are doing something more honorable than what you seem to denounce.
But let me disagree on one point. These homeless you seem to describe as kind innocents are actually prone to much more depravation than the working class, the middle class and the wealthy. You are also oblivious of the fact that many of them have a serious criminal past behind them and in many cases, a highly potential criminal future ahead of them.
On another topic, I’ve had much time to waste lately and I decided to make nothing productive of it. For the first time of my life I read a book on psychometrics and it was fascinating. The title is “Intelligence and Cultural Environment”, by Philip E. Vernon (a Pioneer Fund grantee).
This book compares the intellectual abilities of Jamaican, Ugandan, Native American and Eskimo school children. The results would surprise the HBD sphere…
Actually, all the nonsense you post
You mean all the nonsense I let you post. 🙂
on your blog equals to a sort of cyber and sissy beating of millions of people you know nothing about.
Kind of like when you denounce the homeless as “prone to much more depravation than the working class, the middle class and the wealthy.”
You are also oblivious of the fact that many of them have a serious criminal past behind them and in many cases, a highly potential criminal future ahead of them.
I assure you, I know all about their criminal pasts, it’s a major reason a lot of them end up homeless in the first place. So now high incarceration rates equal depraved? So by that logic, you must think blacks are depraved too since they’re vastly over-represented in jails.
On another topic, I’ve had much time to waste lately
Why does that not surprise me? 🙂
“Kind of like when you denounce the homeless as “prone to much more depravation than the working class, the middle class and the wealthy.””
I’m simply pointing to facts, many of these homeless are substance abusers, have mental issues and are at higher risk of doing the desperate things that desperate people do. On the other hand, for the very few better off silly people you can catch on tape beating some homeless up, a hundred more or maybe a thousand more will provide some assistance to them, Violence against the weaker is not a middle class value and I’m sure the relatives of those who commit violence against the homeless would strongly disaprove of such actions.
However, in many parts of the third world, there exist a kind of “Darwinian” culture of violence against the weakest and it targets the disabled. That doesn’t mean that millions in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America regularly engage in violence against the disabled but that happens at a higher frequency than in the Western world and societies are greatly unsympathetic toward the fate of these victims.
“I assure you, I know all about their criminal pasts, it’s a major reason a lot of them end up homeless in the first place. So now high incarceration rates equal depraved? So by that logic, you must think blacks are depraved too since they’re vastly over-represented in jails.”
First of all, the most overrepresented group among the homeless in the US are the Native Americans, the most overrepresented group among the incarcerated and the homeless in Canada are the Native Americans. I do agree that there is a higher rate of depravation going on among the African American community than among whites in the US (here in France it’s the radical opposite), but contrary to you, I never claim that genes cause depravation and that the homeless were born to be what they are today or that nothing could have been done to make their lives different.
But yeah Pumpkin, you are a damn brilliant scholar, I really wonder why you don’t apply for a position at a university or a social science or social policy institute, you would make a lot of money you know. And if you need extra cash, you could also get published in a scientific paper so that you enlightenment could be spread to the larger research community. Why are you so shy ? Humanity badly needs your science and you know that 🙂 .
I do agree that there is a higher rate of depravation going on among the African American community than among whites in the US
That’s a plausible theory, but not proven., I don’t equate incarceration rates with depravity. Some of the most depraved people on the planet will never see a jail cell because they’re privileged and because some of the worst crimes are not even illegal..
I never claim that genes cause depravation and that the homeless were born to be what they are today or that nothing could have been done to make their lives different.
I never claimed that either. I only claim that genes were a significant factor.
But yeah Pumpkin, you are a damn brilliant scholar, I really wonder why you don’t apply for a position at a university or a social science or social policy institute, you would make a lot of money you know.
Compared to you that’s a lot of money, but I have higher standards 🙂
“Compared to you that’s a lot of money, but I have higher standards :-)”
Please, I’m a lawyer !
This is why I love pumpkin. Talking about the evils of beating on the homeless in one paragraph, and social darwinism in the next. So much integrative complexity and tolerance for ambiguity.
Message to Pumpkin: It’s incredible how harsh and narrow-minded some of your commenters are, given their self-reported high IQ test scores. While I completely object to censorship on the basis of free speech, I also feel empathy for you and your enduring this unwarrented criticism. I hope that those commenters will eventually stop treating you like an inanimate machine, and critique your posts in a civil manner. Your ideas are very probing and insightful for others like me; keep up the good work.
I hope that those commenters will eventually stop treating you like an inanimate machine, and critique your posts in a civil manner. Your ideas are very probing and insightful for others like me; keep up the good work.
Thanks for the complements! I think the extreme criticism comes with the teritory of having an HBD blog. You see a lot more here because I censor almost nothing.