One of the things I hated about university is that all my classmates tried to sound intelligent by beginning every sentence with “from a Marxist perspective”. But why is academia is so liberal? One possibility is that academics are more intelligent, and intelligent people are more liberal. However research I found on Dr. James Thompson’s excellent blog suggests that’s not the whole story.
Thompson quotes from Noah Carl’s paper: Can intelligence explain the overrepresentation of liberals and leftists in American academia? Intelligence Volume 53, November–December 2015, Pages 181–193:
It is well known that individuals with so-called liberal or leftist views are overrepresented in American academia. By bringing together data on American academics, the general population and a high-IQ population, the present study investigates how much of this overrepresentation can be explained by intelligence. It finds that intelligence can account for most of the disparity between academics and the general population on the issues of abortion, homosexuality and traditional gender roles. By contrast, it finds that intelligence cannot account for any of the disparity between academics and the general population on the issue of income inequality. But for methodological reasons, this finding is tentative. Furthermore, the paper finds that intelligence may account for less than half of the disparity on liberal versus conservative ideology, and much less than half the disparity on Democrat versus Republican identity. Following the analysis, eight alternative explanations for liberal and leftist overrepresentation are reviewed.
I don’t have time to read the study to find out what those eight alternative explanations are, but one obvious explanation which I doubt was included, is that academics are just plain jealous that people with less education than they have, are much much richer.
Dr. James Thompson writes:
Over-representation of liberals and Democrats appears to be largest in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts (particularly sociology, anthropology and the performing arts), and appears to be smallest in economics, business, computer science, engineering and military science. For example, the ratio of liberal to conservative English literature professors may be as high as 28:1, while the ratio of Democrat to Republican sociology professors may be as high as 44:1 . Over-representation in the physical sciences, the biological sciences and mathematics appears to be intermediate, though still considerable.
Notice how liberal over-representation is most acute in the most snobbish and status obsessed fields (English literature)?
Commenter JS writes:
I don’t think those college professors are jealous of the rich.
Many tenured professors are well to do. Maybe not millionaires, although some of them are. They live in nice neighborhoods and earn about 1/4 million in yearly salary. Some of them also invest, so they have more money than that. Furthermore, some universities/colleges provide fancy perks to them.
Of course 1/4 million a year is nothing in America, where you need $1.7 billion to be one of the 400 richest Americans.
Having a lot of education without the money to go with it has been to compared to having enormous muscles but very little height. David Brooks coined the term status-income disequilibrium and in his book Coming Apart Charles Murray describes the humiliation:
…eminent Columbia faculty member [who] goes home after giving his speech at the Plaza Hotel to admiring Wall Street executives. While his audience is dispersing in their limos to their duplex cooperatives on the Upper East Side, he catches a cab home to his cramped apartment near the Columbia campus, his standing ovation still ringing in his ears, only to be told by his wife that the shower drain is clogged and he must take care of it before the children get up for school the next morning.
I remember seeing an old rerun of Oprah where she was interviewing a PhD in sociology who had been on welfare for 23 years. “I can’t imagine not working for 23 years,” Oprah explained.
This person clearly has a superiority complex because of his PhD and when another guest noted that it was 23 years old he replied “I don’t have to defend my degree here. I have prestigious faculty and the World’s leading universities defending my degree.”
“HEY!” Oprah shouted. “All of that doesn’t mean anything, if you’re still sitting out not working. All of that fancy talk don’t mean a darn thing if you still don’t have a job.”
The man went into a long-winded explanation for why he wasn’t working, and the audience began to heckle him. At first Oprah tried to be open-minded, praising him for being a good talker (his vocab was large) and asked the audience to let him speak, but when they heckled him again, he shouted:
“OPRAH YOU LISTEN TO ME YOU KEEP YOUR AUDIENCE QUIET!”
Oprah was so stunned that someone would dare order her around that she exploded into uncontrollable spitting snorting laughter. Immediate laughter. She turned to the audience who was also laughing and continued to laugh with them. It was total pandemonium as the PhD bounced around all alone on stage like a carnival freak pointing to the audience demanding “quiet”.
This man was so delusional that he thought his superior education allowed him to order around the richest and most worshiped self-made woman in America and she just thought that was so incredibly funny. You couldn’t help but feel sorry for him.
The power of sudden spontaneous in your face laughter.
When Oprah finally stopped laughing, she said: “Oh Martin, Martin, Martin. Duke directs this show. You do not.”
