Commenter Stetind asked the following question to commenter chartreuse (aka Jorge Videla/Robert Mugabe etc):
All joking aside, why are you so bitter, Jorge?
He did not answer the question, but the question will still be answered. The reason he is so bitter, in my humble opinion, is that he is essentially a white nationalist who views HBDers as basically useful idiots for the Jews and the Rich.
It may seem ironic that one would view HBD as a tool for the Jews since historically Jews like Franz Boas and Stephen Jay Gould were instrumental in successfully marginalizing HBD for over half a century, however that was before a new branch of HBD began proclaiming Jews superior, and it was also before Jews had overtook WASPs as the most powerful people in American society. HBD is seen by people like chartreuse as a tool for the powerful because it justifies their power as rooted in biology: The natural order of the things.
On top of that, he began studying math which made him disdainful of the simple “Phenotype = Genotype + Environment” model HBDers rely on. How dare people with such low IQs be obsessed with IQ and judging the IQs of others, he must have thought. This fueled his rage against HBDers.
At some point Chartreuse took the SAT and GRE and because he did extremely well on both tests, he convinced himself they are not only valid IQ tests, but the very best IQ tests in existence. This reinforced his political and scientific views: “I have high test scores therefore only I am smart enough to understand whatever topic I choose to blather on about. So go to hell if what you’re thinking is not right.”
However because he does not believe intelligence is mostly genetic, yet still needed to believe the SAT/GRE are excellent measures of intelligence, he convinced himself that intelligence is something that anyone can have if they think hard and read challenging books like Being and Time and the works of Karl Marx as he had. He began to see himself as a leader, someone put on this Earth to show other whites the true way, and came to the internet looking for followers.
Unfortunately he was horrified by what he found: White nationalists were increasingly being converted to HBDers and were reading blogs written by Asians, Blacks and Jews. This disgusted Chartreuse and he began lashing out against the bloggers. He viewed Black HBDers as useful idiots of White Gentile HBDers who in-turn he viewed as useful idiots for Jews. Black HBDers were Uncle Toms working for Uncle Toms, Chartreuse must have thought. He also hated Asian HBDers because he regarded them as pushy and striving which only supported the wealthy Jewish power structure that Charteuse felt was oppressing his people.
After being banned from one blog after another, he finally came crawling back to me. As a good (atheist) Christian, how could I turn him away? But trouble lurked: For starters, I was much more pro-rich than other HBDers which disgusted him from the outset. On top of that, my constant praise for women and blacks did not bother him, but caused him to believe I am a non-white female, and if so, I was even more of an Uncle Tom, because as a woman and minority COMBINED, I should know better than to embrace a field like HBD which has historically marginalized non-whites and females. His disdain for who he thinks I am increased exponentially.
Worse still, I believed that smart people get to the top by adapting their behavior to their advantage in everyday life. To Chartreuse this was anathema. He believed I was confusing the man-made world with the natural world, a mistake which only serves the oppressive power structure he so despised. He began to see me and other “Uncle Toms” as victims of mental slavery that he was on a mission to free:
Chartreuse believes that our man-made world is unlike the natural world in which we evolved. Smart people don’t get ahead by adapting to the World, smart people get ahead only by adapting to the SAT, Chartreuse felt, which allows them to get into the right schools, which allows them to get to the top. He believes that he was denied his rightful place at the top by elite schools who would not accept him despite his high SATs and the fact that I was pushing a different narrative caused his disdain for me to grow further. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the idea.
SATs were the only thing meritocratic about modern society Chartreuse felt, and the fact that I live in a country that doesn’t even use admission tests for university disgusted him even further.
And then I did the unthinkable. I began questioning the SAT itself as a valid measure of intelligence.
For Chartreuse, this was the final straw. Not only did I seem to represent everything he hated, but I was actively challenging the very narrative he was so emotionally invested in. It would be enough to drive anyone insane.
So to answer your question Stetind, that is why he’s so bitter.
I find this a little hilarious and sad at the same time. Here’s my thoughts:
1. In a way, Jorge Mugabe is no different than a lot of people I’ve noticed in the online IQ-space: For them, life hasn’t fully lived up to their expectations. It’s quite clear to me they don’t receive the attention, respect, or financial compensation they feel they deserve in real life, so they focus on the one thing that gives them a sense of self-worth: their test scores. I imagine a lot of these people also join groups like Mensa to boost their sense of self-worth.
