For comments unrelated to my recent post An analysis of the Flynn effect, please post in the comment section here. Please post about any topic at all.
With Fall now upon us, I wanted to post a clip from one of the greatest moments in horror history. The closet scene in John Carpenter’s classic 1978 film Halloween:
The original Halloween was an incredibly classy film. My hero, the late Roger Ebert, generally hated slasher films, but he thought Halloween was excellent and named it one of the 10 best films of 1978. Much of the film’s appeal comes from the stylish performance of Jamie Lee Curtis, who played the quiet nerdy all-American suburban babysitter Laurie Strode: The quintessential girl next door, who manages to keep her head together under pressure.
Laurie got much better grades than her slutty best friends who were killed off that Halloween night, but the real test of her intelligence was her ability to adapt. Despite the killer having every advantage (bigger, stronger, taller, a butcher knife), Laurie turns the situation around to her advantage, literally turning a close hanger into a weapon.
But for those who like newer movies, I recently saw Into the Forest. Not really a horror film at all (though there were some horrific scenes), though this was classified as horror by my cable company. I LOVE post-apocalyptic films like Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, and this was another of that ilk. There’s just something so incredibly cozy about the End of the World, especially when a few loved ones are forced to stick together and survive in a house in the Woods, as the rest of society crumbles. And of course I adore actress Ellen Page who gained fame in Juno. She just has a certain quality about her.
A bunch of us at work are extremely excited about the new Edward Snowden movie since it relates so closely to what we do everyday. Oliver Stone deserves great credit for telling this man’s story. As usual O’reilly doesn’t get it:
Pumpkin Person 
They dont make good horror anymore.
You keep mentioing how iq is going up and up. This is a chinese economy problem. The statistics dont reflect the ground .
1. Look at exam papers from the 1980s and even 1990s and compare them to today.
2. Read academic articles from 20 years ago plus. Much more rogor. Less lazy words.
3. No fundamental scientific breaktrhoughs have happebed in 10 years now at least. There was 1 a year in the 50s.
4. The comic book and cartoon movie movie production reflects poorly on iq. That being said this may reflect prolactin and oestregen formation from obesity.
5. Most peoples general intelligence seems to have declined despite the internet (anecdotal).
6. Philosophy is dead today. Hasnt been a good philosopher since maybe sartre. It seems to have bifurcated into full on autism and the remnants of formerly good philosophy. Is zizek really in the same league as his ancestors if he believes in the Blank slate?
7. The iq is diverted if it is growing into usueless surplus production for other people i.e autism. Its not even theoretical autism that at least gave us fundamental breakthroughs.
8. Opoid addiction, obesity, stganant real wages, 20 trillion deficits, wars with countries for israel are not evidence of higher iqs but idiocracy.
9. Kinshasha in america has tripled in population while whites have declined. How can iqd be growing?
10 Iin the blankness of their faces, in their wives lustful eyes and in their feminine preoccupations….you cannot help but see what rome was like before the barbarians took over….there is a darkness coming.
11. Nobel prize in literature has turned into a “long march to freedom in uzbekiwaziland gong 12 years running. Literature quality has declined murderously. Is philip roth really our best loving today? He is awful. Like franzen as well. Awful. Feminine. Neurotic and only small glimmers of good quality buried in 100s of pages of feminine murk about race relations.
12. Extraction is diluting the gene pool by bringing much lower iq people to intermingle. That cannot be flynn positve. Strip out the nutrition gains gamma statiscians – there is NoThing.
When i say greater surplus prod intelligence i meant largely quant. This is reflected in the retarded lookong physiognomy nature assigns to quants. AESTHETICS DONT LIE. Most nerds dont look intelligent. That is all you need to know. Because they are not. And semantics, even with numbers cannot change that.
The childish hobbies are a dead giveaway. So maybe:
12 Real intelligence is hard to measure. Nobody can claim we are on the cusp of the next industrial revolution.. But neither can we claim the opposite. As yet.
”Real intelligence” can be ANALYSED and not just MEASURED.