Pumpkin Person 
i doubt oprah has ever had a job in her life.
has she?
i know she “worked” as a local reporter.
anything else?
has she ever actually produced or distributed anything in her life?
her entire fortune comes from ad revenues. and the ads on her show are likely for fast food, diapers, american cars, bullshit financial services, etc.
she should try working at an mro company/industrial distributor like me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance,_repair,_and_operations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Distribution
but she’s too dumb and evil.
so stedman is her beard right?
they’ve never actually had sex i assume.
has she ever actually produced or distributed anything in her life?
She’s produced thousands of hours of entertaining and inspirational television that has brought enormous joy to millions of people who didn’t have to pay a penny for it..
She’s probably the most productive billionaire in America in the sense that she is the product, while other billionaires just hire others to create products, Their talent is just management. By contrast Oprah had to go out everyday and actually perform in an extremely competitive arena..
Steve Sailer made a similar point:
http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2011/11/earning-vs-owning-your-way-on-forbes.html
Of course as she got richer she could hire a talented staff, but the personality and talents of the host is key to a talk show’s success.
her entire fortune comes from ad revenues. and the ads on her show are likely for fast food, diapers, american cars, bullshit financial services, etc.
Traditionally daytime TV shows got most of their adds from soap (one of the most valuable products ever invented). Hence the term soap operas.
she should try working at an mro company/industrial distributor like me
If you want a real challenge, you should try hosting a talk show. It’s much harder than it looks.
so stedman is her beard right?
they’ve never actually had sex i assume.
For the first decade of her national career, there were never any rumors that she was gay. There were rumors about him, but never ever about her. It was only after she appeared as the therapist on Ellen’s famous coming out show in 1997 (which got her sitcom cancelled because gays were much more stigmatized then) that the gay rumors started.
Some think Oprah’s gay because she refuses to get married, but it’s common for successful women to not get married, especially if they’re black, and she’s the most successful woman.
Gay rumors also spread because she and her best friend Gayle King Bumpus have been extremely close for nearly 40 years, talking on the phone everyday, going on vacation together etc, but female friendships tend to be a lot more intimate so I’m not sure that’s significant.
Evidence that she’s straight: She was a promiscuous teen who had a baby at 15. She was also in many well documented relationships with men before meeting Steadman.
She also had a gay half-brother. This might be evidence of gay genes, or it could be evidence that she’s straight, since it’s thought that the genes of gay men spread because the same genes that make them attracted to men, also make their sisters super attracted to men, causing enough fertility for both of them:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2158795/Gay-gene-survives-generations-female-relatives-homosexual-men-babies.html
https://t.co/QMuSGsqnNW
Have you read this, chartreuse (link goes to a comment to Plomin and Visscher by a HBD denier)
there’s a difference between an hbd denier and an hbd skeptic fucktard.
and turkheimer is a jew. so i’m skeptical of him.
but everything he says is correct.
i also noticed plomin using “genetic influence” in an un-rigorous way…
and i explained it by plomin’s having no idea what a rigorous way would be.
basically hbd is like this.
at one extreme you have the jews…
at the other you have the white trash…
both are wrong and disgusting.
in between…at the epicenter of truth you have…believe it or not…
the national socialists.
hbd is just another universalism, and its adherents are so dumb they can’t imagine that universalism isn’t true…they don’t even understand the difference between universalism and particularism…they are the pet monkeys of the jews.
Is not because universalism don’t work that this don’t exist or that can’t be improved.
A only word define very well what is happening in the west (and, seems, always) = sabotage.
“Europeans do not know how to live unless they are engaged in some great enterprise.” — José Ortega y Gasset
on other words,
– histeria
und
-drama.
😉
what were the nazis correct about?
everything…in three words…
blut und boden.
a corollary of which is…
fanatical hatred of jews.
trotsky the universalist bolshevik.
stalin the nationalist…even though he was georgian and spoke russian in a thick accent…
stalin won.
Aren’t the Nazis just the government of the white trash?
When a country is suffering greatly, the chronic losers, the more rural, the uneducated, – the powerless – become useful and relevant and their ideology grows, like in Weimar Germany. When a country is growing quickly, the ideologies of the übermenschen, the educated, the successful, the sociopathic (?) take over, like in the post WWII United States.
