I now believe Neanderthals had an IQ of at least 85, not 70 as I had estimated earlier.
Why at least 85?
According to this article, until about 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals were more technologically advanced than AMH (Anatomically Modern Humans).
This suggests their IQs were higher than the AMH who lived before the upper Paleolithic.
Before the upper Paleolithic, I suspect all AMH resembled Bushmen, pygmies, and Australian Aboriginals, and I would guess these have a genetic IQ of 80, so Neanderthals were likely at least 85 to have had better tools
But why did Neanderthals suddenly fall so far behind?
It seems the shape or position of their larynx prevented fully modern speech so they never acquired the advanced language that AMH enjoyed.
This also may explain why AMH was also so primitive before 50,000 years ago, yet suddenly so advanced after 50,000 years ago, despite no noticeable change in brain size. Perhaps prior to around 50,000 years ago, the AMH larynx resembled that of Neanderthal’s in its form or position.
Perhaps scholar Richard G Klein was right about a genetic mutation causing behavioral modernity, but instead of a mutation in the brain, as Klein argues, it was a mutation in the neck. This mutation produced fully modern speech allowing us to pool our huge brains and share ideas, creating a collective intelligence that was far smarter than any one individual.
It would also explain why Neanderthals stayed so primitive, despite having such big brains. It may even explain why shortly after the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, brains suddenly started shrinking after millions of years of explosive growth. Advanced language and the huge cultural knowledge it had produced, had made individual genius redundant, and huge metabolically expensive brains, a pointless and expensive liability.
Seldom has one theory so parsimoniously explained so many mysteries.
In order to test my hypothesis, we would need to see neck bones from AMH prior to the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, to see if they resemble Neanderthal’s.
For more on this, start watching at 6:48 in the below video
And at 3:30 of next video:
Pumpkin Person 
Wow we actually agree on something.
“Neanderthals had an IQ of at least 85”
Thumbs up.
Read this. They bring up Klein:
Neandertal Demise: An Archaeological Analysis of the Modern Human Superiority Complex
<In 2000 McBrearty and Brooks [27] forcefully argued that the components of this “Upper Paleolithic revolution” were already visible in the African MSA, tens of thousands of year earlier. They suggested a gradual assembling of a package of modern human behavior in Africa, which was later exported to other regions of the Old World: a view contested by Klein [11], who stressed a later and punctuated emergence of “modern human behavior”. In 2003 D’Errico [46] reviewed the cultural attributes which McBrearty and Brooks saw as defining modernity. He argued that comparable traits also occur in the Neandertal record and rejected the theory that behavioral “modernity” indicators are uniquely associated with Homo sapiens. Nevertheless, the behavioral markers described by McBrearty and Brooks have in recent years increasingly been used to explain the demise of the Neandertals when modern humans expanded into their territories.
…
According to Klein [11] the Out of Africa expansion was underlain by a neural mutation that promoted the final development of the modern human brain. Direct evidence for this hypothesis may come from comparisons of Neandertal and modern human genomes.
…
We have found no data in support of the supposed technological, social and cognitive inferiority of Neandertals compared to their AMH contemporaries. The results of our study imply that single-factor explanations for the disappearance of the Neandertals are not warranted any more, and that their demise was clearly more complex than many archaeology-based scenarios of “cognitive inferiority” reviewed here seem to suggest. This has implications beyond the field of archaeology per se: archaeologists’ characterizations of Neandertals as cognitively inferior to modern humans [149] have created an interpretive framework within which subtle biological differences between Neandertals and modern humans tend to be overinterpreted (see for instance [150].
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0096424
Neanderthals may have been able to speak like humans. Their hyoid bone was positioned the same as ours is, an example of convergent evolution.
http://www.seeker.com/neanderthals-could-talk-like-humans-bone-reveals-1768169320.html
They also had the FOXP2 gene. There’s strong evidence that they could speak. The hyoid bone is pretty strong evidence.
And depending on your definition of behavioral modernity, it happened a few million years ago. Biedalism was pretty huge for behavioral modernity. So was cooking, etc.
I think you once said homo erectus also had the organs for language but lacked the FOXP2 mutation. Am I right ?
I don’t recall them having the Fox P2 gene but I think they had similar morphology to us which make signify they could have spoke.
Homo erectus had a larynx position similar to that of an 8 year old modern child.
http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199608/0118.html
Alright, although PP’s post and the article his theory is based on are blatant examples of amateurism, communication (either linguistic or non-verbal) has obviously played a role in human evolution.
Speaking of homo-sapiens, HBD should look for clues to group differences in cognition by researching how languages vary in their structure.
Alright, although PP’s post and the article his theory is based on are blatant examples of amateurism
It’s not that amateurish.
I’ve synthesized the research of two leading specialists in the field.
1) Richard G Klein believes a freak brain mutation occurred in Africa around 50,000 years ago, giving rise to behavioral modernity, the Out of Africa exodus and rapid replacement of Neanderthals
2) Jeffrey T Laitman believes anatomically modern humans can pronounce certain sounds Neanderthals couldn’t, because our larynx is lower in the throat
I merely combined theory 1 and theory 2 to argue that the freak mutation Klein imagines was not a brain mutation, but a lowering of the larynx
“I merely combined theory 1 and theory 2 to argue that the freak mutation Klein imagines was not a brain mutation, but a lowering of the larynx”
This mashup is amateurish, but legitimate I agree.
According to this map, phonemic diversity shrinks with distance from Africa, with Native South Americans having phonemic diversity possibly in the range of Neanderthals. So unless they have significantly less efficient communication than Africans, the ability to vocalize complex sentences is not what differentiate humans and neanderthals.
What is probable however is that they were not able to read subtle nonverbal communication.
According to wikipedia:
“Nonverbal communication between people is communication through sending and receiving wordless clues.
It includes the use of visual cues such as body language (kinesics), distance (proxemics) and physical environments/appearance, of voice (paralanguage) and of touch (haptics).[1] It can also include chronemics (the use of time) and oculesics (eye contact and the actions of looking while talking and listening, frequency of glances, patterns of fixation, pupil dilation, and blink rate).
Just as speech contains nonverbal elements known as paralanguage, including voice quality, rate, pitch, volume, and speaking style, as well as prosodic features such as rhythm, intonation, and stress, so written texts have nonverbal elements such as handwriting style, spatial arrangement of words, or the physical layout of a page. However, much of the study of nonverbal communication has focused on interaction between individuals,[2] where it can be classified into three principal areas: environmental conditions where communication takes place, physical characteristics of the communicators, and behaviors of communicators during interaction.
Nonverbal communication involves the conscious and unconscious processes of encoding and decoding. Encoding is the act of generating information such as facial expressions, gestures, and postures. Decoding is the interpretation of information from received sensations from previous experiences.[2]
Only a small percentage of the brain processes verbal communication. As infants, nonverbal communication is learned from social-emotional communication, making the face rather than voice the dominant communication channel. As children become verbal communicators, they begin to look at facial expressions, vocal tones, and other nonverbal elements more subconsciously.[citation needed]
Culture plays an important role in nonverbal communication, and it is one aspect that helps to influence how learning activities are organized. In many Indigenous American Communities, for example, there is often an emphasis on nonverbal communication, which acts as a valued means by which children learn. In this sense, learning is not dependent on verbal communication; rather, it is nonverbal communication which serves as a primary means of not only organizing interpersonal interactions, but also conveying cultural values, and children learn how to participate in this system from a young age.[3]”
Notice what they say about Native Americans. The use of nonverbal communication is especially prevalent among native americans, that might compensate for their lack of phonemic diversity.
Spoken words are just the tip of the iceberg of human communication.
According to this map, phonemic diversity shrinks with distance from Africa, with Native South Americans having phonemic diversity possibly in the range of Neanderthals.
I don’t think the purpose of that article is to claim Africans are linguistically superior; rather it’s to claim modern humans originated in Africa; so just as Africans have the most neutral genetic diversity, they also have the most language diversity.
But such linguistic research is controversial.
http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/phonemic-diversity-prove-africa-theory.html
So unless they have significantly less efficient communication than Africans,
I’m arguing that they did. That a mutation causing fully human language occurred in Africa perhaps 70,000 years ago, triggering both the Out of Africa exodus and the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.
PP
The percentage of Neanderthal vowel speech was as large as modern humans.
Click to access 10.1006%40jpho.2002.0170.pdf
Their hyoid bone was also in the same position as ours, signifying they could have spoken. They also have the same Fox P2 gene we do.
I know they have the Fox P2 gene, but Jeffrey T Laitman argues their larynx was too high for fully modern speech. Has he been proven wrong?
I’ve never heard of this researcher before.
The larynx is connected below to the uppermost ring of the trachea, while above it is connected by the thyrohyoid ligaments to the hyoid bone beneath the tongue.
https://www.britannica.com/science/hyoid-bone
So I don’t think he’s been proven wrong, it’s just another part of the body that we’re similar in. The evidence is there that they at least had the capability of speech, though they probably had a very deep voice.
“I don’t think the purpose of that article is to claim Africans are linguistically superior;”
That’s not my purpose either, African languages just have more phonemic diversity, that doesn’t mean non-Africans don’t have the intrinsic potential for more phonemic diversity. I’m not trying to do reverse HBD. My point was that languages with low diversity of sounds apparently don’t prevent efficient communication unless Africans really communicate more efficiently than non-Africans.
“so just as Africans have the most neutral genetic diversity,”
We don’t know the effects of each allele so we assume it’s neutral, but many must have moderate to large effect.
“But such linguistic research is controversial.”
Much less that all the research your beliefs are based on.
” That a mutation causing fully human language occurred in Africa perhaps 70,000 years ago”
Apparently no, nothing in the anatomy and genetics of homo sapiens corroborates this yet.
RR I can’t access your link, and they’re asking me things in Russian.
The fact that Bushmen might be descended from the oldest human lineage and have such strange sounding language, leads me to think modern speaking ability is likely very recent. Rushton once claimed Bushmen split off before the invention of the vowel.
That’s really dubious, as usual with Rushton.
In my opinion, vowels are more natural than consonants. Babies’ first sounds are more similar to vowels than consonants. And vowels are effortless sounds, even the nasal vowels of French (on, en, an, un, in, ain).
In French, speech dysfunctions are exclusively affecting consonants, especially the “S” that some pronounce like an English “Th” or a “Z”. And dialectal variation consists in the deformation or omission of consonants more than vowels
I must say, I used to bash anthropology. Mostly the AAAS. They say they’re not a scientific discipline so I don’t like that. They even revised their statement.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?referer=
I think it’s pretty cool now.
“RR I can’t access your link, and they’re asking me things in Russian.”
Does a captcha come up?
“We don’t know the effects of each allele so we assume it’s neutral, but many must have moderate to large effect.”
PP it’s been discovered that so-called “junk dna” codes for a lot of phenotypes.
PP it’s been discovered that so-called “junk dna” codes for a lot of phenotypes.
I said neutral DNA, not junk DNA, though the two are correlated.
A certain percentage of DNA mutates every generation so if 100% of our DNA coded for phenotype, we’d be pretty messed up. Junk DNA evolved to increase the odds the mutations wouldn’t affect anything important.
“Does a captcha come up?”
Yeah, problem solved. I had a long day.