Intelligence is not completely reducibly compatible to the quantitative value.
What i said
modern psychology just divide human operationality in two separated things
– behavior
– cognition
called the second ”intelligence” (IQ).
while real intelligence(S) is the combination of the ”behavior” (psychological) and ”cognition” (cognitive), what white people, as a collectivity, in their worst days, aren’t showing…
”real” adaptability.
and to the social species, real adaptability only can really work at COLLECTIVE LEVELS, and surprise, whites are the most individualistic of all***
what ashkeNAZIS are showing BUT via absolutely imoral ways, as usual for (many, most, almost of) them.
I don’t need deny IQ completely as most illiberals to do, to know that IQ is not enough because is the mean to the end, and the end of this subject is the intelligence,
to analyse intelligence we just need understand it.
because human
-nature
-bio-cultural historic
intelligence varies in both, quantitative and qualitative levels/ types
…
domestication also may mean a diversification of the specialization,
we have a lot of dogs with different cognitive skills…
humans have domesticated ”themselves” and the professions ”we” have created just showed a pretty diversified spectrum of psycho-cognitive human types.
IQ is based on the common idea among [comparatively] smart crowds that ”only mathematics can prove everything, mathematics = scientific method”.
not exactly like that…
Most important than maths, in my opinion, is the PROPORTIONALITY, intermediary approach between quantification (numbers) and qualification (words) of the world.
correlation is not causality
of course not, is partial/fractionated causalities
Of course it’s not causality. The actual cause is differences in ancestry environment. Correlations only show us the relationship between two things. We know the cause of differences in intelligence already.
We can pretty much measure g, we can see that people’s brains differ whether they are more intelligent or less. We even see that brains differ in Africans, whites and Asians (like we can guess with a high probability whay race that person is by seeing their brain scans.
“AESTHETICS DONT LIE. Most nerds dont look intelligent. That is all you need to know. Because they are not. And semantics, even with numbers cannot change that.”
Yea, b/c no one associated glasses, ectomorphism, etc. w/ high intelligence, right?
U
are
stoooopid.
The data (“semantically” correct, I think):
https://motls.blogspot.com/2006/03/iq-in-different-fields.html
he’s right.
there’s been a change in the last 50 years especially.
the last vestige of the feudal ideal has vanished.
now being ugly and nerdy is cool.
Industrial Society and Its Future is another work peepee must read. the first half that is.
the Cynics would call AAPL a smoke stack, a manufacturer of typhos (smoke)…
what civilization has to offer it has had to offer only for the last 75 years or so…
namely…
1. antibiotics
2. vaccines
and in the last 150 years…
3. plumbing.
the rest of modern medicine at most cures diseases of civilization…and it rarely cures them. cancer is still basically a death sentence if one is diagnosed at age > 30. atherosclerosis is irreversible…at least using medicine…there is evidence that it is reversible via starvation…but a doctor would never prescribe that. and thus ischemic heart disease, kidney failure, stroke and vascular dementia are all in-curable. they can be prevented, but modern life makes that very difficult.
singing the song of angry men…
Maybe a desproportional % of so-called philosophers on the past and on the present are, be frank,
that people who write beautifully and confuse literature with ”science” or objective observations of the world…
philosoph[ers] has confused all the time beautiful verborragy, or even worst, incomprehensible verborragy, in the case of Heidegger, with philosophy.
Blame extremely vague [and popular-alt–right and hbb name-calling] ”autism” is not enough or right to do…
What unfortunately science has done and to the disgrace to the philosophy is showed its higher efficiency to solve problems and the rubbish flamboyant pseudo-philosophers more concerned about their fame/”intellectual status” than with philosophy itself.