Somewhere in between these two extremes, in a moderately expanding, stable country, where you can have both educated and uneducated living together with less class resentment (ethnic homogeneity and geographic isolation helps with this, but is not necessary or sufficient), you can have a politics that takes the best elements from a more diverse experiential and ideological palette. In fact, moderate growth is what you see in the most stable countries. And with a liberal, effete flourish, I will leave you to ponder the possibilities of a system that incorporates even more diversity of experience into a functional ideology. Also think about how nazis were losers.
no. that’s thatcher/reagan-ism.
the german aristocracy was over-represented in the SS.
goering was hitler’s successor and an aristocrat.
hitler was supported by germany’s industrialists.
hitler carried a copy of The World as Will and Representation during the first war.
white trash is almost exclusively an anglo-sphere phenomenon.
the german academics of the day were pro hitler too, not just the mystic of messkirch.
goebbels:
Goebbels was educated at a Christian Gymnasium, where he completed his Abitur (university entrance examination) in 1917.[8] He was the top student of his class and was given the traditional honor to speak at the awards ceremony…In 1921 he wrote a semi-autobiographical novel, Michael, a three-part work of which only Parts I and III have survived…At the University of Heidelberg, Goebbels wrote his doctoral thesis on Wilhelm von Schütz, a minor 19th century romantic dramatist…After submitting the thesis and passing his oral examination, Goebbels earned his PhD in 1921.[21]
I am not saying that the underclass becomes the government itself, that would be a contradiction, especially in a capitalistic economy. I am only saying that the concerns of the underclass may be embodied by the government and the underclass can be honestly represented by the elites because they sympathize with each other. This representation existed in Germany because the national consciousness was suffering wounds similar to those inflicted on the poor: disenfranchisement, dislocation, and humiliation.
Thatcher-reaganism is on the other hand merely the illusion of connection. In a rich capitalistic country, the wealthy have virtually no interests in common with the poor, so industry uses subterfuge to get them on their side. The white trash are reagan-thatcher conservative because of a false consciousness. The white trash are truthfully represented by a government like the Nazis that feels the same passions as they do.
I guess if you think of white trash as the very poorest rather than just the lower middle class, they don’t tend to vote conservative, at least not anymore. Of course, the very poor have less influence and aren’t politically active.
Chartreuse, you seem to strongly identify with working values, and that is who the Nazis represented. I guess for you the distinction between working class and “white trash” is stark… though the word originally was used to describe the servants of the rich, rather than the jobless or welfare dependent.
JV — Spaniards perceive Brits and Germans as barbarian trash, who go to Spain for the holidays and leave a trail of mess of drunken revelry. Northern Euro protestants — the same effing crap, and they bring their irrational racism into Spain. I hate most Norwegians, and I once almost got into a fight with one in Madrid. Northern Euros invite riff raff into their countries and then become extremists as reactionary to the multiculti filth they bring upon themselves. The majority of American Whites are of Northern Euro ancestry.
HBD, Nazism, black worship etc…solely the work of Northern Euros.
And I mean the HBD today, which is mainly a reactionary movement of the problems Northern Euros bring upon themselves.
HBD Chick believes the open mindedness of Northern Euros as a result of the industrial revolution, is a good thing — when in fact, they become reactionary to all the problems coming from it.
HEre’s the original paper: http://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
In what way do you think is Turkheimer’s reponse correct, and how is Plomin wrong? I’ll post more on this with your reply, but your opinion sounds wrong
Chartreuse, you seem to strongly identify with working values.
i have no idea what you mean by “working values”.
but i do value what works.
the rich of the anglosphere are all white trash.
and no fucktard…unlike the contemporary anglosphere’s elite i do not value work at all…that is, no more than is required to get things done.
productivity hasn’t increased in the developed world for 30 years, because though everyone is expected to “work for a living” there simply isn’t much to do, and high value added industry 1. has been outsourced, 2. requires more expertise than ever 3. anglosphere companies no longer train their people and are no longer run by technically competent people — they’re run by bean counters and salesmen.
the contemporary anglosphere owners are former proles, and they’ve yet to shed their proliness.
false consciousness isn’t just an affliction of wage laborers in the anglosphere.
“Spaniards perceive Brits and Germans as barbarian trash, who go to Spain for the holidays and leave a trail of mess of drunken revelry. Northern Euro protestants — the same effing crap, and they bring their IRRATIONAL RACISM into Spain. I hate most Norwegians…”
Self-parody? Intentional? Non-intentional? Please, someone help me.