Afrosapiens I don’t remember the name of that paper offhand so I’ll get you the libgen.io link lager. Libgen.io usually had new studies as well. Here’s a similar paper.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1585/88
RR, I just don’t have the time to read all the links you share. That’s above my ability to multitask. I’m cooking now because my girl is coming home later tonight.
I use a speed reader a lot of the time. I can comfortably read at 500 words a minute. Trying to get higher word count and still comprehend it. I want to learn how to speed read without a program.
“I use a speed reader a lot of the time.”
I should use one too, hoping it won’t create more confusion because I’m not a native English speaker.
At my office, I have an assistant that synthesizes documents so that I get the core information without losing time, It would be good if such apps existed.
” Rushton once claimed Bushmen split off before the invention of the vowel.”
Based on?
“Rushton once claimed Bushmen split off before the invention of the vowel.”
Khoisan/Bushman languages have vowels—and of course many consonants, including the clicks, which one might also describe as consonants (as do the other, possibly basal, languages with clicks, like Hadza and Sandawe).
“I said neutral DNA, not junk DNA, though the two are correlated.”
Aren’t the two called non-coding DNA ?
African genetic diversity is also higher than non-African diversity on coding sequences of DNA, and there is no sign that it concerns neutral markers more than non-neutral ones.
“Khoisan/Bushman languages have vowels”
Yes, and do you know if they have tones like Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and some Afro-Asiatic languages ?
“The Juǀʼhoan language has 48 click consonants, among nearly as many non-click consonants, strident and pharyngealized vowels, and four tones. The ǃXóõ and ǂHõã languages are even more complex.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan_languages
“Yes, and do you know if they have tones like Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and some Afro-Asiatic languages ?”
I think they tend to have tones, yes.
Wow, they must be so difficult to learn. I tried to learn Yoruba and Chinese, I realized tonal languages were not for me.
“The results of our study imply that single-factor explanations for the disappearance of the Neandertals are not warranted…”
I doubt it was that near that simple. But it seems likely that an overall intellectual and technological edge on the part of sapiens factored in.
I doubt it was that near that simple. But it seems likely that an overall intellectual and technological edge on the part of sapiens factored in.”
Sure, If they had the ability to adapt, they would have adapted, and since they occupied the same ecological niche as humans, they lacked one advantage of humans.
“According to this article, until about 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals were more technologically advanced than AMH (Anatomically Modern Humans).”
They were not. They were less advanced than us before we even went into europe. In fact there most complex tool kit did not appear until cro magnon entered europe. It’s possible they were even copying us.
http://www.evoanth.net/2015/12/10/are-humans-smarter-than-neanderthals/
“And it turns out that when there was no substantial difference between humans and Neanderthals during this period:
Humans and Neanderthals were both burying their dead, indicating symbolism.
Both produced complex tools, heat-treated to improve toughness and attached to wooden handles with complex bindings
Both had broad diets and advanced hunting strategies.
Both had similarly sized social networks, obtaining raw materials from far away through trade”
“Except they didn’t break it down and see how much was changing within those toolkits. The fact they had different names was enough to confirm they were different and the Neanderthals had flexibly innovated something new.
But when you do break it down and see how much Neanderthal technology actually changed; the results aren’t that impressive. The number of different tools produced by the Neanderthals didn’t really change over time; even when the climate they lived in change. Conversely, modern humans tend to increase the number of different tools in harsher climate; allowing them to specalise and reduce the risk of failure.”
Cro magnon had an equal or larger brain size than Neanderthals. Neanderthals brains were also differently organized than Homo sapiens and less efficient. Very simian like skulls.
“Seldom has one theory so parsimoniously explained so many mysteries.”
Seldom has one article had so many blatant lies and outdated premises to the point that I have cancer.
They even say Neanderthal didn’t breed with humans!
This was made in 2005 before a lot of discoveries in south africa.
I’m not saying your IQ estimate is incorrect but that article is complete bullshit.
They were not. They were less advanced than us before we even went into europe.
But not well before we left Africa.
From the available evidence, they also tended to be less advanced (incl. less technologically innovative) than us, before we left Africa.
Modern behaviors/technologies are generally more attested and earlier in early Africa sapiens than neanderthals. As meLo also said, often (but not always) indications of modern-like behavior associated with neandethals look to date near or even after the time of sapien’s arrival.
The article’s claim (that they had “better tools” is unsupported (too vague of a starement to be helpful or meaningful, and if anything even seems phrased to attract attention—for sensationalism—at the expense of accuracy and substance), but generally that was not the case—no examples or sources. And the evidence does not support its silly claim that they had a “more advanced culture”, but rather suggests the reverse.
The claim of neanderthal “art figures”, is also untrue.
(and indeed the article is also very out of date).
“But not well before we left Africa.”
Do you even give a shit pumpkin? Or do you just like to troll?
Do you even give a shit pumpkin? Or do you just like to troll?
I’m interested in estimating their IQs, as well as the IQ of our own species at different periods of time. Thus it’s helpful to know who was culturally more advanced than who and when.
“Do you even give a shit pumpkin? Or do you just like to troll?”
I don’t know; saying that Aristotle “got it” in regards to the ‘scala naturae‘ in 300 BC, putting humans near the ‘pinnacle’ of evolution (with God at the top, did you forget that part?) is pretty trollish. Was the ‘scala naturae‘ decreed by God, as the Greek philosophers said?
These people lived over two thousand years ago. Saying they ‘got it’ in regards to biology (with a statement like that, ‘scala naturae‘)is laughable.
“I’m interested in estimating their IQs, as well as the IQ of our own species at different periods of time. Thus it’s helpful to know who was culturally more advanced than who and when.”
If you want to learn such information it helps to not take retarded sources as gospel. It also helps not to latch on one scientist’s words, as well as taking contrasting data into consideration.
This blog has become an anecdoche.
“This blog has become an anecdoche.”
I’ve never heard that word before. I laughed. That was a good one.
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/01/28/how-similar-were-neanderthals-and-humans/
“So, briefly:
Once body size was taken into account we actually had larger brains than the Neanderthals
We have a larger parietal lobe, a bit of brain important in various higher order cognitive functions.
Neanderthal brains grew in a different way
We have a wider orbitofrontal cortex, linked to theory of mind amongst others
Our cerebellum is bigger
They had bigger occipital lobes (linked to vision and senses).”
Pumpkin, this hypothesis about neanderthal having less ability to speech while having same intelligence than other humans is pretty popular, Yuval Harari talks about it I’m his best seller
On wikipedia they say that Neanderthals lived in groups of 5-10 individuals whereas modern humans lived in groups of 20-30. This has huge implications in terms of technological and cultural development and adaptive efficiency.
They apparently didn’t engage in trade
“Neanderthal toolmaking supposedly changed little over hundreds of thousands of years. The lack of innovation was said to imply they may have had a reduced capacity for thinking by analogy and less working memory. The researchers further speculated that Neanderthal behaviour would probably seem neophobic, dogmatic and xenophobic to modern humans.[6][7]”
Lol, kind of like autistic Trump supporters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior
Excellent PDF to download here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295645968_The_inner_Neanderthal
And I don’t believe Neanderthals have ever been fundamentally superior to humans. The (evolutionary short) time between anatomical modernity and the upper paleolithic revolution might just have been the time needed to replace the archaic hominids of Africa and to reach a critical level of population and knowledge accumulation.
I have a better theory than all of this. Neanderthals were were genetically different than humans and were hunted down. Come on guys humans probably saw them as ugly monsters that needed to be killed just because they looked ugly. It was just extreme racism. Neanderthals lost because… we’ll I’ll leave that to you guys
Razib Khan has the perfect post for this. I seem to have been wrong.
The Species Barriers Between Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans
… polypeptides from several Y-chromosome genes act as male-specific minor histocompatibility (H-Y) antigens that can elicit a maternal immune response during gestation. Such effects could be important drivers of secondary recurrent miscarriages30 and might play a role in the fraternal birth order effect of male sexual orientation.31 Interestingly, all three genes with potentially functional missense differences between the Neandertal and modern humans sequences are H-Y genes, including KDM5D, the first H-Y gene characterized…It is tempting to speculate that some of these mutations might have led to genetic incompatibilities between modern humans and Neandertals and to the consequent loss of Neandertal Y chromosomes in modern human populations. Indeed, reduced fertility or viability of hybrid offspring with Neandertal Y chromosomes is fully consistent with Haldane’s rule, which states that “when in the [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the [heterogametic] sex.”
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-species-barriers-between-neanderthals-and-anatomically-modern-humans/
I saw other journal articles saying that they didn’t interbreed.
Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe
We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020421
So I concede there is 99.9999999—– chance I was wrong.
“Come on guys humans probably saw them as ugly monsters that needed to be killed just because they looked ugly.”
No, the two cohabited in Europe for tens of thousand years, Europeans almost exterminated Native Americans in less than 200 years. So you see the difference. That doesn’t mean humans were good neighbors but they might simply have outperformed them in resource competition without the real intent to kill them. However I’m sure that they saw them as completely unteachable retards.
Interesting link RR.
No, the two cohabited in Europe for tens of thousand years, Europeans almost exterminated Native Americans in less than 200 years. So you see the difference
Early Europeans didn’t have guns or transportation so it took them a lot longer to exterminate Neanderthals.
Actually, you can’t make syllables without vowels. Maybe clicks are a response to that but I doubt, Khoisan languages have vowels.
In my opinion, the length of cohabitation is still way too important to suspect intentional elimination of neanderthals by humans.
What do you mean by intentional? I don’t think there was any intention, just nature and two species vying for the same ecosystem. Like I’ve seen people say that it was genocide on the neanderthals. Lol. And that the news says that’s genocide and its the same as white genocide!
People have some pretty crazy imaginations.
“I don’t think there was any intention, just nature and two species vying for the same ecosystem.”
I think that’s what I wrote.
“Like I’ve seen people say that it was genocide on the neanderthals”
lol, genocides generally don’t take more than 10,000 years. What is sure however is that the two species remained largely segregated, The neanderthals copied very little human technology, and didn’t apparently traded with sapiens. Maybe if they were here today we could have domesticated them and keep them as pets, if they weren’t smart enough to kill us.
So now Paul Ryan’s come out and stated that the GOP will vote to defund Planned Parenthood…
Once again proving that Republicans are not just stupid; they are evil.
Paul Ryan is the biggest Cuckold this side of Afros parents.Verified true by (((Snopes.com))) and the ((((Wash Post fact check blog)))).
0 Pinocchios.
Pumpkin why are my comments placed in moderation?
Because you’re a prole.
Says the Puerto Rican!
And you know I don’t like White proles in America, and neither do many Puerto Ricans I find as comrades, because they are no different.
So you hate everyone except the French?
My mom speaks fluent French. I have French ancestry. So I’m not prole
You’re traitor, because you reside in Angloprole territory and you work in a Jew industry.
“So you hate everyone except the French?”
I can tell you he doesn’t like all French people…
There is nothing to understand about his obsession with “Anglo-Proles”. He’s just an imbecile.
Haitians and French Speaking Africans are not French in my dictionary.
Many of them who live in Québec are beggining to understand PP’s theory of human in group and out group. Speaking French as a dark skinned person does not guarantee validation from the White Francophone majority.
I’m French, that’s my only citizenship and culture. The people of Quebec and Louisiana are not French to the people of France.
And by the way, your blog article that you painfully tried to write in French is unreadable for a native French speaker.