Of course, HBD-oriented IQ blogs are a little different, because here people also like to blame their failures on various minorities (blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Muslims, whatever). But it leads back to the same sense of social alienation due to feeling society has not given them their just rewards.
I can sympathize a bit, because I also sometimes feel that I’ve been overlooked in life, despite my above average intelligence. This may sound ironic to some of you who feel that blacks receive more than they deserve, but nonetheless I get the sense sometime that my colleagues and peers don’t truly appreciate my talents. I don’t think this has anything to do with my race, but rather my demeanor, which can be quite introverted at times.
This sentiment of not receiving what one’s entitled to is so strong among some HBDers that they’ve created whole blogs about it (see: Lion of the Blogosphere). A lot of highly motivated, highly intelligent people comment on HBD blogs and wonder, “gee, why haven’t I made millions despite my perfect SATs? Oh, it must be classism/reverse racism/sociopaths/whatever other reason I can come up with”.
Now granted, I do think the sociopathy argument has some credibility, just based on anecdotal data. People who reach the top are often pretty unethical scumbags who feel little compunction in doing whatever they have to do to succeed.
I think the only way of overcoming this resentment towards those more successful is to find meaning elsewhere: whether it’s through philosophy, religion, philanthropy, whatever.
2. In some ways, I actually hope that Jorge’s logic is correct that college entrance exams (SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, GMAT) are better indicator of intelligence that pure IQ tests, because I’ve always done much better on those than on the (supposedly) purer IQ tests.
I know that you’ve hashed out the details on this already, but it still seems plausible to me that the SAT correlates fairly highly with g (like, .7-.8) just based on IQ data I’ve seen in various places, like that Berkeley’s median IQ is 120, which says to me Harvard’s must be much higher.
Also, these tests are normed on a much greater number of people than the Wechsler tests, don’t have nearly the amount of research behind them, and are better predictors of school grades than pure IQ tests. And they must clearly mean something if the majority of schools choose to use them rather than some other tool.
I also think it’s strange Jorge was not accepted to the top schools despite doing well on these tests. I’m not sure what this means.
3. Jorge, like a lot IQ-obsessed people, is equating intelligence testing with meritocracy, but are they really one in the same? Is a meritocracy necessarily one based on IQ scores? I’m not sure if that’s the case. I mean, there’s plenty of positive, non-IQ traits that would be highly valued in a pure meritocracy, so I’m not sure why Jorge equates test scores so closely with a meritocratic system.
4. I used to think that Internet blogging was one of the best ways to convey one’s ideas, but now I’m not so sure anymore. Instead of facilitating exchange of information, it just seems to foster greater neuroses, resentment, and anger towards those one disagrees with. I mean, don’t you think Jorge could spread his ideas further and wider if he spent his time in more productive activities, rather than spending so much time commenting here, debating with you?
5. Last comment, I think if Jorge actually has a degree in math and actuarial experience, that’s much more impressive than a degree in psychology, just based on the people I know with math and psych degrees (sorry PP :p) On the flipside, I get the impression that social science and humanities degrees are much more rigorous in Canada than in the US.
PP, could you give use little more insight into your mathematical training (in terms of classes taken, books you used, etc.?)
Anyhow, I have some more thoughts but I have other things to do…
In point two don’t have nearly the amount of research behind them I mean the exact opposite…
Obviously, they have much more research behind them, since they go back to the Army Alpha and Beta tests.
dammit
Source on Berkeley IQ
Thanks
Note 41 in Chapter 8 on p. 265 of “the G-factor”:
“41. …The largest single factor analysis of this kind [combined ECTs and psychometric tests] was performed by John B. Carroll (1991b; see also Carrol, 1993a, pp.484–485) on data from the Berkeley chronometric laboratory (described in Kranzler & Jensen, 1991a)…The subjects were 101 Berkeley undergraduates whose average IQ was 120, with a SD of about 10, or only about two-thirds of the population SD of 15; therefore, one must bear in mind the restricted range of ability in this sample…”
Okay– so I’m not sure if these students were representative of the Berkeley population, but it seems like it could be. I remember somewhere James Flynn also had data on Berkeley students, with average IQs of 120.