And, JS, your trashing the Germans is a joke, pure envy. Consider this little story. The other day I found my old botany textbook, and decided to look through it. I couldn’t believe how many German names I found. The founders of cell theory were two Germans. The founder of bryology was a German. Two Germans revolutionized the study of primitive vascular plants. One of the most important paleobotanists was American, yet obviously had German ancestry, considering his surname. And Mendel himself was from Austria, a German-speaking country.
Stettin,
not so completely, generally northern europeans become ”high”, more happy and alcoholic than the norm in hot countries, specially in mediterranean countries. Just my impression and what I have seen…
There’s one other comment I made here that went to spam or something, but here’s another link that might interest you, chartreuse. https://aeon.co/conversations/is-there-anything-to-iq
You don’t seem to be as much of an IQ denier as you are a heritability denier, but would you say you agree with Dr. Ritchie?
i am not nor have i ever been an IQ denier.
i am an IQ trumpeter!
i think tests should be much more important than they are…in shitmerica and canuckistan.
IQ tests both nominal and actual (like college entrance exams) CANNOT be improved upon. they are the best measure of ability/talent/intelligence/etc. and no additional information…except additional IQ test scores…can say any more.
the subjective appraisal of intelligence and IQ are almost perfectly correlated in my experience.
and i think a truly meritocratic system would be better for everyone, not just those with high IQs.
the current american, canadian, and scandinavian systems are the least meritocratic in the developed world.
if scandinavia combined meritocracy with its social democracy it would conquer the world.
the people’s republic of china is much more meritocratic than the US or canada.
and supposing there are other desirable traits, these too can be tested for.
but satan worshippers like peepee EQUATE worldly status with VIRTUE.
even when this equation is shown to be a very poor approximation…they simply make shit up so they can keep worshipping satan.
100 years ago such people would all have been in prison.
today they run for president.
but satan worshippers like peepee EQUATE worldly status with VIRTUE.
I correlate worldly status with both virtue and vice. I estimate there’s a moderate (0.3) correlation between money/power and sociopathy:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/01/18/do-you-have-to-be-a-psychopath-to-get-ahead/
academics as a whole are left of center in the US, but they haven’t always been so in every place.
in weimar germany academics were far right of center for example.
i wouldn’t be surprised if academics in the soviet union were conservatives in the soviet sense.
and…
the liberalness and political awareness of academics varies a lot with their speciality.
generally…economics and business faculty will have the most GOP identifying members, engineering next, natsci a few, but the rest of the departments…it’s basically socially impossible…that is there’s a tipping point where being surrounded by people who think the same way either 1. changes your own opinions or 2. drives you out of the group.
US military officers are just as overwhelmingly GOP as academics are dem.
why’s that?
my cousin in who’s who for fluid dynamics. his phd is in aeronautical engineering. and he’s both a yellow dog democrat and a racist who hates fat people.
and as JS alluded to…
my cousin is a millionaire. how many times over idk.
i think it’s just that the arrant stupidity of so many GOP politicians grates on really smart people.
if they’re jealous, it’s not for the money. academics don’t go into academia for the money…OBVIOUSLY…BUT they often make in the top 5% of wages.
if academics were in it for the money they’d have gotten an MBA, JD, or MD, rather than a phd…drrr.
that said…
i’d be happy to play the role of blokhin in a katyn style massacre of the professoriate.
where can i sign?
if they’re jealous, it’s not for the money. academics don’t go into academia for the money…OBVIOUSLY…BUT they often make in the top 5% of wages.
if academics were in it for the money they’d have gotten an MBA, JD, or MD, rather than a phd…drrr
People go into fields often because of opportunity, and because it’s what they’re good at and what they love, but that doesn’t mean they don’t resent the fact that other fields pay more, particularly if they think what they do takes more brains and is more important.
Many academics go into academia for the occupational status, and though that’s not the same as money, it is a form of currency, and shows they care about certain kinds of capital (prestige is social cultural capital). This may cause them to resent being dwarfed in other forms of capital (i,e, financial)
“doesn’t mean they don’t resent the fact that other fields pay more”
But not, Pump, enough to change fields. They might be jealous of one element but their true desires betray them.
Anglo Prole nations are money junkie sluts in the Western World, with Britony, United Stale at the top of the dung heap.
That’s probably true about stupidity of GOP candidates. Even if Trump wasn’t a cryptonazi and a liar, I would still hate him just based on how stupid he comes across, and how ugly and orange and sick looking his face is. The guy talks at a fourth grade level because he knows he needs to connect with idiots or because he thinks he doesn’t need to connect with intelligent people.