So? You’re still a product of European Colonialism. Also, I find a lot of Cameroon Africans and Haitians in Montréal. They are no different from you.
I’m perpetuating the highest form of French culture,that of the top 1%. La crème de la crème en d’autres termes.
And you should worship me, unless understanding adoption is really above your cognitive abilities.
No, you’re not. You just a resident commenter on this blog.
Lol, says the guy who was talking about “Anglo-proles” on Christmas and New Year days.
JS probably hates me because I’m part Indigenous. Hispanics hate Indigenous people. They’re the biggest self-haters.
“JS probably hates me because I’m part Indigenous. Hispanics hate Indigenous people. They’re the biggest self-haters.”
JS hates us because he’s retarded, no need to look any further.
JS thinks we’re all Mugabe. LOL.
“JS thinks we’re all Mugabe. LOL.”
Speaking of Mugabe, where is he ?
Speaking of Mugabe, where is he ?
In moderation.
Lol, tell him not to change the decoration, the dungeon is mine.
Yes, it’s quite a coincidence that I find 2 unemployed lawyers on this blog that are commenting in intervals. One is a black French Nationalist, and the other is part Canadian French with 1st nations ancestry.
Lol, JS doesn’t know the concepts of portable devices and multitasking.
Just because I come from a high class family, my dad went to Harvard, and got 100 % on SOA and GRE doesn’t mean I’m unemployed! I’m way smart and a cynic!
Hahaha. I will never relinquish my theory that Deal! is a sockpuppet account for some mischievous fellow. Hahaha. Good laugh.
I think most of Deal’s comments were very skillfully calculated to troll Mug of Pee, who took the bait everytime
Deal also manipulated Mug of Pee into thinking Deal was me, by deliberating saying things i said in the past like “money is meant to be spent”. Deal knew this would get a rise out of Mug of Pee
When it first came here, it acted very manly, boasting about making money and snorting cocaine off hookers’s bodies, but after claiming to be female, it suddenly became very submissive and humble
Perhaps Deal is a Native American man with a trollish sense of humour
Lol you guys are making me crack up. I’m in the library doing my readings.
The problem with your theories is that they’re too complex. Humans can’t play 45 D chess like that.
I acted “manly” because I thought I wouldn’t be taken seriously if you found out I’m a girl. But then I slipped up somewhere and Mugabe discovered my real gender. After that, I stopped pretending and just started acting like myself…
I did troll Mugabe because I’m fascinated by him.
And you’re an Anglo Prole Canadian, and a bad one indeed.
The current crisis in the French Speaking Province, is that the French speakers are leaving for Ontario, which is your favorite place. Those who want to make money, and those who are non-White, are leaving in droves for Toronto, even NYC/America seems like a viable prospect.
What is the reason behind this? The Anglo Sphere is prole and one big slave factory. It’s all about money and work, and immigrants, most of them who are non-Whites find this attractive. So it makes a lot of sense!!!
Puerto Ricans are more prole than Anglo-Proles.
No, they’re not. Only the ones who reside in Florida are prole, which is a Hispanic cesspit among the Confederate trash. And NYC has been losing its Puerto Rican population, because the wealthy White trash have displaced them.
Hmm first time reading Joyce. A very unique style. Like a Darren Aronofsky movie. Stream of consciousness. Its enjoyable.
Bit like our colleague Mugabe who uses his pictures and allusions in a more rustic manner.
I find it strange that the jews can be so endowed verbally and not have a world class fiction writer to call their own.
Could it possibly be because fiction writing requires putting oneself in another’s shoes? Perish the taught young bracken.
Philip Roth writes almost completely on the topic of being a jew. Likewise Tenehicky ‘I left my brain in my mother’s black womb’ Coates and other minority writers.
Their life experience is a fictional story.
And it must be celebrated in its worldly abstraction for 1st person perspective whenever the indefinite article is used!!! YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYA.
Nobel Prize in literature, ex Bob Dylan, has given the prize 10 years in a row almost to minority writers that wrote about their life.
Fuck my life. When will Reconquista happen?
It is almost laughable how apparent HBD is even in fiction writing. Is it not?
Surely this can be published? I’ll lay off the more colourful speech for a while if you turn off the holding cell.
Btw Philosopher,
If I’m lucky I might get a chance to interview an expert on Freud. The problem is I don’t know a lot about him, but I recall you being a fan. If you could ask a Freud expert 10 questions about Freud, what would they be? (others feel free to offer suggestions).
Mugabe is a very powerful writer imo..
I am no expert in Freud. But if I could speak to a Freud expert. I’d ask:
1.What were Freud’s views on race?
2. Did Freud think criminals could be rehabilitated? And to what extent? How – more punishment, therapy, isolation?
3. What were Freud’s views on Jewish intelligence and characteristics?
4. What would Freud think today about the world?
5. How would Freud react to empirics in psychology?
6. What would Freud make of the autist-schizo spectrum theory?
7. Was Freud aware of the power of hypnosis/NLP? To what extent?
8. Did Freud conceive of psychopathy as we understand it and what did he say on the matter?
9. What was Freud’s personal sexual life like? Seeing as he makes sexual animus the centrepiece of his theory of the mind.
10. Is Freud still relevant and what theories still hold in your opinion?
Good job!
Robert is fairly crisp alright. Would be interested to see this actuary analytical writing essay he keeps mentioning as his Waterloo.
Freud is irrelevant.
Pumpkin, I finished the TABE (test adult basic education).
Do you know about it? I am taking free classes at my community college.
Joyce really is the best writer of all time. This stuff is making me read on in awe. His discussion of aesthetic philosophy in Portrait of an Artist is just pure unadulterated brilliance. The way he slowly sculpts himself via third person narrative of Stephen Dedalus from young neurotic smartypants to genius literary intellectual is….
I’ve been told Ulysses is the greatest english language novel. If Joyce could write Portrait in his early 20s, it is scary to think what Ulysses will be like.
Nabokov is great, but Joyce is a verbal freak.
I’m minded to note how Ireland has a very strong literary tradition – Wilde, Beckett, Shaw, Heaney, Yeats, Swift, Lewis, Cormac McCarthy,…I just don’t think it’s a probability, a country which popularly adopted vernacular english in the late 1800s only can have that deep a bench of english language writers if it isn’t a genetic proclivity or psychological disposition.
Its across the board in poetry, drama, and fiction as well, unlike the Russians.
The irish have a very long medieval scholar history as well.
Following my theory that music is verbal art – I would predict Ireland has more music successes than is predictable by its small 3-4m population.
John franzen and Phil Roth are crowned America’s best writers today. I’ve read both and the two are lilliputians compared to anyone on the Irish bench. Roth keeps complaining all the time about being a gamma and Franzen’s work is something a high school teenager would conceive in form and structure a priori.
Yeoowssaa.
yet more concern trolling. probably a mossad agent.
exactly whom did waugh mean by “the americans” or “they”?
Not concern trolling. We shall see what Ulysses and Finnegans Wake holds. But Joyce is better than any Brit writer I’ve read.
Is Waugh trying to imply Joyce was a Jew agent? That’s dumb as rocks on the face of it. But Leopold Blum is Ulysses main character, whom I assume is based on some literary agent or person in writer’s circles.
sadly peepee thinks the whale took jonah’s bait. but he can’t escape my belly. i’m slowly digesting him.
i’ve got chunks of guys like you in my stool.
I’m not a troll ya silly goose… I read the book you recommended. Would a mischievous troll have done that? I’ll just stop posting if you guys think all I do is troll. I only started posting because I like what you (Mugabe) say about a great number of topics. If I’m anything, I’m an arrant Mandingo-phile.
do you know what a “mandingo-phile” is?
it’s a woman or fag who loves huge black cocks.
prove to me you read it! book report! or just answer two questions…
1. what brand of cigarettes did larry smoke?
2. what does larry have in common with bakers?
Oops no I didn’t.
1. forgot but i think he likes a foreign brand
2. he’s a loafer
ask me anything u want
Lol you know why we are that high, right?
But that can’t be the only explanation. Other factors play a part, such as private prisons, the war on drugs, loose gun laws, etc..
thanks for reposting me fat injun.
RR is…how does one put it?…ah yes! R! R!
lowest incarceration rate of any US state is maine, 350 per 100,000 adults. maine’s state prison is 87% white while the state is 95% white. so, assuming 95% of maine’s adults are white, this is 321 prisoners per 100,000 white mainiacs.
highest incarceration rates in western europe are portugal 137, spain 131, uk 141-146, etc.
while close to half of federal prisoners are in for drugs. only 16% of state prisoners are in for drugs.
U! S! A! U! S! A! more than twice the rate for the worst of western europe for american WHITES for maine.
what’s the rate for whites nationally? even higher than the very poor maine.
Had to redact part of your username; don’t use it again
RR, do you own a gun ? And do you think gun proliferation has something to do with the US’s stratospheric suicide and homicide rates ?
I think Afrosapiens is the one guy in the history of this blog, leaving aside full on autists, that could go to Africa, go to Switzerland and think ‘culture’ was the only difference.
The US has a high rate due to:
1. More blacks in population turning the architecture of the justice system into a punishment system instead of a rehab one. You can say the same about US being the last Western white country to retain the death penalty. When you live near Kinshasa, suddenly stand your ground and gun ownership looks like a good idea. Whites in power follow what the voters want – black punishment.
2. Private prisons
3. Proliferation of drugs over the border from Mexico (that’s why Canada doesn’t have as bad an issue).
The latino and whites as Unz has shown are kind of incidental victims to the prison complex of taming Kinshasa.
Someone like Afro can wake up everyday and wonder, genuinely wonder, why his high testosterone gives him a distinct edge in a nightclub but or some reason can’t grasp why blacks do more crime.
Its a fascinating cognitive dissonance.
Philosopher, what do you think about clanishness ?
“I think Afrosapiens is the one guy in the history of this blog, leaving aside full on autists, that could go to Africa, go to Switzerland and think ‘culture’ was the only difference.”
My sister lives in Zürich and I visit her there at least once a year. I’ve been to Senegal, Mali, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Cameroon. The cities are chaotic, folks are kind, I never felt more unsafe there than in any other developing country. The only real difference is that if something happens in an African country, there is virtually no police to help you unless you bribe a lot, which I can afford to do.
“The latino and whites as Unz has shown are kind of incidental victims to the prison complex of taming Kinshasa.”
American whites are deserving victims of their racism which leads them to support mass incarceration for the wrong reasons and to reject extensive welfare that would benefit blacks too much.
As a result, they get incarcerated more than any white population in the world and have the lowest level of social security of any developed country. And they love it!
And for your information, testosterone doesn’t intrinsically make men more violent than women, it increases instincts of domination and strength. That’s why men like competition, why they hate to lose, why they challenge authority, why they care about honor and respect and why they’re more likely to use violence to assert their dominance. But since we talk about the effects of testosterone, we should to ignore that many scientists think testosterone increases intelligence.
But since we talk about the effects of testosterone, we should to ignore that many scientists think testosterone increases intelligence
According to Jensen, there’s an optimum level of testosterone for (spatial) IQ, that is above the female mean, but below the male mean. This might be why the stereotypical genius is a somewhat androgynous nerd. I remember watching a rerun of the African American sitcom Family Matters where a girl asks the popular jock for help with her math homework, to which he replied “Does this look like the body of a guy who is good at Geometry?”