The question is what were the SAT scores of Berkeley students in 1993, and what official IQ test were they given? I believe the advanced Raven was only re-normed in 1993 which means they may have been taking an old version which gave inflated results due to old norms.
Another ideas is to look at the average LSAT scores at undergraduate institutions, and plug said scores into the LSAT formula you found:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1190895-mean-lsat-score-by-undergraduate-college.html
You could argue that the IQ equivalent of these LSAT scores would regress on another IQ test, but it seems they confirm the SAT scores you derived from simple regression, without taking into account Flynn effect (assuming the only cause for the correlation between LSAT and SAT is g).
Um…they confirm the SAT derived IQ scores you derived from simple regression
Of course, Berkeley undergraduate LSAT scores might’ve been much lower back in the early 1990s
ruhkukah, very interesting link!
Regardless of whether one thinks the SAT is the best IQ test ever made or the worst, in my opinion, the SAT OVERESTIMATES the IQs of Harvard students.
This is not the fault of the SAT, but rather it’s the inevitable regression to the mean that occurs when people largely selected based on one test get tested on another. If Harvard students were selected based on Wechsler IQs, then even the Wechsler would overestimate Harvard IQ.
And so we see that Harvard students regress precipitously to the mean on the LSAT, though not nearly as much as they do on the Wechsler. Perhaps this is just a difference in sampling or perhaps it’s because the LSAT and SAT share non-g variance that the Wechsler lacks.
But either way, because the LSAT is not used to select undergrads, the LSAT would give a better measure of the mean undergrad of a college than the SAT would. Conversely, because the SAT is not used to select law students, the SAT would give a better measure of the mean law student than the LSAT would.
Before you rave on the LSAT, the current average LSAT at Harvard is 173, which by your formula is 142 IQ.
That still sounds like an overestimation to me.
Here’s another LSAT formula, give it a whirl and see what you think.
LSAT*1.49 – 119.77
Apparently, you’ve discussed that link on your blog before:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/13/do-harvard-students-have-an-average-iq-of-122/comment-page-1/#comment-11098
so we see that Harvard students regress precipitously to the mean on the LSAT
I know. According to your formula 1.37(166) – 94.755 = 132.7 (I’ve seen more recent data showing 168 for Harvard udnergrads). But when you took into account Flynn effect in this post (https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/13/do-harvard-students-have-an-average-iq-of-122/comment-page-1/) you found a value of 122, so I guess I’m wondering if it’s possible that Harvard students go from 141 IQ equivalent on SAT, to 132 IQ on LSAT, to only 122 on Wechsler. Just seems weird to me…
Before you rave on the LSAT, the current average LSAT at Harvard is 173, which by your formula is 142 IQ.
That’s at Harvard Law, not the undergrad population
“That’s at Harvard Law, not the undergrad population”
Oh sorry, my mistake.
so I guess I’m wondering if it’s possible that Harvard students go from 141 IQ equivalent on SAT, to 132 IQ on LSAT, to only 122 on Wechsler. Just seems weird to me…
If the theoretical general U.S. population correlation (theoretical because the general U.S. population doesn’t all take college admission tests) between SAT IQ & Wechsler IQ is lower than the theoretical general U.S. population correlation between SAT IQ and LSAT IQ, we would expect a population largely selected for high SAT IQ (i.e. Harvard undergrads) to regress much more to the mean on the Wechsler than on the LSAT. That’s one possible explanation
the problem with the LSAT is that it has no visuo-spatial component.
but it does or it used to have logic problems.
it’s interesting and one might have expected such a comment…
i think it was halmos who said that jews and romance language speakers excelled at a certain type of mathematics and nw europeans at another.
namely, nw europeans excelled at those branches of mathematics where visuo-spatial intelligence was most important.
synthetic organic chemistry, my phd subject, is conspicuous among the sub-categories of natsci for the almost total absence of jews. whereas theoretical chemistry has lots of jews.
and the problem with the wechsler is it has lots of subtests which have no conceivable bearing on “intelligence” as the word is actually used outside of academic psychology.
from a purely psychometric pov, the best IQ test is that battery of a certain finite size which when part of an infinitely large, all encompassing set of tests, has the highest “g-loading”.
and the problem with this is that there is no infinitely large, all encompassing set of tests.
one might have a very large set of “cognitive tests”, but how would one know that it wasn’t biased toward some particular factor?
one wouldn’t!
the very idea of g is too vague to be an appropriate subject for science.
and the problem with the wechsler is it has lots of subtests which have no conceivable bearing on “intelligence” as the word is actually used outside of academic psychology.