Other greater problem of aplicability of philosophy in this world is that philosophy simply no have any basical principles of understanding of the world and the first and the most important of it, based on almost of the human (and non-human) conflicts is DUALITY.
better
BINARISM
Duality is spectrum-nature of the reality
binarism simply throw away this spectrum and naturally tend to foment conflicts caused by mutual atomization and subsequent ”de-‘humanization’ ”, or better, ”coisification” = coisa in portuguese or THING
thingfication
change organism or life into a THING: inanimate, useful, inferior, manipulable and disposable.
divide to conquer
divide what* how*
divide people
how*
one each other to fight, search for their natural atomizations, for example, homossexual against heterossexual, and create a culture of conflict.
instead of trying to find similarities and nourish them, does the opposite.
and as most of human beings are deficient in self-awareness (rationality — wisdom), seems easy to do that.
Also, the culture of conflict ALREADY exist in most of human societies, that sociopaths just push more this sad reality.
Feelasoopheeee. Notice how I put feel? Because it’s based on feelings. Philosophers stick their noses where it doesn’t belong. They try to make their field like the hard sciences but it isn’t and it never will be.
All philosophers do is argue about trivialities. No consensus is ever come to.
“Philosophy is dead.” – Steven Hawking
Nope.
Again realist
The fact that most of people who call themselves philosophers are not that smarter they think they are or believe that philosophy is intellectual status still don’t prove that philosophy is useless. Maybe for a fantastic specimen as you, philosophy is meaningless, as well ethics. To the pure intellect you are 😊 philosophy is not important.
But
The daddy here is trying save philosophy and I’m being well successful 😇
You believe in two things
Science supremacy
Hbd invincibility
Well this explain why you think that ethics is irrelevant for your beloved”science”.
Stephen hawking if you don’t know is a over celebrated quasi dead physician
He is more a celebrity than a real genius
He wrote trivialities in their area, physics and nothing more.
Other thing
The fact
He or any other people say “philosophy is dead” doesn’t mean that it’s right.
And your defect is universally shared by most of human beings.
You think you are much more smarter than you really are just like this crowd of fabricated self declared philosophers.
Why??
…. Expecting the same answers of this brave calabrian supremacist 🙏
People have a COGNITIVE function and a NARRATIVE function.
People with only cognitive functions usually canmot generate hypothesis or have no idea what to measure or to go over the boundaries of the lanes to seek information. They are SLOW thinkers. They will find the correct answer after 10 years of peer reviewed layering or being told what to measure after having a computer spew it out for them using the weight of large data and pattern recognition algos.
Peolple with narrative functions only wont be able to see depth or have a toolset to impose risk management to their hunches. They shoot from the hip. The may be wrong more than right but theyll get the answer quicker as it pertains to problems in their lives and not for posterity. They also get the answer wrong more horribly.
Ideally you would have both like a theoretical physicist.
The vast majority of humans cannot afford to be methodical about epistemology. Thats why the algorithm favours those with narrative more than cognitive and this is reflected in physiognomy.
Most human beings live in environments where narrative function is more apt to survival than hoping a spreadsheet falls from the sky with the answers. Mocking theoretical conjecture because it isnt rigorous is a question of what degree of rightness you need within a given time space.
The hedge fund industry is a good example. Soros, thiel and ichan have philosophy degrees (which is a very rare thing among the population due to its perceived non vocational nature). Simons has a math degree. Buffet is also a quant. If your style is speculation and general knowledge than philosophy will win. Simons and buffet on the oher hand rely on gathering higantic amounts of good data. Good accounting policies. Good regulation of fraud. Good regulation of market making. In 60 years about 5% of buffets investments have been outside the usa.
They cannot go to laos and make money speculating. They are methodical. They solve sudoku puzzles very effectively with low risk as long the puzzles are lrinted correctly on high quality ink and paper. Icahn, thiel and soros use every trick in the book. They are multidisplinary. They are wrong and right but i would bet my house they understand the world far more than buffet or simmons (this being reflected in their political power and better ideas).
Philsophy may turn out to be wrong or right. Even wrong or right is irrelevant because it can start a socratc dialogue. Sometimes the speculation is partially right. In any case, its a good starting point if done with strong contrl of NARRTIVE function. Some of the speculation may even hold forever like a scientific law i.e. moarilty is an illusion.
In a sense good philosophy os good speculation but also done with an artisitc flair.
Math does very badly at solving any issue where there is no inanimate object involved.