I know many people in many types of prestigious occupations, but I seldom see your tiny introverts. That might be a Latin macho thing but here in France, you definitely need balls if you want to achieve something. And in elite colleges we are told to be social and confident if we want to succeed.
“RR, do you own a gun ? And do you think gun proliferation has something to do with the US’s stratospheric suicide and homicide rates ?”
No I don’t. I, unfortunately, live in one of the hardest places in the country to get a gun. It pisses me off because 2nd amendment, etc. They make it so hard to get guns here, yet fun crime is still through the roof here. You need to do quadruple back flips through hoops of fire to get a gun here. It’s bullshit.
I homicides would still exist with or without firearms. But one of the most active forms of suicide is gun shot. I know some people who’ve hanged themselves. Even if guns were “illegal”, but crime would still occur and people would still suicide by gun. The gun is a tool, the human behind it is the weapon. Most anything is a weapon in the hands of a human.
Well as our high IQ schiz low empathy friends are wont to say:
Clannishness is good for me, but not for thee
Ever notice how most young Hollywood actors, directors and writers are now all Jewish, or part Jewish? Or Harvard/Yale has 20x more Jews than their population share? Or how you need to be a jew to get a newspaper writer gig? Being a jew fashion model helps immensely in getting shoots, a Big Law contract or if we are to believe Robert, even becoming an actuary.
Pumpkin’s general knowledge is not sufficient to ascertain the depth of the Jewish conspiracy and its stranglehold. All human study subjects like philosophy, anthropology, history, economics, political science, geography, psychology and literature have been debased and reduced to sophistry to conceal it.
We are advised to speak out against racism, not to protect blacks but to protect jews.
This is the point of rac-ism. To provide a levee against seizing back control from Zion.
1960s
“Gentile, your industries are discriminatory, as believers in universalism, we demand affirmative action and transparency. We will make the system less clannish.”
2000s
“Gentile, your era is now at an end. The West is becoming majority minority. It is inevitable in 40 years. The end is nigh. Roll over aside and weep for your ancestors. We are the new Princes of the Republic”
This is direct response to the above commenter. And not an off topic rant.
Clannishness is good for me, but not for thee
Pumpkin’s general knowledge is not sufficient to ascertain the depth of the Jewish conspiracy and its stranglehold.
LOL. I’m well aware of how much wealth & power Jews have. I’m just not obsessed with it like you are.
“Most anything is a weapon in the hands of a human.”
I partly agree, but it’s impossible to believe that reducing gun availability wouldn’t reduce gun use.
It is often considered (at least in legal philosophy) that the first step to civilization is when lethal force is made a monopoly of the State, and that taxes and solidarity are the price of civilization. I guess the frontier era of the US is over and America should begin to think of becoming a civilized society.
“I partly agree, but it’s impossible to believe that reducing gun availability wouldn’t reduce gun use.”
How does this work out for Blue states? Red States?
“I guess the frontier era of the US is over and America should begin to think of becoming a civilized society.”
Right. But we still need the 2nd amendment. Even though the reason it’s around is useless now (the government has many toys that don’t care about our little GI Joe toys).
“How does this work out for Blue states? Red States?”
That’s, irrelevant. Illegal guns freely cross state borders. As long as some states will have lax gun laws, some guns will be illegally owned in states with strict ones. We’re starting to have the same problem in the European Union since it enlarged to the East. Guns coming from Russia, the Caucasus and the Balkans are entering through the loosely controlled borders of central European countries and are pouring into the high crime cities like Marseilles.
“Right. But we still need the 2nd amendment.”
Then you don’t want civilization.
And RR, what are your thoughts on mass incarceration ?
Victimless crimes, like marijuana posession and the like should not incur penalties like being locked up for a bit. I believe if it’s only a serious crime that one should go to prison, not for a non-violent crime. We incarcerate a lot of non-violent people while letting violent people walk. I think mass incareceration is retarded, especially for victimless crimes.
“Victimless crimes, like marijuana posession and the like should not incur penalties like being locked up for a bit.”
I get most of my opinions about penal law from my mother who’s a prosecutor. A progressive one but a tough one too.
First, we think think the first victims of crime are the poor and the most marginalized among them and few people involved in penal system reform hold their opinions for the right reasons. On people on the right want toughness on crime for egoistic and paranoid reasons, those on the left confuse rule of law with oppression.
We think everybody deserves a second chance, but only one. Minor offenses, victimless crimes should not lead to incarceration and should not be kept in the criminal record to give first offenders the opportunity to turn their lives around and integrate in the mainstream society.
Unfortunately, first offenders tend to confuse clemency with impunity. So re-offenders (the majority of the incarcerated) and serious offenders should be definitively removed from society (life sentence, not death penalty) instead of being in prison on and off and polluting their communities by their crimes, the negative role model they promote and the disastrous image they give to their community between two incarcerations.
Incarceration is not inhumane if prisoners are kept in humane conditions. What is inhumane is leaving some neighborhoods to the rule of criminals. What terrifies me the most about the US is not the incarceration rate, it’s the abysmally low clearance rate for serious crime cases. There are too many people who are incarcerated while they shouldn’t be and too many people who are getting away with murder, rape and other serious crime although they are not unknown to the judicial system.
And of course, most of these victimless offenses should be de-penalized to focus on the serious ones.
“First, we think think the first victims of crime are the poor and the most marginalized among them and few people involved in penal system reform hold their opinions for the right reasons. On people on the right want toughness on crime for egoistic and paranoid reasons, those on the left confuse rule of law with oppression.”
I used to scoff about poverty being related to crime, but after coming across evo psych’s reasoning, it makes a bit of sense.
Basically, people with a low-to-no amount of possessions will take from those with more in order to gain more possessions for more status. With more status, they can they acquire more mates, breed and spread their genes.
“We think everybody deserves a second chance, but only one. Minor offenses, victimless crimes should not lead to incarceration and should not be kept in the criminal record to give first offenders the opportunity to turn their lives around and integrate in the mainstream society.”
It depends what the crime was to get this ‘second chance’. Recidivism rates are high in America, don’t know about France.
I agree if it was the first offense then it shouldn’t be on one’s record, but after that it starts becoming habitual then things need to happen.
“Unfortunately, first offenders tend to confuse clemency with impunity. So re-offenders (the majority of the incarcerated) and serious offenders should be definitively removed from society (life sentence, not death penalty) instead of being in prison on and off and polluting their communities by their crimes, the negative role model they promote and the disastrous image they give to their community between two incarcerations.”
I don’t know. I’m on the fence here. On the one hand, I think people should suffer (as humanely as possible, oxymoron?) for extremely serious crimes. So they should spend their lives in prison. Then again, why should the taxpayer have to pay for this? On the other hand, the death penalty is quick and painless. But then, one doesn’t really ‘get punishment’ for the crime. Sure they spend a long time on death row, but they get the ‘easy way out’ by getting put to death. I’m leaning towards they should spend their lives in prison though.
Frost and Harpending theorize that due to a high amount of people being put to death through the death penalty, that this caused genetic pacification in Europe.
http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/
Interesting hypothesis.
I assume you’re interested in crime and biological foundations of it should be interesting to you, so you should read this book. It’s a great read.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-anatomy-of-violence-adrian-raine/1111808879
“Incarceration is not inhumane if prisoners are kept in humane conditions. What is inhumane is leaving some neighborhoods to the rule of criminals. What terrifies me the most about the US is not the incarceration rate, it’s the abysmally low clearance rate for serious crime cases. There are too many people who are incarcerated while they shouldn’t be and too many people who are getting away with murder, rape and other serious crime although they are not unknown to the judicial system.”
Yes. Prison has become a business. Cops are just money generators for the State now. They keep people in for petty things while letting serious criminals go. It’s ridiculous. I’m sure, correct me if I’m wrong, that a lot of lawyers know their client did it. But just because they can argue better than the next guy their client gets off, even though he did the crime he was accused of.
“I used to scoff about poverty being related to crime, but after coming across evo psych’s reasoning, it makes a bit of sense.”
Poverty is one cause of crime but it shouldn’t be taken into account once in court. Personality is the main cause of crime and low SES is a triggering factor related to opportunity cost. The poor have more to win in crime and less to lose in a penal sentence.
“Basically, people with a low-to-no amount of possessions will take from those with more in order to gain more possessions for more status.”
Street crime is mostly poor-on-poor crime, and white collar crime is rich on less rich crime. The middle class and the upper class suffer little from crime, even property crime relative to lower classes, both in terms of absolute and relative toll.
“It depends what the crime was to get this ‘second chance’. Recidivism rates are high in America, don’t know about France.”
Of course, when the state gets the chance to catch a murderer or a raper, the guy should never be back on the streets. Recidivism is high in France too, most criminals are not persons committing one unfortunate error once in their lives. They are people who have chosen crime as a lifestyle, who know what they have to lose and what they have to win in committing crime. My girlfriend is a penal lawyer and she has clients with extremely high knowledge of laws and a great understanding of how the penal justice system works, they often challenge her advice and that pisses her off.
“On the one hand, I think people should suffer (as humanely as possible, oxymoron?) for extremely serious crimes.”
Penal justice is meant to protect society, not to avenge victims.
“Then again, why should the taxpayer have to pay for this?”
And why should we pay for the police, the military, hospitals, schools ? Taxes are the ransom of civilization.
“On the other hand, the death penalty is quick and painless. ”
There are too many people who need to be removed from society, and society can’t afford the moral, psychological and social cost of killing so many people.
The US has a murder rate of 4/100,000. Let’s say murder accounts for 5% of intolerable offences. The US can’t expect to pacify its streets by assassinating up to 240,000 persons a year.
“Frost and Harpending theorize that due to a high amount of people being put to death through the death penalty, that this caused genetic pacification in Europe.”
No, European countries have mostly been ruled by crowd justice until the formation of modern police forces in the 19th century. There is a country that was primarily settled by convicts: Australia, and it’s not more dangerous than other developed countries. What makes the difference is the quality of policing i.e. the level of trust and respect between communities and police, the rate of case clearance and the judicial response.
The map shown on the UNZ’s websites makes it apparent, the most dangerous places are remote areas where policing is made difficult by geography. In urban ghettos, the obstacle is not justice but lack of trust, mutual respect and cooperation, for a long time the US has been and is still lax toward black neighborhoods, before the civil rights, the policy was basically “let the niggers kill each other” and contain their violence to their neighborhoods, and it is still the case when only 20% of murder cases are solved in cities like Chicago.
“I assume you’re interested in crime and biological foundations of it should be interesting to you, so you should read this book. It’s a great read.”
No, sorry, I’m not interested this time. Although I specialize in business law, I have a lot of relatives in penal law. These matters are irrelevant to law professionals, we leave it to ideologues because we know how complex those realities are and understanding biology wouldn’t bring much change, except that saying that people can’t be blamed because what they do is due to their nature.
“It’s ridiculous. I’m sure, correct me if I’m wrong, that a lot of lawyers know their client did it.”
Of course, lawyers need to know the whole story to prepare the best defense. When a case looks desperate, the lawyer will always exploit any detail to get the lowest sentence as low as possible. In France there is more and more bargaining between lawyers and prosecutors to get to an acceptable compromise and avoid endless trials.
There is a country that was primarily settled by convicts: Australia, and it’s not more dangerous than other developed countries
Excellent point!