Yes and no. A learned professor could score low on many Wechsler performance subtests and still be considered brilliant by his colleagues, but if he lost his university job and worked in a store or a restaurant, his colleagues would notice his low performance IQ and gossip about what a moron he is.
For example Daniel Seligman’s low Picture Completion score is just an eccentricity because as a prestigious editor, he didn’t need to notice non-textual visual details. But if he working in a restaurant and was too visually unalert to notice mayonnaise was on the middle shelf, people would call him stupid.
from a purely psychometric pov, the best IQ test is that battery of a certain finite size which when part of an infinitely large, all encompassing set of tests, has the highest “g-loading”.
and the problem with this is that there is no infinitely large, all encompassing set of tests.
one might have a very large set of “cognitive tests”, but how would one know that it wasn’t biased toward some particular factor?
one wouldn’t!
the very idea of g is too vague to be an appropriate subject for science.
It is unscientific in the sense that the mental abilities in any factor analysis are just a sample, and a sample by definition implies there’s a population from which it is drawn, but it’s impossible to know the nature of the population of all mental abilities. For example a poll is a sample of people and its representativeness can be checked against a census. But it’s impossible to have a census of all mental abilities as new ones are constantly being imagined.
Nonetheless if certain mental abilities consistently rank high in g in multiple batteries, then that’s a repeatable finding. And regardless of whether g is real or if g can be measured, at the very least, the Wechsler measures a broader range of cognitive functions than any other test and thus is a good proxy for a set of talents one might call cognitive adaptability.
Wechsler himself was not a g enthusiast. He conceived of intelligence not as a uniquely defined trait, but as a complex GLOBAL MULTIFACETED entity.
and then there’s the added problem that the g-loading is relative to the time and place and population.
so even if such a perfect set of cognitive tests were available, the best IQ test would be a very vague concept.
i’m sure the rank order would be roughly the same, but i’m also sure it would be significantly different from one time and place and population to another.
but even the chinese supremacist steve shoe agrees that what it means to be “smart” in everyday discourse has changed over time, and specifically it has changed to emphasize non-verbal intelligence more than it used to.
anyway,
why isn’t peepee commenting on the price of oil, that demand will decline to almost nothing by 2050, and the inevitable political instability.
and it used to be true even in china. or especially in china.
the imperial exams were all on the “confucian classics”.
that is, the old chinese civil service exams (older than any system of examinations) was 100% verbal.
or at least that’s my understanding.
But if he working in a restaurant and was too visually unalert to notice mayonnaise was on the middle shelf, people would call him stupid.
it seems peepee is admitting that the “science of intelligence” must itself be informed by a CLASS analysis, a MARXIST analysis.
it seems peepee is admitting that the “science of intelligence” must itself be informed by a CLASS analysis, a MARXIST analysis.
In my opinion, the subjective impression of intelligence is influenced by class, but just because one has a set of talents that are valued in a particular cultural milieu, does not mean one has the cognitive ability to adapt when the situation changes. The latter is what I see as the objective definition of intelligence because that’s what differentiates humans from animals. Animals are mentally well adapted to their specific challenges (i.e. a bird’s instinct for building a nest and flying south in the Winter), but only humans can mentally adapt when the challenges change.
5. Last comment, I think if Jorge actually has a degree in math and actuarial experience, that’s much more impressive than a degree in psychology, just based on the people I know with math and psych degrees (sorry PP :p)
No need to apologize. I agree with you generally speaking. But I’m a very unusual case.
PP, could you give use little more insight into your mathematical training (in terms of classes taken, books you used, etc.?)
Virtually all my training just comes from the fact that I’m interested in IQ. When you’re interested in IQ you have to know what a mean, a standard deviation, and a Gaussian curve is, otherwise, the IQ scale makes no sense. And then you also have to know what a correlation is, otherwise it’s impossible to put IQ scores into perspective. So once I read up on those basic concepts: mean, standard deviation, Gaussian curve, and correlation, everything else should made sense intuitively. Of course I also benefited enormously from briefly corresponding with a supremely high IQ person by email.