Thays why good philosophy changes the world more than the steam engine or iphone It gave us primary education, abolished child labour, a minimum wage, progressive taxation and antitrust (Marx) 150 years after the steam engine was invented. It gave us the scientifoc method as we know it (Popper). It gave us freedom from teligion and dogma by revealing morality to ba a sham for our enslavement (Nietsche), it forces us to confront the subjectivity of even our cognitive function (Sartre). In time it will destroy the blank slate even though most westerners have a computer in their pocket.
You dont get these insights data mining or writing math with autistic assumptions on a blackboard.
Those that work with solids cannot work with liquid.
The problem with philosophy today is that it is being invaded by “rigorous” autists like wittgenstein who mutilated it into glorfied legal studies. Similarly autists like lucas and cochran have turned economics into a useless symmetry finding exercise where everything balances because water also finds its level (symmetry is the sine qua nob of autists).
In the end AESTHETICS DONT LIE. People that look intelligent generally are. The algorithm laughs at your iq tests. It will select fitness not you.
Most scientists, software developers and mathematicians look retarded or childish for a reason. It doesnt take a philosopher to see it.
If right and wrong is irrelevant why blank slate is wrong??? 😁
both hereditism and the blank slate are retarded, because they assume P = G + E.
no one believes in the blank slate anymore. and i wonder if anyone ever did. it’s a straw man.
steve shoe’s post on an article in The New York shows how utterly biased he is.
if you read the whole article it’s actually very NOT hereditist.
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/practice-doesnt-make-perfect
…The New Yorker…
Santo:
Out of curiosity, what’s with the picture of Taeyeon? You a fan?
”Santo:
Out of curiosity, what’s with the picture of Taeyeon? You a fan?”
Nope, i don’t know who is.
Why*
the philosopher is right again.
analytic linguistic “philosophy” is just full on autism.
and the reason is obvious to non-autists…namely…
analytic philosophy is “safe” and philosophy as academic department should have been laid to rest a long time ago.
hediegger was the last philosopher worthy of the name, but zizek is entertaining.
steve shoe is one ugly motherfucker…as are most nerds.
AAPL, a toy manufacturer, has the greatest market cap of any company ever.
yes…today there are only a few non-sheep left. man has been thoroughly ovin-ized.
Idiocracy is not 500 years in the future.
it’s now.
from the board room to the prison…the top to the bottom…it’s just a bunch of idiots.
turn on. tune in. drop out.
Mugabe and philosopher explain/reflect why philosophy become near to hopeless…
Thank you guys!!!! 🙌
Santo
Science is cognitive function. To discover new knowledge.
Philosophy is narrative function, to interpret new knowledge.
Its not very hard to grasp to be honest.
Trump
The are ugly because they think slowly. A good experiment is to walk into an engineering lecture hall with a newspaper and point to a random story and ask for a commentary riff.
*ERROR $%! DOES NOT COMPUTE*: Need time to collect data…
”Santo
Science is cognitive function. To discover new knowledge.
Philosophy is narrative function, to interpret new knowledge.
Its not very hard to grasp to be honest.”
Not just to interpret new knowledge, but also to try to remove the narrative from the prevalence of this hyper-mechanicist scientific interpretation and give to it more holistic as well human/being-subject-centric narrative…
for example
depression
scientific interpretation
”depression is [also or organically speaking] a unbalanced chemical in the ‘brain’ and cause [irrational] sadness”
possibly correct and philosophical interpretation
”depression, yes, is also caused by unbalanced chemical in the ‘brain’… but also, depression [ and melancholy] may be interpret as a shutdown of natural ignorance of the living beings that make them, normally, naturally hypnotized to live based on this evolutive guidelines, and make them to question more deeply and constantly about the reality, because the bubble of ”well-functioning” was broken”
Philosophy, while ”search for wisdom/harmony” also must be a tool to the harmonization, give balance, to the scientific discoveries and/or possibilities,
situation that
don’t happen ideally.
Philosophy also discover new knowledge, science also interpret new knowledge..