PP, since you think intelligence is the ability to adapt (which I agree with), would you make an article in which you classify differents types of intelligence and say which one seems the most adaptable.
I mean, if you compare 2 individuals with the exact same intelligence. Except that one have a high social IQ & a low spatial IQ and the other have the reverse, who would be the smartest ? I think it would be the one with the high spatial IQ.
It would be more challenging to compare verbal IQ with spatial IQ.
I mean, if you compare 2 individuals with the exact same intelligence. Except that one have a high social IQ & a low spatial IQ and the other have the reverse, who would be the smartest ? I think it would be the one with the high spatial IQ.
Hard to say, because in society today, high social IQ people probably do better than high spatial IQ people. But in other times, for other life forms, on other planets, spatial IQ might have been dominant.
Social intelligence is a very specialized ability. It probably take much less brain than spatial intelligence.
PP, what do you think about mass immigration to the West ? Do you think it is mostly a good or a bad thing ?
PP, what do you think about mass immigration to the West ? Do you think it is mostly a good or a bad thing ?
I think a bit of immigration is healthy, but mass immigration is just going to lead to a race war, and I suspect that’s the point.
PP, Bushmen have very small genitalia and looks like kids. You said the totatal opposite in a previous article.
I said they have large sexual anatomy which includes more than just genitalia. There are secondary sexual characteristics too.
They does not have very developed secondary sexual characterisrics either
They have very childlike features. They have low pilosity and female does not have particularly big breasts and butts.
They have steatopygia , the tablier egyptienne, etc, which are extremely r traits
Only hottentots have these traits, not actual bushmen.
And these are only 2 traits versus a ton of other were bushmen are more K than other races.
PP, which celebrities do you think read your blog ? You said that Barack Obama might be a regular reader.
LOL! I don’t know if he’s a regular reader; but I suspect he’s read the post about his IQ. Hundreds of thousands of people a year read this blog, odds are some of them are celebs.
PP, would you mostly define yoursel as an alpha, beta, gamma, delta, sigma or omega male ?
I think Santoculto is a gamma and Afrosapiens an alpha.
PP, would you mostly define yoursel as an alpha, beta, gamma, delta, sigma or omega male ?
I have no idea; I don’t even think of people in those terms. I don’t think they’re all that relevant in a society where you have nerds like Bill Gates being the most dominant people in society.
I have to work.
Can’t answer questions all day.
This answer reinforces my view, that Pumpkin does not have the insight or neuro lean to see Zion.
You sound like either a self-hating nerd, or a jock who failed to live up to his high school glory, & it makes you feel better to label your social betters as deltas.
I have enough insight to realize your alpha, beta hierarchy is stupid.
It’s caveman high school thinking.
The real world doesn’t work that way.
Of course this is far from perfect. But you can classify most people in these categories.
I remember you saying several times you were an alpha male.
So categorize bill gates
Bill Gates seems like a beta to me. Yea yea yea muh money. Muh billions. Muh trillions. Muh computers.
Just based on how he speaks he seems like a meek man. I may be wrong, I don’t know a lot about him, nor do I care to. Anyone with eyes here can see that I’m a pretty aggressive person and I love conflict. I take risks in regards to my businesses, sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t. But I always learn a lesson.
Im a natural leader. To be in the position I am, where people take to what you say and make lifestyle changes, you need to be assertive and confident. I’ve been doing this for years so that’s where that comes from. I’ve fixed a lot of garbage from weight Watchers. People would be scared before working with me since they fit scammed by weight Watchers.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/24/oprah-weight-watchers-and-big-food-shilling/
However I have quite a few years doing this.
I have a more domineering personality than he does. I’m nowhere near as rich as him (I’m a prole, I barely make 90 k a year but I’m happy with the amount of income I generate per year, I can pay my bills, save and the greatest satisfaction I get is helping people achieve their weight loss and strength goals.)
How would you categorize Bill Gates. He seems beta to me.
Bill Gates seems like a beta to me. Yea yea yea muh money. Muh billions. Muh trillions. Muh computers.
Just based on how he speaks he seems like a meek man.
He has the luxury of being meek because he has real power. He also seems somewhat autistic so lacks non-verbal communication skills.
Im a natural leader. To be in the position I am, where people take to what you say and make lifestyle changes, you need to be assertive and confident. I’ve been doing this for years so that’s where that comes from. I’ve fixed a lot of garbage from weight Watchers. People would be scared before working with me since they fit scammed by weight Watchers.
Actually weight watchers gives sound advice. They know a lot more about health and nutrition than you ever will.
How would you categorize Bill Gates. He seems beta to me.
He’s obviously an extreme alpha. In any social situation, other men would genuflect to him and hot women would try to fuck him. An ironic alpha, but an alpha nonetheless.
Pumpkin should become a stand up comedian.
“He has the luxury of being meek because he has real power. He also seems somewhat autistic so lacks non-verbal communication skills.”
True. I don’t really care about ‘celebrities’ enough to know this.
“Actually weight watchers gives sound advice. They know a lot more about health and nutrition than you ever will.”
You know this…..how? Do you understand WW’s model? They want repeat customers.
WW’s ‘point’ system is based on CHO, protein, and fat. Vitamins and minerals are not considered. WW claims that you can get all vitamins from fruit and vegetables, However, the average person would need to triple their fruit and vegetable intake (extremely hard for most people). Moreover, the stupid point system doesn’t say you have to eat fruits and vegetables, do deficiencies follow.
Frozen meals, garbage. Undernourishment is extremely high on this ‘program’.
Their foods are also full of salt and that’s a no-no for people with high blood pressure.
Here’s something short and sweet on WWs:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-watchers-must-be-joking
He knows what he’s talking about. One of the world’s leading authorities on low carb diets.
This is also GOLD!
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/nutrition/weight_watchers.html
See, PP. Profit is secondary for me. My main reason for being in this industry is to help people. Get them real information. I want a revolving door. I don’t want to see the same people for more than 2 months. WWs and other garbage companies don’t want the truth about dieting to come out and how it doesn’t work (http://www.dishlab.org/pubs/MannTomiyamaAmPsy2007.pdf) so they continuously lie to people and tell them its their fault, when they’re literally fighting biology.
But a multibillion-dollar garbage company must know more about nutrition than my small business that actually helps people attain their goals and doesn’t feed them bullshit. Those companies are full of scum, preying on people’s ignorance about dieting. It pisses me off. Oprah is a shill for WWs. She knows dieting doesn’t work. If it did work, why does she yo-yo all the time?
“He’s obviously an extreme alpha. In any social situation, other men would genuflect to him and hot women would try to fuck him. An ironic alpha, but an alpha nonetheless.”
Women want to fuck him because he has money. Women want to fuck Trump because he has money. That’s all it is. Money. Green.
You know this…..how? Do you understand WW’s model? They want repeat customers.
They also want good word of mouth you stupid fucking moron. They’re not sitting there scheming in a back room about how to make people fail on their diets. You’re so stupid Race Realist.
WW’s ‘point’ system is based on CHO, protein, and fat. Vitamins and minerals are not considered. WW claims that you can get all vitamins from fruit and vegetables, However, the average person would need to triple their fruit and vegetable intake (extremely hard for most people).
No it’s very easy to triple one’s fruit and vegetable intake since most folks don’t eat much to begin with, and by making them zero points, they’re encouraging people to eat more.
Moreover, the stupid point system doesn’t say you have to eat fruits and vegetables, do deficiencies follow.
If you’re saving points for a delicious pizza, the only way to placate your hunger is by eating tons of veggies which are zero points.
It’s genius, unlike you.
Here’s something short and sweet on WWs:
I don’t care about your idiotic links.
You a dummy.
Your clients don’t need you
Your clients don’t want you
Getting a degree in nutrition isn’t gona help any
Quit your business and go on welfare, where you belong.
RR is almost as comedic as Pumpkin.
Money does not matter to women for ***king.
Trust me.
It is almost irrelevant except for the following three derivations:
1. You use it to flash it – sports car, limo, escorts, bodyguards, entourage etc.
2. You use it for political power
3. You use it to gain access to high end clubs where like my old swedish female housemates were invited, they bus in tons of girls with promises of free drinks and have a bunch of rich arab dudes and buddys prev on them with a 9:1 female male ratio.
You can be a convict, drug addict, homeless person, gambling addict and still get 200 times more than Bill Gates can without paying for it.
Marriage is a form of payment by the way. Historically it was explicitly an economic exchange or a family political arranged manoeuvre.
Can you at least publish this one?
PS
Actually there is one kind of Humean argument for money – you can use it to buy a gym membership, steroids, good food, good advice, hygiene, haircut etc etc. These things all help.
Also wish to apologise to Pumpkin for the comment earlier.
I must say though, that learning the true nature of what makes women attracted to someone is not a road I recommend at all. It’s a poisoned chalice of knowledge.
If I could go back, perhaps this is the one thing I would rather not know.
They talk about this knowledge as the Red Pill.
The Alt Right and the ‘manosphere’ are cousins.
What Pumpkin believes in, is what I would like to believe in. If the world of the 1950s had not been undermined in the 1960s social movements, I think RR and Pumpkin would be more right than I.
I must say though, that learning the true nature of what makes women attracted to someone is not a road I recommend at all. It’s a poisoned chalice of knowledge.
I’m not saying women are sexually attracted to Gates, I’m saying thousands of extremely attractive women would throw themselves at him, just to be associated with all that money.
Yes, such a burden. I live in agony.
The Alt Right and the ‘manosphere’ are cousins.
I agree. Both are equally deplorable and consist mostly of bitter men.
Typical PUA/Manosphere logic
“Women don’t sleep with me, therefore they’re Hitler”
This definitions are humanly-evolutionary outdated if most of things we have wasn’t created by ”alphas”. Indeed ”humanity” is in transitional state, from the ”animal world” to the full-conscious world.
those who dominate societies by now are not, on avg, the same than those who create things to the societies, but even many of the most powerful people, mainly men, are not classical alphas.
Soros is a alpha, he don’t look and even act exactly like that.
Stronger, taller and ”manly handsome” men tend, at the same time, to occupy privileged/unequal social places as well the worst of them, overwhelming in prison for example.
Among many non-human species is common that they are the piece of cake of their species because their fertility-health or because they are better to survive, to resist to the environmental challenges and or possibly, changes, but among humans, specially those who are more evolved, this ”natural” hierarchy is and always was outdated, since when the first creative genius started to create things.
When we look for many geniuses, even scientific ones, we can conclude easily that most of them are not just ”non-alpha” but many times the complete opposite.
Brave New World romance show for us this reality most alt-reichers, (((hbds))) and PUA’s can’t accept… that in the end of the day, the ”loser” is more prone to be a creative genius than their precious, troublesome and superficial alphas.
Bill Gates is not “most people” PP.
And if this classification is so stupid why were you saying you were an alpha male ?
Because he has said it quite often: everything his commenters know he knows better, he surpasses us us in any of our strengths, PP’s not actually human, he’s a god.
But not an alpha god.
The guy is afraid to get out alone at night in Ottawa. No alpha male is afraid of getting out alone at night, or at least none would let it show. An alpha male can take care of himself and is a protector to others.
PP has a strange relationship with fear, he often expresses it in his posts and must often experience it in his life but he likes horror movies. I believe he is very susceptible to fear but he also gets some satisfaction from it.