There are always going to be those who are going to condemn my calculations and accuse me of mathematical incompetence. When that happens, don’t be swayed by their bravado and superior credentials. Just ask yourself if what I’m saying makes sense. And if it doesn’t make sense, ask questions; I will try to clarify, and then decide for yourself.
Just ask yourself if what I’m saying makes sense. And if it doesn’t make sense, ask questions; I will try to clarify, and then decide for yourself.
I like this; this is the cornerstone of rational inquiry, asking questions and making up one’s own mind, independent of any appeal to authority or credentials.
I also think it’s strange Jorge was not accepted to the top schools despite doing well on these tests. I’m not sure what this means.
He didn’t bother to apply because he knew he lacked the other criteria they were looking for.
3. Jorge, like a lot IQ-obsessed people, is equating intelligence testing with meritocracy, but are they really one in the same? Is a meritocracy necessarily one based on IQ scores? I’m not sure if that’s the case. I mean, there’s plenty of positive, non-IQ traits that would be highly valued in a pure meritocracy, so I’m not sure why Jorge equates test scores so closely with a meritocratic system.
I think he would agree with you that there’s a lot more to merit than just IQ, but his point is that tests, whatever their flaws, are OBJECTIVE, and thus much less vulnerable to abuse and bias than the arbitrary subjective criteria that would replace them.
I think the only way of overcoming this resentment towards those more successful is to find meaning elsewhere: whether it’s through philosophy, religion, philanthropy, whatever.
But at the same time, people shouldn’t just accept their place in life, Where would blacks be if they had decided to do that in the 1950s? They’d still be at the back of the bus.
yes. if i were a ceo i’d have no time to comment on any blogs, hbd or otherwise, but this is obvious, and again you’ve confused ideology with reality.
that is, one of the self-serving motivations for these blogs is obvious, yet that motivation affects one’s appraisal of their truth value only so far as one has already bought into the idea that virtue and status are almost perfectly correlated.
so encountering a beggar, you would say, “the only reason you’re begging is because you have no legs, and the only reason you need to beg is because you have no legs. so you’ll have to cadge someone else.”
if everything had gone my way the difference wouldn’t be my opinions, it would be the venues where i expressed them. just like the very smart, the very rich are a heterogeneous lot in terms of their politics and world views. (although terman did claim that the very brightest of his termites tended to be both 1. more politically “liberal” and 2. more “mal-adjusted”. but this subset of the termites was too small to generalize.)
and as chomsky has noted, “success”, in its vulgar american sense, is simply not the goal of a lot of smart people. that is, the thesis of the bell curve would be much more believable if everyone at every intelligence level had the sole ambition of making as much money as possible.
but i do agree that if one:
1. has a very high IQ,
2. has getting rich as his single ambition, and
3. is totally amoral,
he will very likely get rich.
i’d never deny that.
but i do agree that if one:
1. has a very high IQ,
2. has getting rich as his single ambition, and
3. is totally amoral,
he will very likely get rich.
Even if one didn’t go to an elite school?
Last point, for some reason this reminds me of an article I was reading recently about students at Palo Alto high school committing suicide and the intense pressure that exists there.
Society, it seems, is becoming more of a pressure-cooker, with people feeling the need more and more to justify their existence with various accomplishments and forms of recognition. With such a system becoming more and more prevalent in almost every sphere life (academia, financially, dating, whatever), how do we solve this, and get more people (mostly men) off the Internet grumbling about how tough things are?
“(academia, financially, dating, whatever)”
Videogames/stream series, welfare and parents money (staying in ones parents home longer), porn, plastic surgery, homo/bisexuality, abstinence and drugs. Look at Korea and canada and Brazil, those two countries seem like modernity. With the increasingly confortable lives we are getting, and more centralised education system/media, people might be prone to not rebel as much and go the path of least resistance.
Good post pumpkin. I’ve been following your blog for a few months now. I’ve seen your debates and you do a good job. That Mugabe guy needs to learn the truth.
I do agree that IQ isn’t the be all end all, but it is the best predictor of life success as I’m sure you know. Motivation also comes in to play with this as well.
Good points about correlations and the Gaussian curve.