You are wrong. Trump is extremely intelligent. Probably at least 3 to 4 SD above the white mean. Look at how successful he has been. Yeah, he inherited millions, but he turned it into billions – people win millions in the powerball and then piss it away in few years. Look at how he has dominated the media, playing it like a Stradivarius. You may disagree with what he is saying, but it is stupid and foolish to dismiss him and his supporters as stupid, lying nazis.
Another thing, look at how hard the democrats try to appeal to blacks – a group with a mean of IQ of 85. Trump’s base is at least an SD beyond that.
What about Bernie who agreed that all lives don’t matter, black ones do? Tell me, who’s the cuck?
Maybe if those super-intelligent leftists hadn’t been busy destroying our country these past six decades, then Trump wouldn’t be running for president.
Trump 2016! The Great White Hope and the end of political correctness!
I don’t know how smart Trump is, but one thing that shows intelligence is his ability to adapt to several different fields: real-estate, reality TV, and now politics.
I don’t know if his base is that smart though. 80% of his supporters don’t have a college degree.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/trump-sanders/
Statistically that suggests they have a mean IQ below 100, however that doesn’t make them wrong. Trump might just be so obviously the best candidate that even lower IQ people can see it, and lower IQ people are more hurt by illegal immigration.
Of course many Trump supporters are very intelligent (i.e. Ann Coulter)
I’m not saying he is stupid, but he chooses to appear stupid.
Stupidity from my position as voter is more a result of how they choose to present themselves. Ted Cruz might have an IQ of 150, but he’s not using it to write his speeches or craft his policy.
There’s no chance Trump is 4 SD above the mean. He seems around 2.5.
Cruz is smarter. I’d guess around 3 SD, possibly as high as IQ150.
Pumpkin Person- what do you think Ann Coulter’s IQ is? Do you have any numbers to go off of, based on her status, etc.
Sometimes her rhetoric is very insightful and brilliant, other times it is laughable (although that could be pandering to her base)…like with this Ted Cruz birther nonsense (she wants the children of immigrants born on American soil not to be citizen, so then citizenship is by blood, which Cruz has). It’s a fallacy.
Trump gets a lot of his content from her book. She deserves more credit (good or bad) for his rise, but she doesn’t get it.
I plan to do a post on Ann Coulter’s IQ
Awesome! After skimming ‘Adios America’ at the library I was fascinated, both in good ways and bad.
I’m looking forward to that one. 🙂
Not “library” but “book store” Oops. I doubt they’d have her book in a PUBLIC library (which is in the definition). Lol
Pumpkin Person- You might not even know who she is, but you should do Katrina Pierson’s (news says she is Trump’s national spokesperson) IQ. https://ballotpedia.org/Katrina_Pierson
As you can see she went from nothing to the head of the front runners campaign by cozying up to Cruz. I’m watching an interview right now where she turns Trump supporting the removal of the Confederate Flag from the S.C. state house into ‘a national candidate can’t tell a governor what to do’ (state’s rights). She is very, very bright, I would think.
I’ll add her to my waiting list, though the list is extremely long
In other words, ”academics”, on average, are pussy, they are always when the power is, like ”journalists”.
I had a professor who was pretty liberal – enough to fall within what I would call the far left ideological “sphere of frustration” – who said that he did very poorly on the SAT and it bothered him for a long time.
While that’s not direct evidence that he was jealous of successful people, it is suggestive of an underlying insecurity that may have manifested in him lashing out at the society that had objectified and rejected him in that way.
I do admit to feeling quite objectified when I took an IQ test, even though I knew that I was doing pretty well. I can imagine how much worse it would be if you were doing poorly, and if the test really mattered the way the SAT matters. Of course, he was able to become a professor at a moderately well regarded college anyway.
To digress, mentally reducing the importance of the test by not trying as hard is one of the defense mechanisms that Aronson and Steele proposed to explain their stereotype threat findings about black IQ performance.
I know that the blogger meng hu has written dismissively of stereotype threat, but he seems rather strongly biased in favor of hereditarianism. I also know that the stereotype threat has suffered from the decline effect since its heyday. I still vouch for the possibility that it may be “real”.
I hate to say this because I’m a lowbrow monkey myself, but this obsession with Oprah is as nauseatingly prole as it can get.
I mean altogether I appreciate your article but when I scroll down and see “And Oprah said..” it reminds me of some autistic kid always bringing his particular little narrow obsession into the discussion.
It’s fine and you can do that, but it makes this a tougher read.
No doubt that hbdears (on avrg) have some stuff against autistic people.
Yes,
and very few straight men are Oprah fan.
”Achievements” is not just the BIG ones, that’s the problem.
Really good attitudes at daily basis is (should be) also extremely important.
”Stupid, stupid does”
Oprah seems ”smarter’ than the american average (and with a lot of lucky in its life) but it doesn’t mean that she’s perfect as Pumpkin seems believe.
absolutely perfect (if it is not redundant) as a human being, even the wisest of us will not be.
Higher verbal intelligence with relative lower general intelligence seems correlate with cultural marxism (social liberalism) BECAUSE those with higher verbal intelligence, comparatively relative-lower general intelligence and without autism, tend to be more social-leaning if you’re verbosen then you will use it as ”adaptative” (conformative) strategy. People who like other people FOR socialize tend to be less introverted and more talkative, sympathetic and empathetic … and less BIASED if communication is their cognitive ‘strategic” lifes.
Also ”cultural determinism” or, whatever, ”culturalism”, is a kind of narrative of the world that is better understood by more verbal-leaning people, the abstract interactions of events, phenomena, while more mechanicist people tend to give more attention to details and or patterns, a logic-deductive way to understand the world, patterns who interact mechanically correct one each other, while verbal-leaning people tend to give more enphasis in interpersonal (verbalized) interactions…
Humanities obviously was invaded by farsants OR this ”always” was like that. ‘Universal’ higher education seems a very new event in human history.
What seems very differentiates the cognitive style of the sexes is the logical-deductive thinking, where the man will be comparatively better than woman as well happen with spatial skills. Of course, there are women with very good logical-deductive thinking or approach but most them seems below the average and specially if were compared with men.
Man who is more territorialist, tend to be better at ”strategic” (logical deductive) thinking than woman who is more social-leaning.
Woman suppress differences to increase cooperative circulation while man generally tend to work like a organic borden. This seems a bio-product of sexual selection. And more antagonized were the sexual selection, more assymmetric will (tend to) be the ”distribution” of ”sexual” cognitive ”and” psychological traits.
Engineering, too male…
Education, too female.
and very few straight men are Oprah fan.
Don’t confuse the gay man’s Oprahmania with my autistic obsession with Oprah’s brain size and bank account. The symptom is the same but the etiology is very different.
Lots of times opposite personalities can display identical behavior. For example as LOTB has noted, alpha male dominance and beta male rage, both display the same behavior, but the psychology is very different.
”alpha male dominance and beta male rage, both display the same behavior, but the psychology is very different”
I don’t understand this part.
I think Oprah is an interesting case study on the alleged power of genetic intelligence: she grew up poor, is an outsider to the intellectual elite, is a self made billionaire, is black, is extremely powerful even for her wealth, etc. Good nonfiction writers are able to weave anecdote into factual narratives without diminishing either and I think pumpkin does a decent job of it. In my opinion the more “autistic” trait is to focus exclusively on statistical patterns and lose the human story, the statistical model being played on in real life, often to the detriment of one’s understand of the big picture. For example, Meng Hu is so obsessed with numbers he often uses mathematical concepts to try to describe concepts that are non-mathematical and his ability to see the real world that the math models suffers.
the world would be a much better place without oprah.
she speaks in a totally affected accent…just like martha and charles murray.
she’s so ugly, peepee won’t even post a picture of her chin.
she’s the black geraldo, not the black donahue.
donahue’s mind contains oprah’s mind…he’s o’obrien to oprah’s winston.
an irish catholic…
of course.
but both of their mothers were infected with the zika virus during their gestation.
it’s like russian dolls.
oprah < donahue < bill clinton < george soros…
peepee is obsessed with oprah not because she's autistic, but because she is also a black lesbian. the difference is that peepee is a so-called "aggressive" lesbian, "butch" lesbian, or "bull dyke"…so much so that she thinks she's a guy.
“weave anecdote into factual narrative” should be “wave anecdote into scientific narrative”
*weave
Oprah & Bill Clinton have virtually the same IQ but Oprah is more creative. She invented the touchy feely persona he used to get elected as Maureen Dowd noted. The World would be worse without Oprah: no confession culture, little discussion of taboo subjects like addiction, abuse, fat and gays. No president Obama who Oprah campaigned for in all important Iowa. Oprah was decades ahead of her time in paving the way for reality TV & social media
An extremely transformative figure.
the world would be a much better place without oprah.
she speaks in a totally affected accent…just like martha and charles murray.
she’s so ugly, peepee won’t even post a picture of her chin.
she’s the black geraldo, not the black donahue.
donahue’s mind contains oprah’s mind…he’s o’obrien to oprah’s winston.
an irish catholic…
of course.
but both of their mothers were infected with the zika virus during their gestation.
it’s like russian dolls.
oprah < donahue < bill clinton < george soros…
peepee is obsessed with oprah not because she's autistic, but because she is also a black lesbian. the difference is that peepee is a so-called "aggressive" lesbian, "butch" lesbian, or "bull dyke"…so much so that she thinks she's a guy.