PP is in admiration with Oprah. Alpha males seldom have admiration for others, let alone women. At best, alpha males have respect for other alphas but that stops here.
PP despises alpha traits, the ideal human to him is the tiny introvert. Most of his posts more or less explain us that the alpha male is archaic and the homosexual geek is at the pinnacle of evolution.
The guy is afraid to get out alone at night in Ottawa.
That quote was misunderstood
PP is in admiration with Oprah. Alpha males seldom have admiration for others, let alone women. At best, alpha males have respect for other alphas but that stops here.
My reasons for being interested in Oprah are psychologically very different from those of the typical Oprah fan
PP despises alpha traits, the ideal human to him is the tiny introvert. Most of his posts more or less explain us that the alpha male is archaic and the homosexual geek is at the pinnacle of evolution.
Huh? There’s nothing homosexual about geeks. Nerds are LESS likely to be gay than non-nerdy men.
“Nerds are LESS likely to be gay than non-nerdy men.”
Oh really ? Prove it!
Anyway, by homosexual I meant non-dominant men who are pitifully built and have much difficulty to get girls. The kind that’s still virgin at 30, jerks off at anime pictures and satisfies their needs with their fellow geeks.
Anyway, by homosexual I meant non-dominant men
Nerds are not non-dominant. They dominate our society and force us to live by their nerdy rules.
who are pitifully built
Compared to Neanderthals, modern humans are pitifully built
and have much difficulty to get girls.
A lot of nerds get tons of women.
The kind that’s still virgin at 30
Nothing wrong with that
And yet, I wouldn’t classify Silicon Valley millionaires as real Geeks, they have enough balls to dream big and the social ability to convince their obscure projects are worth financial support.
Well one thing I’d say about the hierarchy is that while the omega, delta and so on don’t get action much, they live in a kind of fuzzy innocent world which is not psychologically damaging either or edgy and unsafe.
With modern technology, a guy can never hit rock bottom but at the same time never really change his life around. You have porn, tv, video games, drugs, etc. In the old days, depression and listlessness would be stomped out.
Possibly a key reason why there has not been more domestic political upheaval.
I genuinely don’t think it benefits a lot of them to tell them about the real birds and bees and many are somewhat content, with a simple life like that.
Many nerds have what many would call childish interests and aesthetic taste alongside super technical specialised work stuff. It reflects the developmental stage of their social brains. The aesthetic is a very instinctive component of our judgement. So the clothes, symbols and idols I see on or near people tell me a lot.
The other thing I’ve observed is that people can evolve and devolve up and down the hierarchy.
I believe I found found a way to engineer at least a level upgrade for most guys with a simple enough action plan. I can guarantee a step jump.
Robert jokes that I mention testosterone a lot. But that is a key ingredient. Its also about inviting pain and facing fear. Facing fear is the difference between a man and a boy.
“They dominate our society and force us to live by their nerdy rules.”
I don’t think we live in the same world, your Silicon Valley millionaires aren’t the ones who rule my world, and I’m by no means living by their nerdy rules.
“Compared to Neanderthals, modern humans are pitifully built”
This conversation is taking zoophilic tones.
“A lot of nerds get tons of women.”
I meant girls you get for free and who are attracted to who you are, not your money.
“Nothing wrong with that”
We’re definitely not living on the same planet.
Because he has said it quite often: everything his commenters know he knows better, he surpasses us us in any of our strengths
I noticed that too
I don’t think we live in the same world, your Silicon Valley millionaires aren’t the ones who rule my world, and I’m by no means living by their nerdy rules.
Law is a social profession. We don’t move in the same circles as an engineer, for example. A technical person might be surrounded by weird nerds; lawyers by and large are social and confident. So, you may be right to point out that you don’t live in the same world. I don’t know what Pumpkin does for a living obviously.
“Law is a social profession. We don’t move in the same circles as an engineer, for example. A technical person might be surrounded by weird nerds; lawyers by and large are social and confident. So, you may be right to point out that you don’t live in the same world. I don’t know what Pumpkin does for a living obviously.”
I agree, but look a the world at large, from the origins to nowadays. Who are the people who have really changed the world ? Those whose inventions have come into our lives, for sure. But these people haven’t got into our brains. And their inventions are only waiting to become replaced as technological cycles are becoming shorter.
Life is great with our smartphones, Range Rovers and Lexus. But their inventors are not influencing my decisions in life or my worldview. True intelligence is the ability to come into people’s mind and get what you want from them. Engineers are good at dealing with machines and scientific formulas but they wont achieve anything without the ability to convince financiers and without finding the marketing specialists who will convince the public of the usefulness of a new product. And understanding people and the masses is way more complex than dealing with scientific formulas.
I’m more fascinated by the craftiness of Africans, from the internet-cafe scammer or the beach peddler to the multi-millionaire pastor. These guys are get into grown up people’s brains and get what they want from them. In this sense, I can understand PP’s admiration for Oprah, the black obese woman from South Side Chicago whose favorite things list gets worthless expensive items sales skyrocket just because she says she likes them. And I won’t mention Confucius, Jesus Christ and Muhammad.
In my world we’re living by the rules of charismatic prophets or scam artists.
Autists have the ascendancy now though with the decline of religion in the West. Also, in the third world, scam artists win because there’s no rule of law. Civilization protects the sheep from the wolves.
Oprah, Trump and the people at Goldman Sachs are scam artists, Hollywood is a prophet. Civilization makes the wolves look kinder.
>But these people haven’t got into our brains.
What world are you living in wherein the invention of the computer has not at the very least mediated how you function and think? We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if not for that technology producing the conditions necessary to express our verbal intelligence.
By way of analogy, it is like saying that the evolution of vocal chords was not important when it is the condition by which we created the means to evolve socially and enhance and develop a more sophisticated symbolic (Verbal) reasoning process. In the same way the internet and other features of the computer have enhanced our ability to socialize and the manner in which we do it.
By all means adulate the various social achievements of those highly able to do so, but don’t be outright stupid in comparing them to technological achievements.
Can you tell me how we are thinking like the inventors of computers wanted us to do ? We are using their invention until something better comes but they are not ruling our minds.
>Can you tell me how we are thinking like the inventors of computers wanted us to do ?
You’re thinking in Qwerty, using their products, paying money into their companies, expanding silicone valley, gaming is a growth industry (Subset of computing)
There are literally too many examples to cite – they call our age “The digital age” – social media is one of the PRIME methods of communication! Our need for more and better technology and the expanding quality of civilization necessitates the development of computers so sophisticated it’s plausible one day they’ll be indistinguishable from people.
They, for all pragmatic intents and purposes define the quality of your life as it stands right now. To pretend otherwise is absolutely silly.
“You’re thinking in Qwerty”
I’m French, I use an Azerty keyboard and I think exactly in the same way writing with my computer or a pencil.
“paying money into their companies”
Yes, and that’s all they get from me. I use their products but they’re not using my mind.
Tell me, my neighbors owns a Porsche, should I worry that’s he’s an nazi living by Ferdinand Porsche’s rules. And what should I think of my Father-inlaw ? He has three Porsches and he’s a Jew.
PP says:
““They dominate our society and force us to live by their nerdy rules.”
I say no, they create the tools for the true powerful, those who control the minds, to use them for their own profit and get what they want from people. And you see, Hillary Clinton was Silicon Valley’s favorite, she lost to the ultra-charismatic Trump who used the social media against the will of its creators.
Just the incredible amount of money computer nerds get makes them extremely powerful, particularly in a country like America where politicians are for sale. Also their ability to control information (what comes up first in search engines that billions of people use), their access to people’s personal information, and even their ability to destroy politicians by hacking into their private communications while the hacker himself remains anonymous, makes them a force to be reckoned with.
All through history, and pre-history, it’s been the nerds who have saved their people from losing wars or going extinct by inventing new technologies, making them not only financially successful, but genetically successful too. Humans are the weak pathetically built nerds of the animal kingdom, and we dominate it completely.
“Just the incredible amount of money computer nerds get makes them extremely powerful, particularly in a country like America where politicians are for sale.”
ICT nerds still own a negligible fraction of global wealth and are virtually absent from elite social circles. The social influence of a lawyer is much superior to that of of an engineer. And your ICT nerds won’t do much without the law specialist who protect intellectual property rights and help settling commercial disputes.
Moreover, ICT nerds only get some hype because they are changing the way society communicates, traditional manufacturing engineers have zero influence, they’re just 21st century blacksmiths.
“Also their ability to control information (what comes up first in search engines that billions of people use), their access to people’s personal information, and even their ability to destroy politicians by hacking into their private communications while the hacker himself remains anonymous, makes them a force to be reckoned with.”
Good points, but not yet enough to claim we are living by their rules. And that’s a fragile form a power, at any moment someone in power can chose to reduce internet freedom and take control over it.
“All through history, and pre-history, it’s been the nerds who have saved their people from losing wars or going extinct by inventing new technologies,”
Inventors of the past weren’t protected by patents and got very little rewards for their inventions. Lots of technological advances were collective rather than individual. You can’t say gunpowder was the invention of a nerd and even less that this nerd increased his social status thanks to it. Arbitrary aristocratic or ploutocratic systems have been the norm until the 20th century.
“Humans are the weak pathetically built nerds of the animal kingdom, and we dominate it completely.”
Humans are not a nerdy species, they’re extremely social, sexual and vain. We might not be very strong but we are bipedal, excellent runners compared to the animals we hunt, and of course we are smart. But our intelligence wouldn’t help us if we had the social ability of Neanderthals.
>I’m French, I use an Azerty keyboard and I think exactly in the same way writing with my computer or a pencil.
“Oh sure, I use a keyboard and happily type under the prescribed rules of doing so for my convenience to the point that it is subconscious reflex, but I’m not obeying any kind of rules”
When you engage with a technology that has been manufactured, you operate within the rules of it established, for whatever reason, by it’s creator (Usually for convenience)
>Yes, and that’s all they get from me. I use their products but they’re not using my mind.
Advertising, the fact that they introduce more advertising via clickbait, the risk they’ve persuaded you to take by using the internet where you’re vulnerable to hackers?
They’re using your mind everywhere when you accept their products; let the buyer beware.
Also the fact that you think that having persuaded you of the status symbol nature of a Porsche and having sold one to you on the basis of it isn’t “Using your mind” you’re way off base.
>she lost to the ultra-charismatic Trump who used the social media against the will of its creators.
He simply understood the rules of the game better than her and exploited a system to his own advantage. It’s a credit to his social intelligence, but it doesn’t change the fact that the platform itself is revolutionary and establishes a whole new frontier of rules and regulations that one must master and take advantage of to be effective.
Don’t deny the fact that technology allows for a whole new level of social sophistication each and every time it is evolved, and that said level of social sophistication is probably biased to some degree in favour of the creators; denying puts you at a disadvantage in a world where you need to achieve mastery of these things to maximise your success.
“When you engage with a technology that has been manufactured, you operate within the rules of it established, for whatever reason, by it’s creator (Usually for convenience)”
I follow the rules set to use the machine but these rules are not those that influence my life choices.
“Advertising, the fact that they introduce more advertising via clickbait, the risk they’ve persuaded you to take by using the internet where you’re vulnerable to hackers?”
Ahah, the marketing geniuses and the ICT nerds aren’t the same persons at all.