@ruhkukah yea. Which Binet and Simon used to create the first IQ tests if memory serves correctly.
Thanks for the kind words!
Was this the first Race Realist post? What a time capsule!
now i know the meaning of eco and of ecco.
On the other hand, Eco’s Aristotle, quite different from the historical one, would have written a book entirely devoted to comedy, supposedly the second book of Poetics, the “lost” treatise on comedy, a book which Jorge of Burgos hates as much as he despises laughter. In that book, Aristotle would have discussed the different ways in which comedy stimulates and enlightens the ridiculous by using common and vulgar people, e.g. taking pleasures from their defects. Jorge claims that laughter is alarming and spiritually dangerous because it clears fear, making it fade and disappear. Without fear, faith would no longer be possible. The theological implication here is that without fear of the Devil, people would not feel any more need of God. However, if Jorge’s ultimate goal is to eliminate laughter from the face of the earth, it is quite obvious that he will not be able to do it by simply eliminating a book, as William of Baskerville notes (Eco 473).
stat crux dum volvitur orbis.
ego sum qui sum.
credo quia absurdum.
crede ut intelligas.
revolutonary violence is merely a “temporally” compressed form of the violence which is at the base of all societies, putatively democratic, or not.
peepee should listen to or read zizek.
a revolution without firing squads is meaningless.
happiness is a warm gun.
Violence is never the answer to anything.
it’s the answer that the one state whose ideology is most akin to yours uses all the time and has always used.
1. the US spends twice as much on its military as it does on “welfare”.
2. the US sells 10x as much military equipment/arms as the next largest seller Russia.
3. george washington was a “terrorist” peepee?
you do know that the entire new world with the sole exception of canada is free from european control as a result of violent revolution.
don’t you?
the UK itself was conquered by the Normans in 1066…by violence.
you must have misinterpreted what you won’t post.
or you’re just a little scared girl…
stockholm syndrome again.
peepee won’t even post my comments.
what a little girl.
just like jeb bush.
Because your last comment was too radical
convicted by your own words peepee.
I’ll let your comments through, only because it would be wrong to not let you comment on a post about you
…as a rule subjective violence is a response to objective violence…
Violence is not the answer to your problems. Please seek peaceful solutions.
it’s the solution america uses to all of its problems.
grow up and get a penis.
the US is:
1. the #1 sponsor of terrorism.
2. the biggest threat to world peace.
3. has the world’s highest incarceration rate.
peepee is still just a little girl.
Well one point in favor of you having a high IQ is you’re EXTREMELY liberal. Liberalism is positively correlated with IQ and you’re at least a few SD above the mean in certain kinds of liberalism:
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/why-are-high-iq-people-more-liberal/
i’m an economic “liberal” only by american standards.
not by global standards.
and i’m not a social liberal at all.
You’re a liberal on economics, foreign policy, and race
everyone who isn’t an american or an american wanna be like peepee-tard hates american foreign policy and the washington consensus.
everyone!
that doesn’t make me a liberal.
it makes me someone who knows that the US is the shittiest country in the developed world by a very wide margin.
and a liberal on race?
and a white nationalist?
which is it peepee-tard?
are you taking hormones to grow your clit out yet?
everyone who isn’t an american or an american wanna be like peepee-tard hates american foreign policy and the washington consensus.
everyone!
that doesn’t make me a liberal.
It makes you a liberal relative to other Americans, which is your reference group.
and a liberal on race?
and a white nationalist?
which is it peepee-tard?
Both. They’re not mutually exclusive. White nationalists are liberals in the sense that they see themselves as oppressed by a richer more powerful race (Jews) in the same way that black activists see themselves as oppressed by whites. Opposition to the powerful is a good way to define liberal. You’re also racially liberal in the sense that you oppose HBD and mass incarceration.
are you taking hormones to grow your clit out yet?
Oh grow up.
by which i mean…
the argument that inequality can be better even for the bottom, the mole people…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_people
i agree with that…as a possibility…
but i also think that inequality is, by itself, UGLY…
——————–
“the economy” isn’t mysterious…or isn’t that mysterious…
BUT!
one of the magic tricks, the legerdemain, of the neo-liberals, is to throw sand in the face of the proletariat and the bourgeois or pseudo-bourgeois…to throw sand in their own face…
that is, by their dim lights…
the economy is not only beyond your comprehension,
it’s beyond anyone’s comprehension.
and by this gesture of the prole-jew-merican emperor one sees that…
the contemporary bourgeois are
PROLES…
or rather, “former” proles…
but PROLES…
ALL THE SAME.
the nation of shopkeepers and its diaspora has become the nation of gumbies…would be shopkeepers…would be lords.