I see your point so lets take your depression example.
Science is an epistemological method. Not a descriptive occupation. So, science would say sth like “if patient demonstrates x factor with y weighting for time t” he has the condition known commonly as “depression” based on other samples demonstrating similar symptoms to stat significant degree etc.
Its not a DESCRIPTION of the actual feeling or mood and WHY it exists. Its doesn’t claim to say WHETHER ITS NECESSARY in certain stages of life such as after loss of loved one. Its not a PRESCRIPTION as to its dire effects on social welfare and it won’t tell you much about fundamentally WHY its been increasing other than some correlative factors like processed foods because you need liquid mastery for that.
A philosopher could tell you – creature comforts cause low testosterone. Civilisation causes softness which causes its decline. Why does civilisation exert inert forces that cause decline? – That’s where a philosopher should step in.
You can’t test that and it would never occur to a scientist, who like yourself doesn’t have the theory of mind to actually even understand the feeling of depression (your description is pretty stupid and mechanical).
The point is that to simply know how to measure it and the depth of it maybe doesn’t say much. You can prescribe drugs for it in clinical trials, and do tons of experiments but verbal intelligence (which philsophers/classicists have the most of) would be a deciding factor in figuring out that much depression comes from lifestyle choice because general knowledge suggests it is much more prevalent in civilised countries than Haiti or Honduras. So you save 15 years of going out into the weeds in 3 paragraphs like I did above.
And again, it will take 20 years of peer reviewed studies for guys like you to figure that out because you are SLOW METHODICAL THINKERS THAT NEED 100% RIGHT RATIONAL ANSWERS or else you will die.
Now I could be wrong.
But at least it’s a good reasoned stab and more than anything you could say on the subject with a spreadsheet and Matlab.
Toodle Doo Mon Ami =>
Science is unpersonal approach, science also need descript things, but tends to make it via neutral approach.
Science sound and indeed tend to be cold exactly because tend to be unpersonal.
It explain why science look so autistic.
Philosophy is subject-approach, being-centric,
the being (human) observing, analysing the world from itself. Philosophy tend to be mentalistic, just like a mentalistic/intrapersonal science, from being to the environment, while science tend to be mechanicistic/unpersonal, and in the end, objectify, mechanify everything it touch, from their [blind] neutral point to the environment and beings.
”You can’t test that and it would never occur to a scientist, who like yourself doesn’t have the theory of mind to actually even understand the feeling of depression (your description is pretty stupid and mechanical).”
I’m melancholic, 😉
I know very well what ”depression” (i have rational depression = melancholy) can look like.
My EXAMPLE of scientific/psychological (summarized) definition of the depression is not my own,
my example of philosophical definition of the depression as well melancholy, yes, it’s my definition.
I’m not scientist, nor amateur, i look for myself as ”philosopher”.
”A philosopher could tell you – creature comforts cause low testosterone. Civilisation causes softness which causes its decline. Why does civilisation exert inert forces that cause decline? – That’s where a philosopher should step in.”
I think philosopher can analyse or start to analyse this or other stuff where she/he want.
”The point is that to simply know how to measure it and the depth of it maybe doesn’t say much. You can prescribe drugs for it in clinical trials, and do tons of experiments but verbal intelligence (which philsophers/classicists have the most of) would be a deciding factor in figuring out that much depression comes from lifestyle choice because general knowledge suggests it is much more prevalent in civilised countries than Haiti or Honduras.”
as well in Brooklyn,NY.
African-americans or african-europeans tends to have lower rates of depression as well suicidal inclinations.
”So you save 15 years of going out into the weeds in 3 paragraphs like I did above.”
Because i like to explain in the minimal useufl details i can find.
yes, you did.. did wrong, =)
”And again, it will take 20 years of peer reviewed studies for guys like you to figure that out because you are SLOW METHODICAL THINKERS THAT NEED 100% RIGHT RATIONAL ANSWERS or else you will die.”