LOLWUT? Read that twice and chuckled twice. And scratched my head a few times too…
He knows nothing about bull dykes. They would probably like Howard Stern, not Oprah.
Jeez need cone back
An uncle of mine who was a university professor was ridiculously envious of the rich. He couldn’t get over the fact that some of this former classmates, not necessarily any cleverer than himself, were far richer. He could go on about it for hours.
PS: I’m probably exaggerating when I say “hours”. Felt like hours, though.
PPS: This uncle of mine was not a sociologists, and nor, as far as I can recall, a leftist. He just felt underpaid, and didn’t mine letting people know.
Also Pump, speaking of obsessions, though maybe not since it is the subject of this blog, IQ that being; I have found a curious thing, normally when examining the SAT-IQ correlation we do something similar to, if an SAT IQ implies 144(SAT 1390) we take the number of points above the norm, in this case 44 and multiply it by the correlation of IQ and SAT, .86 according to Frey and Detterman. The result, roughly 38 to the nearest whole number, put the whole thing back together and we get 138 (Incidentally this is the implied avg IQ of Harvard according to this:http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/?page=1)
But if we simply take the SAT implied IQ, 144, and multiply it straight otta the gate by the correlation, we get 123 odd, which is much much closer to the empirical results!
The fact that the empirical data was collected after the dumbing down of the SAT might have something to do with that, but still, very curious.
Also Pump, speaking of obsessions, though maybe not since it is the subject of this blog, IQ that being; I have found a curious thing, normally when examining the SAT-IQ correlation we do something similar to, if an SAT IQ implies 144(SAT 1390) we take the number of points above the norm, in this case 44 and multiply it by the correlation of IQ and SAT, .86 according to Frey and Detterman. The result, roughly 38 to the nearest whole number, put the whole thing back together and we get 138 (Incidentally this is the implied avg IQ of Harvard according to this:http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/5/7/report-discloses-sats-admit-rate-pa/?page=1)
But if we simply take the SAT implied IQ, 144, and multiply it straight otta the gate by the correlation, we get 123 odd, which is much much closer to the empirical results!
The fact that the empirical data was collected after the dumbing down of the SAT might have something to do with that, but still, very curious.
It’s just a coincidence that multiplying 0.86 by 144 gave a credible result. The correct procedure is to multiply the correlation by the distance from the mean (in standard deviation units which can be converted to IQ points when the SD are of the general U.S. population), But keep in mind that Frey/Detterman got that correlation from the SAT population, not the general population, so they would be regressing to the mean IQ of SAT takers, not Americans in general, and they may have different SDs and a skewed distribution to boot.
In my opinion, the 0.86 value is too high because it’s derived from correlating the SAT with the general factor of the ASVAB which I assume measures very academic skills (much like the SAT), so it’s almost like correlating two parallel forms of the SAT with one another. By contrast garden variety IQ tests are very different from the SAT/ASVAB so I would expect a much lower correlation, at least based on the regression Ivy League students seem to show based on the limited data I’ve seen..
“It’s just a coincidence that multiplying 0.86 by 144 gave a credible result. The correct procedure is to multiply the correlation by the distance from the mean ”
Didn’t I already make a distinction between proper procedure and curiosity? Don’t tell me things I already know Pump, and have said. It’s patronizing.
Didn’t I already make a distinction between proper procedure and curiosity? Don’t tell me things I already know Pump, and have said. It’s patronizing.
Fair enough. I mistakenly thought you were implying more than just a fun coincidence.
Pumpkin, You should know better than this. Meriprolestan is strictly a capitalistic country with a lot of income inequality, where money is king and everything is money.
America and New York isn’t Montreal or Canada in general, where the professors make slightly less than their counterparts south of them. They have more quality of life measures and are psychological healthier, because everyone around them are not at the extremes in social and income measures. A professor would be happier in Montreal than in NYC, simply for the fact that NYC is all about money.
Americans are obsessed with money because it often sucks so much to not have money in the U.S.. In more socialist countries, you can still have quality of life without a high income.
Of course, Pumpkin, anyone who is an intellectual type in America will be very unhappy.
Murrica is exactly like a Brazil of the first world.
For University Professors that have significantly superior intelligence, IQ160, it’s much easier to go to sleep at night, knowing that you have something that even billionaires envy but cannot purchase. This professor is likely making more money than they have need for, and it consumed by solving an interesting and complex problem that only a few people on the planet can understand. Around 3.5 to 4 SD, people are less likely to care about money as a status symbol in the way that those around 2 SD do.
However, for the Professor that is around IQ130 – 140, they are run of the mill in academia. The odds are against them contributing significantly to their field. They don’t have something that billionaires can’t buy.
Many will notice that more for the former type are in higher IQ fields like physics or philosophy, while the latter is populated by the other end with softer sciences and liberal arts.
I largely agree with this
In the U.S., many resent the rich for economic troubles, the insane bubbles of the first decade of the 2000s. The High IQ academics probably resent the High-IQ rich for allegedly bullying the lower classes. They also get a sense of moral supremacy from their work, and not behaving like the very rich, in their alleged ‘bullying’ of the cliche “little guy”.
Pumpkin Person- think of it like this, you are an HBDer who also dislikes “racists”, which you define on this blog as those of a ‘more powerful race bullying a less powerful race’…
Except academics are not exactly morally pure themselves
In general. Do you have a negative opinion of them because of Rushton’s treatment by his peers?
I don’t have a negative opinion of them, but it’s not just the super rich that can be corrupt. Academics can be too. They waste the time and money of millions of people dishing out superfluous credentials & produce dishonest research designed to advance their careers at the expense if truth. Not all of them, of course. Many academics are great.
Americans are money junkies — a trait of the citizens of the developing world.
Why’s my comment here not showing up?
Try posting it again.
I just posted another comment here (different than the previous one) and it didn’t come through. Both the comments I wanted to leave had links in them, however.
See, comments without links go through perfectly. Can you check your spam filter?
I think they’re both posted now. Not sure why they got marked as spam, when other comments with links went through.
Perhaps if you have a short comment with a long link, wordpress marks it as spam, But if you go into more detail, explaining the relevance of the link, you will not be mistaken for a robot 🙂
They’re up now, thanks,
@c
white ppl are getting screwed and fucked over.
the difference between whites and others is,
white ppl can do shitty work, but are disincentivized by the fucked up system.
some white ppl can do stem shit, science & engineer shit,
but virtually none of the guatemalans that the mexicans are sending over here could ever get a stem degree. no matter if you pay them one billion dollars or even tell them to solve these science problems or your dead
but they can do shitty work and are getting incentivized to dos o in ways that whites are not.
if you give blacks and wites equal fed reserve jewgold$
whites will do a lot more with the same amounts than blacks.
so what now ?
equalize opportunity or outcome ? you’re choice.
you can argue about this and whether or not it should be this way until your blue in the face but its a fact
paradoxically, working at all is likely to make you worse off than not working 4 many ppl .
have u heard of self segragation ?
are u 4 or against it? dhould the gov should make ill eagle? will making it a crime fix it? because its just how things are.
like uno, you self segragate with people who share your beliefs and if somebody says something you dont agreed with, you say bye bye. tlking aboot youre politics is stupid because its either preaching to the choir or falling on deaf ears thers no real learning going on but i digress
Santoculto said:
Stettin,
not so completely, generally northern europeans become ”high”, more happy and alcoholic than the norm in hot countries, specially in mediterranean countries. Just my impression and what I have seen…
Is this THE Santoculto? Welcome back, man! I thought you’d disappeared for good.
Northern Euros drink more beer, and since binging on beer is far easier than binging on Mataxa and such, it definitely seems like Northern Euros would rowdier than their southern cousins, yes.
Thank you,
the Middle Easterners are also less likely to get drunk is not *
or is allah effect *
There’s a very strong liquor from the Middle East. Arak is the name. It’s good, but tastes funny to a western palate. You should try it.
Westerners ate more likely to become alcohol addicted. Of course there are strong drinks in all cultures but this propensity to become alcohol addicted seems less common among middle easterners. A impression.
I have female taste, I hate strong drinks, they have bad tastes, seems drug for combat influenza.
There’s nothing particularly puzzling about this.
Priests have always hated merchants.