…how this much greater sensitivity to subjective violence goes hand and hand with much more brutal forms of objective violence…
this is what lenin meant when he said:
a revolution without firing squads is meaningless.
he intended to draw attention to the objective violence which was pervasive in the pre-revolutionary state and the more general status quo ante which included private tyrannies, corporations.
you’re a scared little girl peepee.
a natural born…
SLAVE.
a natural born…
SLAVE.
Like 99.9% of the population
frankfurt school . The debate is not over good or evil, capitalism vs communism, but over how terms are phrased within cultural and economic contexts
here it is:
Smart people don’t get ahead by adapting to the World, smart people get ahead only by adapting to the SAT, Chartreuse felt, which allows them to get into the right schools, which allows them to get to the top.
no pp not even metaphorically.
the point is “the world” one finds himself in, his particular society, is more than ever man made and contingent. that is, it could be otherwise in very significant ways. this is very different from the natural world, which presumably operates according to unchanging laws. and the way “the world” happens to be will be more agreeable to some than to others, especially if those some are rich and powerful.
Hi chartreuse
That is an interesting video. I agree that subjective rules are better than explicit rules. I am very conditioned by my life experiences but I recognise that I should not be upset by making mistakes where I feel bad about being myself. For a long time I was always sad that I did not belong. And I was so sad when I saw that others could not be themselves also. It is hard for me put the pain I feel onto others. This may because if I do no one will love me. I wanted to do so many things but no one cared that I could understand so many things. I felt allot like lisa simpson in the cartoon. I notice most people do not care as much I do. People are not kind and they do not want to understand. It is stupid to try except for those people who actually care. But it is also stupid to tell people they should care. That just makes them chastise you. Those explicit rules are just there to control people not liberates them as a false caring so it like they tell you care and they do the opposite. “By their fruits”. It really is about false consciousness. But I will not make them really make them overcome it if I am the one to which they ascribe all those things that have produced it in them. I just like to read pumpkins blog because I could never relate anyone who was smarter than me. No one would help me understand better. I had to understand this world by myself. I like to read the Bible but it made me feel so sad that I could not live up to what it said. I started believing I would go to Hell when I was 12. It was because no one told me how to read it. And it messed me up because I would always hold it inside that I could not relate to anyone at church and how no one answered my questions. I could not even read the whole thing. The worst part was that it said Jesus died because he loved me but I thought that I could not do the same for him. I do not equate that with this blog but with anyone who I see who has real consciousness. Without pain you cannot understand what that is. Sometime I see how people have changed how they behave but they do want me to know subconsciously. They wonder if I will expose what is inside them to themselves. They fear being understood.
http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=510167&postcount=32
starting at minute 32.
chomsky explains why a-morality is so important.
i think pp wants some sort of recognition that…
those who have scored very high on the wechsler tests…or would…
but did not score so high on the ETS and other school entrance exams…or wouldn’t…
are still very smart…
of course!
they are!
but if pp wants some sort of “preferential treatment” of the wechsler exams…
then she can fuck off.
i had occasion to talk about marley while my thumb was being sewn up.
the student doctor, despite being in the er, was going to do his residency in dermatology.
so naturally i brought up marley.
marley’s dad was white…
and he died from melanoma…
a white man’s cancer.
…got to fulfil the book…
so i asked, after bringing up the seinfeld episode about a life saving dermatologist…
“you know a famous person who died from melanoma?”
the doctor knew, of course.
but then…sewing up my thumb…he said, “not a cancer common among african americans.”
of course jamaicans are african-americans, but i said,
“his dad was white.”
“i can’t believe i didn’t know that”, said the student doctor.
and such pathos reminds me…
even though it’s a little too in-your-face gay at times…
the hbo movie The Normal Heart is still quite affective…or it was for me…especially as i have a dying dog…anal sac adenocarcinoma…and he’s the most beautiful dog.
Yes, what Jean said. Sorry to hear about your dog. 😦