You’re confusing my person with other, i’m not scientist nor academic.
what the problem to search for ”right rational” answers*
”Now I could be wrong.”
a sentence of self-awareness, i can have hope*
🙏
why philosophers are so angry**
”But at least it’s a good reasoned stab and more than anything you could say on the subject with a spreadsheet and Matlab.
Toodle Doo Mon Ami =>”
ok.
I really don’t think you fundamentally grasp science is merely an epistemological approach and not a state of mind, a series of prescriptions/way of life in the world or even “rational” per se (because its actually more rational not to use the scientific method acquiring some types of knowledge in certain timeframes and environments).
So you get the knowledge more correctly, after much time (but not more efficiently…because many people have and do use ‘true’ knowledge not scientifically proven to get edges in life before everyone else)…and what then?
Whats the next step? What do we do with knowledge…we interpret it.
1. stupid people don’t know they’re stupid. stupid people think that they are smart and that smart people are stupid.
2. smart people don’t know they’re smart. that is, they don’t know when they will not be understood.
smart people will always have so much trouble communicating with stupid people that they’ll give up. thus in an idiocracy the one smart person will never be heard and may give up speaking altogether.
”I really don’t think you fundamentally grasp science is merely an epistemological approach and not a state of mind”
Mechanicist or unpersonal approach is also a state of mind, period… and suscetible to commit mistakes and the fundamental mistake of this type of mind is the progressive objetification, de-humanization of the reality, or mechanization, make humans become progressively atomized to themselves and technology is the fundamental tool to this end.
Some people are more prone to become interest in ”THINGS” than with ”people”.
Every epistemological approach start via our state of mind but some minds are more naturally easy to observe the reality via ”blind” neutral perspective OR unpersonal.
the two approach is needed
– personal approach because some of your cognitive biases are intuitively right, because is important to monitor ourselves exactly to block our weaknesses/intuitively wrong cognitive biases, to start to think ratio-nally
– unpersonal approach, just to complete our observations, analysis and conclusions, looking for all of perspectives we can catch to give the best veredict.
typical example today
” ‘racism’, or better, fair generalization of certain racial/ethnic group, only can be caused by personal bias” a wrong use of unpersonal approach.
”a series of prescriptions/way of life in the world or even “rational” per se (because its actually more rational not to use the scientific method acquiring some types of knowledge in certain timeframes and environments).”
What was the part I said that *
Some types of knowledge are intuitively acquired, indeed, most part of time. Intuitive thinking is extremely influent in our cognition in the way that we can easily conclude
WE, our SELVES, our literal SELF, are merely voyeur of our brain-orgies… and based on our current perceptive stage.
our SELF connect all of us because all selves are ideal. All beings just want the best for themselves but they need negotiate with the rest of our existence/organism and humans are the first, at least in this planet, who become aware about this reality.
”So you get the knowledge more correctly, after much time (but not more efficiently…because many people have and do use ‘true’ knowledge not scientifically proven to get edges in life before everyone else)…and what then?”
You think i’m typical scientist, nor brilliant, who think slowly and will acquiring new informations, usually discovered by other pairs. Explain me why you think i’m this type*
I think slowly as you and any other, depend the subject. Some subject i’m pretty fast.
I’m too objective to wasting my time with obvious nonsense.
I don’t understand this sentence, because seems it’s out of context of this conversation.
”Whats the next step? What do we do with knowledge…we interpret it.”
I don’t understand why you’re saying it to me.
”1. stupid people don’t know they’re stupid. stupid people think that they are smart and that smart people are stupid.”
People who think that there are just this binnary ”smart people” versus ”average people” versus ”dumb people” is doing a dumb statement. People are individually speaking, both, dumb for something (that is or not ”measured” by IQ tests), average for something and smart for something.
”2. smart people don’t know they’re smart. that is, they don’t know when they will not be understood.”
False statement, predominantly smart people know they are smart, if not, they would be stupid, BUT predominantly smart people tend to be INSECURED about the level of invencibility of their intellects, and they are right.
”smart people will always have so much trouble communicating with stupid people that they’ll give up.”
Heidegger, 😉
”thus in an idiocracy the one smart person will never be heard and may give up speaking altogether.”
Self-contradictory people tend to be qualitatively dumb…
Mugabinho,
you’re talking about me or ”philosopher”*
PEACE!!
Westerners are Sci-Philosophers, while East Asians are mostly technical bureaucrats.
And East Asia sucks, because it’s not socially progressive and culturally interesting. Blame it on Confucius, who was a bureaucrat, and not a philosopher. That title belongs to Aristotle, who was also a scientist.
thanks for answering me, PP.
Yeah, fall upon us – in very mundane meaning. Freaking +4 C l,last night. Where are you, summer?)
o’reilly’s salary depends on his not getting it…
just like yours peepee.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
and not merely difficult but impossible to get a woman to understand something, when her salary depends on her not understanding it
I’ve been posting as anon here for a year or more, I have some sort of compulsion to delete all of my identities and to reinvent my internet accounts every 6-9 months or so. I’m troubled. I think I might attach myself to a pseudonym here though.
I’m KBC now, honoring the “Keynesian beauty contest”. This is an important concept which needs a snappier name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest
>Keynesian
lol
in investments one should never care what other people think, only what they may know and you don’t.
Now all you need is an avatar
and even the hereditist conclusions of that New Yorker piece are suspect.
he was called “the mechanical man”.
he was slower than me at age 14. not very fast.
but with the right training he became the fastest man in the world.
and sprinting ability is generally regarded as the least trainable of all athletic endeavors.
valeriy borzov is one example where the soviets were right.
my hs physics teacher held the record in the 50 y dash in his home state. he repeated what i already knew.
he said, “borzov was proof that it’s possible to make yourself faster.”
he also knew about armin hary.
“even today, he’s the fastest starter ever.”
response to practice is simply not a real variable. why? because “practice” isn’t a real variable. the response depends on what exactly the practice is. that is, some may respond to one kind of practice and others to another kind of practice.
seriously!
borzov, hary, or mennea with ‘roids or at least weight training?
it’s already happened with this ‘roider.
the only white guy in the race.
“President” Obama to add new category for MENA people in the census.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/30/white-house-wants-add-new-racial-category-middle-eastern-people/91322064/
Thoughts? I think it’s stupid. But we do get closer to seeing actual crime data.
Sailor thinks its to get AA privilages (ie free money and jobs for not being white from whites/Asians).
Generally I’m in favour of more transparency of everything. They need to include Turks/Pakistanis and consider throwing Central Asians into that pot.
I ran some numbers the other day using census data on the sexual market and it seems of males 18-45 in America, 51.6% are white taking into account Hispanic ‘whiteness’, arab ‘whiteness’, illegal immigration, and mixed raced people. That’s less than the headline ~60% white overall.
Now, it gets more complicated if you make an assumption 10-15% of the blacks of that cat may be in jail at any given time or the quality of stock within each race to which I turned to other data to find the Destroyers….(the top 20% who get all the girls…).
My hunch is that countries that don’t have government mandated AA (basically everywhere except America) will actually try not to be transparent about racial demographics going forward because their Extractors are scared that the people would realise they’re being liquidated so that giant corporate cash hoards in Liechtenstein can continue growing and gathering cobwebs.
steve shoe quotes himself recently.
he is the stereotype of the not very bright but super motivated chinese american flynn has talked about.
and he’s totally unaware of it.
his take on the flynn effect is 100% un-subtle, 100% stupid, 100% in-capable of taking in all the info available, it’s simply too complex for his pushy chinaman mind.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/05/height-flynn-effect-and-shared.html
i used to be afraid there was something i wasn’t getting.
steve shoe is a phd in physics from berkeley and a multimillionaire.
but the evidence just kept piling up.
he’s simply not that bright.
he is a product of “the system”. and he worships it.
He wasn’t a complete human being at all. He was a tiny bit of one, unnaturally developed; something in a bottle, an organ kept alive in a laboratory. I thought he was a sort of primitive savage, but he was something absolutely modern and up-to-date that only this ghastly age could produce. A tiny bit of a man pretending he was the whole.