“Also the fact that you think that having persuaded you of the status symbol nature of a Porsche and having sold one to you on the basis of it isn’t “Using your mind” you’re way off base.”
Once again, that’s marketing not nerdy engineering. If nerds had power, I would be OK with just my Lexus or an even cheaper Toyota, or better yet, a Volvo . These are reliable cars, but somehow , I like to feel like Rick Ross in my mechanically capricious Range Rover whose swag doesn’t come from nerds.
“It’s a credit to his social intelligence, but it doesn’t change the fact that the platform itself is revolutionary and establishes a whole new frontier of rules and regulations that one must master and take advantage of to be effective.”
The one who has power is not the one who creates technology, it’s the one who use it to his advantage in the competition to get in people’s mind. Technologies are tools, nothing more and their inventors get very little social influence from it.
>I follow the rules set to use the machine but these rules are not those that influence my life choices.
Total nonsense, not only have they influenced your life choices, they practically necessitate a change in your lifestyle (Email is a requirement in the modern era, facebook is a huge platform for socialization) not to mention you’re talking to me – and if you want to decide to do any of the above, you must use computers.
They haven’t just INFLUENCED your life choices, they have created life choices that you must make or be behind the times and redundant if you don’t make them – the carrot AND the stick.
>Ahah, the marketing geniuses and the ICT nerds aren’t the same persons at all.
One requires the other – and moreover the marketing geniuses are LTTP and owe the majority of their money to the latter.
>Once again, that’s marketing not nerdy engineering.
You don’t see the AESTHETICS of a Porche? The fact that it can go so fast and is basically DESIGNED to appeal to your sense of risk? It has marketing BUILT IN to the engineering.
>The one who has power is not the one who creates technology
That’s just delusional thought process – and this “inventors get very little social influence from it.” – is the way by which you maintain it, when you see a way in which a percieved “Nerd” is manipulating you socially via making you dependent on their technological platform you explain it away as “Oh some marketing genius did x”.
You live in a world where Mark Zuckerberg is a cultural icon, Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, Steve Jobs and the list goes on and yet you insist these figures, inventors all “Have no social influence”? Einstein was Time’s person of the century! His NAME is common VERNACULAR for “Genius”.
Before you try and make any given assertion you should look at the world that you actually live in to see if the assumptions you have made correspond with reality and survey shows, number 1 answer on the board: No! They don’t.
“Total nonsense, not only have they influenced your life choices, they practically necessitate a change in your lifestyle”
Their technologies influence my life but not in the sense that I conform to their ideology and ideals. And I really don’t risk being killed in a suicide bombing in the name of Steve Jobs.
“One requires the other – and moreover the marketing geniuses are LTTP and owe the majority of their money to the latter.”
No, no company is viable without a good marketing strategy. Do you remember Kodak, Motorola and Sega ?
“You don’t see the AESTHETICS of a Porche? The fact that it can go so fast and is basically DESIGNED to appeal to your sense of risk? It has marketing BUILT IN to the engineering.”
And you have top performance, top design. Honda models, but for the same price or even twice more, I buy a Porsche. Honda’s OK, but it’s not marketed as a prestige brand, they created Acura to attract premium customers.
” is the way by which you maintain it, when you see a way in which a percieved “Nerd” is manipulating you socially via making you dependent on their technological platform you explain it away as “Oh some marketing genius did x”.”
Of course, there are cheap, reliable and technologically correct chines smartphone brands. But Apple gets all the hype and it’s not marketing.
When you compare companies based on R&D spending
http://www.businessinsider.com/50-biggest-companies-by-rd-investment-2013-12?IR=T
And companies based on brand equity
http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2016
You quickly understand what I’m talking about
“But Apple gets all the hype and it’s not marketing.”
But Apple gets all the hype and it’s just marketing.
>Their technologies influence my life but not in the sense that I conform to their ideology and ideals. And I really don’t risk being killed in a suicide bombing in the name of Steve Jobs.
That’s just shifting the goalposts of “Influence”
>And you have top performance, top design. Honda models, but for the same price or even twice more, I buy a Porsche. Honda’s OK, but it’s not marketed as a prestige brand, they created Acura to attract premium customers.
That’s just the LTTP principle, it’s hard to market yourself as prestigious when that market is dominated by a pre-existing entity – in the UK said entity is Bentley or Rolls Royce.
Regardless it’s the prescence of the advance in technology that makes all of this meaningfully possible.
>But Apple gets all the hype and it’s just marketing.
Proliferation made possible by click-ads (technology) tv (technology) internet (technology) radio (technology) so on and so forth.
“it’s hard to market yourself as prestigious when that market is dominated by a pre-existing entity”
You’re forgetting Lexus, the epitome of luxury that Toyota created out of the blue in the 80’s. Or the resurrection of Audi, Mini, Abercrombie & Fitch, the timelessness of Converse. Yes it’s hard to become prestigious, but marketing geniuses are able to reverse trends.
Are you really wanting to talk marketing and business strategy with a HEC Paris graduate ?
“Proliferation made possible by click-ads (technology) tv (technology) internet (technology) radio (technology) so on and so forth.”
I doubt you are understanding my point. Technology is a tool, but it’s not what changes people’s values, philosophy and world views by itself.
>I doubt you are understanding my point. Technology is a tool, but it’s not what changes people’s values, philosophy and world views by itself.
I doubt you understand mine in the slightest.
Do you genuinely believe that method (Technology) or tools (Technology) do not create conditions under which more sophisticated ideas can be expressed and developed? Technology (method) is a requirement for that in the same way that being able to speak is a necessary condition for the development of verbal intellect.
It is therefore technology at least in part which establishes the rules for our discourse and in establishing the rules for doing so it influences us. Tools ARE influence, not merely influence in fact but tools are INDISPENSABLES. Are ideas, philosophies, and assertions also makers of rules and conduct? Yes of course, but in our society as it stands, and as is becoming increasingly the case, technology is playing a greater and greater part of that rule-making social process and those behind the rules have an inherent advantage.
“Do you genuinely believe that method (Technology) or tools (Technology) do not create conditions under which more sophisticated ideas can be expressed and developed?”
Of course technology enables the spread of ideas and changes in lifstyle. But the ideas that are spread or not those of the inventors. Rules and values that dictate people’s life choices which come from culture, laws, religion and personal experience. Only those who manipulate law, culture, religion and personal experience to their own profit hold true power. And these persons aren’t nerds, they are social geniuses whose power is made greater anytime technology allows them to go deeper into people’s minds.
Jesus Christ was born some 1995 years before the internet started to be in widespread use. But his message is still more influential than Zuckerberg’s who’s not telling people what’s right or wrong or what happens after death.
>But the ideas that are spread or not those of the inventors
Sure they are – not all of them, but significant ones.
>Rules and values that dictate people’s life choices which come from culture, laws, religion and personal experience.
And technology, technology isn’t a special excluded class.
> Only those who manipulate law, culture, religion and personal experience to their own profit hold true power.
That’s a poor hypothesis as to who holds the most sway in any given culture. Those are factors certainly, but in an increasingly technological society one of those manipulable major factors, is technology and allows you to establish the rules of conduct within that significant domain.
>And these persons aren’t nerds, they are social geniuses whose power is made greater anytime technology allows them to go deeper into people’s minds.
Again, you’re creating this special category of “Social genius”, but when you create the rules of conduct for socialization and are sufficiently intelligent to do so such that they benefit you, and you happen to be a nerd, you have created an entirely new category of “Social genius”
>But his message is still more influential than Zuckerberg’s who’s not telling people what’s right or wrong or what happens after death.
Zuckerberg is instead insidiously manipulating his platform to allow for only certain discourses to be had within his rules of conduct, ask Philostomy bag all about it. They might be “Gamma nerds” but their social intelligence within their limited field is undeniable.
Zuckerberg is arguably doing something more profound than telling you what to believe, he is presenting you via selective censorship a specific worldview from which you cannot escape, putting blinders on you so to speak. He is preventing you from accessing a wider world of information that can challenge his particular favoured groups.
This is the power of technology to establish new rules of socialization more favourable to the technologically inclined. And if a non-tech guy masters them? Shift the goal posts, censor, so on and so on.
“Sure they are – not all of them, but significant ones.”
Ok, then give me a list of inventors that have initiated trends in morality and ideology.
” is technology and allows you to establish the rules of conduct within that significant domain”
You’re so vague, you don’t even have concrete examples that support your claims.
“he is presenting you via selective censorship a specific worldview from which you cannot escape,”
What about Trump, the Alt-Right, mass islamism, all social media phenomena.
>Ok, then give me a list of inventors that have initiated trends in morality and ideology.
You don’t consider Zuckerberg to have represented a shift in social ideology? Scientists with the invention of the Nuclear Bomb? Jon Von Neumann with MAD? NASA initiating the “Space Race” isn’t an ideological trend?
You could argue that there were concurrent social trends that they were contingent on, but nevertheless they represented in themselves ideological trends and revolutions.
>You’re so vague, you don’t even have concrete examples that support your claims.
Deduction, in this case, is a better and more convenient solution than attempting to solve via empirical means.
>What about Trump, the Alt-Right, mass islamism, all social media phenomena.
You present these counter-examples as though they’re mutually exclusive to my point when they’re not – Zuckerberg and silicon valley elites and powerful, extremely powerful and influential (Via lobbyists and so on but moreover via the leverage many possess over public figures) but they are far from omnipotent and they are but one power in a massive nexus of power that has many different components.
“You don’t consider Zuckerberg to have represented a shift in social ideology?”
Not at all, I don’t know the Zuckerberg doctrine, maybe you do. What I see is facebook being used by ideologues of all kind but I don’t know who has the favor of Zuckerberg.
Your other examples are not valid either, their would have been no cold war without Karl Marx in the first place and the USSR was ahead of the US in the armament race, it lost the cold war for reasons that are unrelated to technology.
“Deduction, in this case, is a better and more convenient solution than attempting to solve via empirical means.”
Lol, you’re telling things that you can’t prove. How can I take you seriously ?
“but they are far from omnipotent and they are but one power in a massive nexus of power that has many different components.”
They’re a lesser form of power and they absolutely can’t compete with those who deliver powerful messages that masses embrace.
>Not at all, I don’t know the Zuckerberg doctrine, maybe you do. What I see is facebook being used by ideologues of all kind but I don’t know who has the favor of Zuckerberg.
This is just obtuse, the “Zuckerburg doctrine” are the rules he surreptitiously employs on his platform to curtail the message to one that he favours and other interests.
>Your other examples are not valid either,
According to your own private obtuse definitions of “power” “Influence” and “rules” that exclude nerds, private definitions that are not meaningfully synonymous with any three of the above words in the common vernacular.
Further, did you not read my earlier point?
“You could argue that there were concurrent social trends that they were contingent on, but nevertheless they represented in themselves ideological trends and revolutions.” if you argue that x or y cultural shift is “Invalid” because another precedes it and the future cultural revolution is dependent on the previous one, you’re arguing an absurd point. There is no reason to suppose that the revolutions invoked in the development and use of technology were any less influential in themselves than the political machinations that they were contingent on.
>Lol, you’re telling things that you can’t prove. How can I take you seriously ?
I’m pointing out something clear and accessible to you if you would only look for it, I am not making claims so extraordinary that they demand extensive reporting.
>They’re a lesser form of power and they absolutely can’t compete with those who deliver powerful messages that masses embrace.
This isn’t a meaningful distinction, it’s not a “Lesser form of power” by definition, it MAY happen to be at a particular time, but there is no reason why it is forever a “Lesser form of power” and in fact over time it is gaining, not losing domain.
“This is just obtuse, the “Zuckerburg doctrine” are the rules he surreptitiously employs on his platform to curtail the message to one that he favours and other interests.”
That’s conspiracy theory. You can’t tell me actual actions that Zuckerberg has taken to advance his personal ideology or to fight his opponents. Here in France, social media platforms are trying to resist government’s requests to censor racist, antisemitic and Islamist messages, are Zuckerberg and the likes alt-right activists ?
” Further, did you not read my earlier point?”
I read it and told you what nations were fighting for and what didn’t cause one nation’s defeat.
“I’m pointing out something clear and accessible to you if you would only look for it, I am not making claims so extraordinary that they demand extensive reporting.”
You’re making completely unsupported claims that you can’t empirically demonstrate.
“This isn’t a meaningful distinction, it’s not a “Lesser form of power” by definition,”
Of course that’s a lesser form of power, people wouldn’t use technology if it makes them do things that contradict their will. Technology is just a response to people’s needs. If my Jewish father-in-law had to adhere to Ferdinand Porsche’s nazi ideology to own three models of his brand, he’d buy some Maseratis instead.
israel has the most lawyers per whatever. japan and france have the fewest…among developed countries.
In 1990, there were some 250,000 to 300,000 practicing lawyers in the Soviet Union…
that’s 1 per 1,000. compared to france’s 0.84 per 1000, the lowest in europe.
lawyer is a much more prestigious profession in frogland.
>That’s conspiracy theory.
It’s well known FB is taking steps to curtail certain political viewpoints. These steps are broadly in Zuckerbeg’s favour.
>Here in France, social media platforms are trying to resist government’s requests to censor racist, antisemitic and Islamist messages, are Zuckerberg and the likes alt-right activists ?
An anecdotal example that doesn’t defeat my point generally.
“Under these highly specific conditions your rule (Designed for broad strokes usage, and by no means admittedly designed to be all-encompassing) doesn’t hold! HA!”
>I read it and told you what nations were fighting for and what didn’t cause one nation’s defeat.
Non-sequitur, I wasn’t making a point about what did or did not cause defeats of nations.
>You’re making completely unsupported claims that you can’t empirically demonstrate.
You’re being obtuse to what supports them and pretending that it’s my obligation to show you the obvious.
>Of course that’s a lesser form of power, people wouldn’t use technology if it makes them do things that contradict their will.
They do, all the time. People use cars when it’s broadly against their will to harm to environment and they dislike the potential to kill animals and people on the road, people take risks with technology and make begruding decisions.
People submerge their will to one degree or another when dealing with technology all of the time.
>Technology is just a response to people’s needs.
It’s not “Just” anything of the kind, it HAPPENS to be a response to peoples needs, but it is also a creator of needs, an establisher of rules, and a social conditioner all of its own. Technology, and the people designing technology, are multi-dimensional.
>If my Jewish father-in-law had to adhere to Ferdinand Porsche’s nazi ideology to own three models of his brand, he’d buy some Maseratis instead.
Again, you’ve established the conditions in such a way as to be able to say “See in this particular case, technology and technologists lose out because” when broad strokes this is not the case, technologists profit by our wilfullness to buy their technology monitarily and socially all the time surreptitiously – they need not be so out-and-out as that.
“It’s well known FB is taking steps to curtail certain political viewpoints. These steps are broadly in Zuckerbeg’s favour.”
Ok, point out to concrete examples then.
“An anecdotal example that doesn’t defeat my point generally.”
This is not an anecdote, it is a legal battle with far reaching social implications.
“Non-sequitur, I wasn’t making a point about what did or did not cause defeats of nations.”
You were talking about the role of technology, I told you that technologies and their inventor’s opinions weren’t the cause of conflicts and that technology, in the case of the cold war didn’t decide the winner.
“You’re being obtuse to what supports them and pretending that it’s my obligation to show you the obvious.”
If you want me to come your way, I see a social trend that reflects the mindset of sillicon valley millionaires: the promotion of coolness in the workplace, ironically. But this is an extremely marginal phenomenon only affecting first world creative classes, whereas labor is more and more resembling slavery for 99,999999% of the world’s workers. Apart from that, there is nothing that we do that conforms to the mindset of an inventor. There is no Watt doctrine, Gates doctrine or Gutenberg doctrine that has changed people’s mindset.
“They do, all the time. People use cars when it’s broadly against their will to harm to environment and they dislike the potential to kill animals and people on the road, people take risks with technology and make begruding decisions.”
People use technology if benefits outstrip disadvantages. They won’t be slave to a technology that brings no positive change to our lives. People use cars to go to work, to travel, shop. Many people do it without a car because they chose not to own one for various reasons.
>Ok, point out to concrete examples then.
Zuckerberg is very openly exerting his influence over his platform to censor arbitrarily designed “Fake News”, I don’t understand why you’re demanding concrete examples when, for example Twitter banning Milo Yiannopolous for political reasons is common knowledge.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-censor-fake-news-zuckerberg/
>This is not an anecdote, it is a legal battle with far reaching social implications.
It’s meaningfully anecdotal. Even, ironically, a point in my favour as those that control tech (Within the France region) evidently have profound control of the social discourse such that it is a legal battle.
>You were talking about the role of technology
We were talking about the role of technology in influence and societal rule making, I have shown you that it is powerful in both domains, you insisted on extrapolating that out to conclusions of wars, which had nothing to do with my point.
>and their inventor’s opinions weren’t the cause of conflicts and that technology
Not always – but that’s not true a priori, inventors opinions can well be the cause of conflicts, an example being the differing opinions of Tesla and Edison and how that lead to a conflict over social and technological dominance over their particular segments at their particular time. But nonetheless technology, and the technologists behind that technology, represented a significant portion of influence in the events of the cold war and the second world war.
>But this is an extremely marginal phenomenon only affecting first world creative classes, whereas labor is more and more resembling slavery for 99,999999% of the world’s workers. Apart from that, there is nothing that we do that conforms to the mindset of an inventor.
Do you even realize that you’re effectively saying that amongst the other richest and most influential people, meaning the most meaningful people to influence, silicon valley millionaires have had a profound influence?
The idea that labour is resembling slavery does not mean the poorer are not influenced, though.
>There is no Watt doctrine, Gates doctrine or Gutenberg doctrine that has changed people’s mindset.
No but there is the social influence of being able to stay up far after dark at convenience due to the invention of the lightbulb, influencing our working hours, the convenience of computers with GUI, influencing how we interact with others and technology and the fact that we have more information based on which to make decisions than ever, most of it misleading. These are all meaningful changes to our mindset and life philosophies.
>People use technology if benefits outstrip disadvantages. They won’t be slave to a technology that brings no positive change to our lives.
But this doesn’t mean that technology hasn’t influenced our lives profoundly, or that it doesn’t establish and increase the complexity and change the standards of social interaction.
arbitrarily defined*
Interesting qs by our cocorico colleague here.
Publish the damn comment PP
Someone has to condemn this abomination !
Who is this ?
Henry Cavill is the best looking English guy for sure
looks like a fag.
Alpha
Sigma
Beta
Delta
Omega
http://wowtcgcoverage.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ee885f15970b0133f0377e12970b-pi
Gamma
I wonder which one is the most like PP… may be the gamma ?
Pumpkin is definitely not a gamma.
How do you call a nerd who think he is an alpha then ?
I see what you’re getting at, but with respect to Pumpkin, I don’t think Pumpkin says that in the same manner as a gamma male. You seem new to these threads, but in my opinion, while gammas are nerds, they are not autistic. They have a fairly sharp view of the human sexual hierarchy. This is precisely why they are in denial.
The delta can’t see it that clearly either. But the beta does and accept it.
Pumpkin is not vindictive, petty, full of rage or a reflexive liar. Quite the opposite.
I don’t think PP is that autistic.
Pumpkin is not vindictive, petty, full of rage or a reflexive liar. Quite the opposite.
Not true, in my opinion. PP is simply able to control himself.
Of course I never said he is a stereotypical gamma, but he seems to have more in common with this category than any other.
Do you think PP is a delta ?
But from what he describes to be himself in real life, he seems a bit like beta, or may be a sigma.
LOL! So tell me in words, not pictures, what this hierarchy measures. In science, an alpha is just the one with the most status in the social group, but yours seems to be a list of who would make the best leading man in a 1950s movie, or simply who women find the most sexually attractive. I guess the latter is what it’s come to mean in the man-o-sphere.
Alpha: Someone the inspires respect and followership
Sigma: Introvert version of alpha. The stereotypical ‘mysterious man’ or ‘strong silent type’.
Beta: Stand up guy youd want fighting with you
Delta: Schlub, drone
Gamma: Scheming manipulator. Man who can’t accept his social position and needs to find a way using his high IQ to get it. Feminine brain.
Omega: Total loser. Invisible to women. Can be autistic. Mentally ill. Retarded etc.
You’ll notice that testosterone rises as you go up the scale.
But gamma and sigma are on a separate track. Sigmas tend to have higher IQ than Alphas. Bruce Wayne is an excellent film example of a Sigma.
They’re just handy labels. Some people might fall in between.
You’ll notice broadly speaking, the races of man promote more or less of each in their sexual socio hierarchy.
This is why I always say the jews are the gamma race.
Vox Day came up with the gamma concept, which is a massive breakthrough because as realise its true from my social experiences.
There are men who have high IQ and use sophistry, ad hominems, spurious associations and ‘integrity’, ‘ethics’ etc to tear down people they are jealous of.
Gammas are the guys that tear down the whole system. They totally dysfunctional.
This guys is a textbook example:
what’s this?
Is there a similar classification system for girls?
yeah! beautiful and metis. metis includes all metis and ugly chicks.
another fantastic lawyer:
Larry Darrell was not a Nazi. You share nothing in common.
you didn’t even read the book fat ugly squaw, and you’re autistic.
vyshinsky and freisler make the point that lawyers do nothing but support the ruling class. that’s their purpose. the law is the instrument of the ruling class.
vyshinsky served stalin. friesler served hitler.
american and french lawyers serve the bourgeoisie.
they’re gross.
You’ll notice broadly speaking, the races of man promote more or less of each in their sexual socio hierarchy.
Interesting. I would say Blacks are more alpha, Northern Euros are more beta and East Asians are more delta.
Northwestern Euros are probably the less gamma race, since there are the less clannish.
Vox day is a moron.
There are nerds in law to be sure but they are different from nerds in engineering. There are very few fat or out of shape people in law. Most people go to the gym, etc.
Law nerds are delta or….lambda.
Engineering nerds, to a jello, are omega. Aspergers gives you the golden ticket to omega.
WTF is lambda?!
http://i3.cpcache.com/product/153743629/lambda_lambda_lambda_classic_thong.jpg?width=225&height=225&Filters=%5B%7B%22name%22%3A%22background%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22F2F2F2%22%2C%22sequence%22%3A2%7D%5D
“There are nerds in law to be sure but they are different from nerds in engineering.”
Yeah, there are some austere personalities but these guys are still socially very able. They’re just misanthropic. They command a certain form of respect.
one of the few good lawyers:
