Commenter Gypsy recently sent me the following email:
I know it’s a little dumb to mention it again, especially after so much time has elapsed between convos about it, but I feel as though definitions of intelligence posed most commonly (Adaptability, problem solving, even potentially reasoning) lack an intuitive connection to an essential side of intelligence commonly ignored mainly because of our main practise for assessing intelligence: Problem POSING. We discover intelligence broadly by posing questions and assessing the ability of the candidate to deliver the correct answer, but the construction of a sophisticated plan is an essential and actually more used element of intelligence that is not immediately implied by the definitions we propose.
I know that problem proposition is implied by the definition, but the language doesn’t intuitively convey it and it is thus not immediately implied. I think the language used should be as intuitive as possible so as to immediately capture the essence of the thing itself all at once.
Thanks for reading,
Gypsy.
If I understand Gypsy’s email correctly, he seems to be saying that the inherent flaw in how we define and measure intelligence is that we only look at the ability to solve problems, when a crucial part of being smart is identifying the problem itself.
Of course I would argue that it’s not our intelligence that identifies the problem, but rather it’s our feelings. If we feel the slightest bit of discomfort, even if it’s something as trivial as an itch that needs to be scratched, it’s by definition a problem (since it’s bothering us), and our intelligence is just the brain’s problem solving computer that solves whatever problems our feelings identify.
Now we evolved to feel pleasure when we are engaging in behavior that enhances our genetic fitness (surviving, making money, making love, making friends) and feel pain when we are denied these achievements, and so we are generally motivated to use our intelligence to our genetic advantage, at least to some degree, or it couldn’t have evolved in the first place.
However because everyone’s incentive structure is unique, one man’s problem is another man’s solution, so an IQ test must DECIDE for us what the problem is, so everyone’s problem solving computer (IQ) can be tested by the same standard.
However where Gypsy makes a very good point (if I understand him) is that the problem solving IQ tests often demand is very one dimensional, while in the real life strategic situations Gypsy is interested in, we have problems within problems within problems.
So instead of the problem being clearly defined like it is on most IQ tests (how do I fit the puzzle pieces together to make an animal?) it could be something as complex as “how do I win a war?” This is such a complex problem that you have to break it down into lots of mini-problems, and solve them in the correct sequence, while at the same time, the problem is constantly changing because your enemy is adapting to each of your moves.
German military strategist Helmuth von Moltke famously stated ““No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.”
I actually don’t think IQ tests do a very good job at capturing this kind of dynamic interactive problem solving because all of the problems on IQ tests are static and simple enough to be solved in a few minutes. What is needed is not so much an IQ test, but an interactive IQ contest, where people compete in a cognitively demanding zero sum game where one person must outsmart the other.
I used to think chess was the ultimate test of intelligence, but its sensitivity to practice and teaching, and the fact that computers do better than people, dampened my enthusiasm.
What is needed is a version of chess that’s constantly changing, so you can’t practice it or study openings, endgames, and traps, you must constantly invent your own; because one day the board has 64 squares, the next day it has 225. One day each side has one queen, the next day each side has eight queens etc. Perhaps some genius could write a computer chess program where such changes would occur randomly, so whoever had the highest rating on this constantly changing version of chess, would be judged the smartest person.
But unfortunately no matter how much you altered the size of the chess board or the number of pieces, computers would probably still beat people, so what is needed is a strategy game that computers can’t outsmart us at, if it’s going to have credibility as a test of intelligence.
Pumpkin Person 
Dynamic use of information.
Imagining patterns that affect the environment.
My three steps of intelligence.
(perception/recognition, imagination/memory, decission/value)
imagination is also simulation
Read up on OODA loops re: dynamic problems.
This article makes no sense. How can you talk about problem solving without referring to the Qu’aran? Its is impossible. It is like a man climbing up a ladder without an Otis elevator. So stupid.
We have an old saying here in Africa. One can lead a goat to the water. But one cannot eat the goat in the water. Reflect on this my friends.
Delete this one. This man is stealing my wisdom and passing it off as his own! Infidel!
Delete this one. This man is stealing my wisdom and passing it off as his own. Infidel!
We have an old saying here in Africa. One can lead a goat to the water. But one cannot eat the goat in the water. Reflect on this my friends.
If a man walks up to me in the desert and says to me: Bill I have many problems: no goats, no money, no over the counter derivatives trading facility with Bank of America, I say to that man – the answers lie in AFRICA.
The BANK OF AFRICA my friend will never let you down!!
Sahih Muslim Book 028, Number 5612: Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) said:
He who played chess is like one who dyed his hand with the flesh and blood of swine.
–
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188: Narrated Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
–
I am ex-Muslim, my friend. I was born into the infinite wisdom of Islam. You should pray god guides you upon the right path.
”our intelligence is just the brain’s problem solving computer that solves whatever problems our feelings identify.”
Since you told me that abstractions are basically mathematics, I realized that the concept and the conceptual application are not your forte.
First lesson, intelligence is not just, it’s never just.
Intelligence and behavior are practically the same because of the indispensability of survival so that life can survive, priore, and replicate.
I hope this comment is accepted and I do not understand why my comments are not being accepted.
Yes, you must be thinking that this is more of an overanalysis on my part. But no, this is important, because in fact, intelligence is never just. Intelligence for life is everything, even for the simpler life.
Since you told me that abstractions are basically mathematics
I never said that. I don’t even understand that.
”However because everyone’s incentive structure is unique, one man’s problem is another man’s solution, so an IQ test must DECIDE for us what the problem is, so everyone’s problem solving computer (IQ) can be tested by the same standard.”
IQ tests are done by people, I do not know if you know that. Who creates the tests is who decides what is relevant or not to be considered as a matter of intelligence. And yes, were nerds who invented the IQ tests. In fact, there is nothing more autistic than an IQ test. The ” empathy ” or ” mind-reading ” of the tests is not just autistic, it’s super-autistic. [Although many autistics, at least in WrongPlanet, do not agree on the unbeatable superiority of IQ tests, as IQtards believe].
Because IQ tests seek to be fair or at least seek to create the same standard for everyone else [it certainly consists of a failed attempt if the tests are strongly mechanistic-biased] that does not mean that it is very accurate.
”However where Gypsy makes a very good point (if I understand him) is that the problem solving IQ tests often demand is very one dimensional, while in the real life strategic situations Gypsy is interested in, we have problems within problems within problems.”
What I have been talking about since a long time and in different places. IQ testing is like comparing a sport to a real need to use the body and brain to survive in the jungle. It is a simulation of what it is to be intelligent and worse, without creativity, without rationality and therefore, emphasized in cognition or our mechanical side.
In other, decisive words, IQ tests are estimates of intelligence, nor do they serve to be perfectly compared to weight, because in fact, at least in absolute terms, the weight is well measured by the weight scale.
Many people who score high on cognitive tests are completely lost to deal with the current world, totally infected by leftism. Yes, they may be able to pass college exams, take the highest grades, get jobs safer, and even, it’s not unusual for them to be interested in difficult subjects and to learn them reasonably well. I had a [very young] professor of geology in college, clearly intelligent, most likely have a very high IQ. However, he is nervously leftist.
And it is not only the very intelligent leftist who tends to be lost in this world, but also the rightist, since, as I have said, much of what the leftists argue for is not only right but deadly right.
The increase in human intelligence has, to a certain degree, followed domestication to a lesser extent, where one does not select the one who is most intelligent in relation to the most important subjects [who would be the wisest], but those who can contribute to the system. It does not select wolves, but smart dogs.
In fact, it has been said a lot in the alt-righ-sphere and adjacent that the ” system ” wants people who are smart enough to learn techniques at work, BUT NOT TO QUESTION YOUR AUTHORITY.
I think the system already has these people to a large extent in universities.
Yes, I’ve said this for months. Human husbandry selects for autism because social intelligence = hard work for Master. Unfortunately selecting out rule breaking and deviance = no creativity and stagnation/low testosterone to fend off invaders.
The East Asian countries are what they are with very little western interference in my opinion. The jews can’t pin East Asian doofusness on the West. But my sense is is that the jews don’t like the east asians at all (except as potential wives).
” no creativity and stagnation/low testosterone to fend off invaders.”
I do not think creativity is directly related to testosterone. I myself do not have high testosterone and am very creative and absolutely critical of almost everything, especially in terms of macro-politics. Many of the system’s biggest critics have higher verbal intelligence, not necessarily higher spatial abilities, not to mention that it seems to me that the super-elite also tends to have great verbal / emotional skills. I recently read the abstract from a study that showed that men with higher testosterone were at one and the same time more likely to: dominate and obey [the dominant man], whereas men with low testosterone were more indifferent to “authority” ‘.
If conservative men tend to have higher testosterone, on average, than modernist and adjacent men, then you can be sure that they are more likely to obey the authorities.
The more we analyze much of what the leftists believe [I did not say all about it …] in a dispassionate way, the more we realize that they are in those aspects, deadly correct.
The idea that modern men have less testosterone than men from other eras does not seem conclusively factual. What’s more, the conservative past was not as golden as most conservatives believe. They should have greater historical awareness to understand that many of its benefits have not been given by governments.
You talk so much about Jews and their tactics of conquest and even now you do not seem to have realized how they operate. Slowly its poison is beginning to enter the East Asian countries, realize that from time to time much talk has begun about “Japan needs immigrants because of aging.” South Korea will be the first country in the region to go through this ” experience ”, its pop culture is already completely ” Westernized. ” Think of these countries as Italy and Spain were in the early 2000s, with a small immigrant population. It’s a matter of time. China**
China is communist, its people work as semi-slaves, people are treated like cattle there.
Those who think the solution lies between East Asians is identical to those who think the solution is with the proles.
They invent OR actually create problems and are the same ones who find the solution, say, ” inevitable ”.
The main reason why this organized minority is always winning is that all religions have contributed to transforming most humans into domesticated animals. I could not be any different.
I think this is a temperament thing more than anything. For a man that has no problem, there is no reason to question. Intelligent people born into wealth tend to be very leftist. They are focused on their daily problems in work, relationships, etc. They have no problems with their leftist views to care to contemplate/deliberate on them.
Intelligent people born into poverty tend to be far-right, as I am. Far, far, alt-right.
I am not even white.
Correlation or causality *
I think it’s more correlation.
As the system favors partially the more domesticated, the one that has the greater cognitive capacity to apprehend new commands, then there is in fact a tendency between leftism and higher income as well as a tendency between extreme right and lower income. And yes, it is possible that there are people who are locally influenced, and that if they are created in an environment they will tend to become more ” leftist ” than ” rightist ” or vice-versa.
Another factor is that leftism has strong intellectual appeal, albeit ” default ”.
Conservatives are like ” frontier populations ”, especially the most perceptive ones to identify more important problems. While many leftists belong to the new but not-so-improved categories of individuals who are more likely to be attracted to the unusual and the complex, without necessarily fully understanding it.
The Western leftist is the pale manifestation of what has been credited to be a general characteristic of Western man: “the man without nature”
Moreover, at the time of Nazism, the extreme right became the elite, so we can say that this factor, this “war of political hegemony,” is also important to push some ideology than other to the top of social hierarchy.
Leftists are like slaves of the big house and the common conservatives are like slaves of the senzala, as well as also many of those who collaborate with the landowners.
I disagree with you.
I think computers will always outsmart us, except in problems that require knowledge that they do not have, because they are smarter than us.
If it’s a fixed set of rules with players acting according to pre-existing behaviors (as you’re describing) computers will always win simply due to having outrageously more processing power than we do.
In puzzles like Chess, Sudoku, where the rules are crisp, computers crush human beings.
Your described scenario, of multiple squares on a board, or multiple queens is wrong – computers would still crush human players.
This is because they have perfect knowledge of the rules. Changing the scenario changes nothing.
In games where the rules are imperfect, however, such as Starcraft, humans still utterly crush computers. The two players are given a goal (of destroying the other player) and the tools to achieve this. War, as you said.
Starcraft, however, is just as sensitive to practice and teaching.
The difference is, the computer is pre-programmed with ‘perfect’ rules.
Computers cannot (yet) learn new rules in order to achieve a goal.
This is what humans are doing. Learning new rules [of the game] in order to achieve their goal.
However, Starcraft skill is not an accurate measure of intelligence.
Starcraft is a learned skill. Computers cannot yet learn new skills, they must be pre-programmed by a human.
How good you are at Starcraft is defined by how much [knowledge] of the imperfect rules you have. Your ‘strategy’.
The skill of a Starcraft player is defined almost entirely by his knowledge, which is why the game is just as susceptible to practice and teaching as chess is, even though Starcraft has imperfect rules and Chess perfect ones.
If we put two people that have never in their lives played Starcraft before (Pumpkin Person and Mug of Pee) against each other, this is NOT an accurate measure of intelligence.
This is because outside knowledge always comes into play. If Mug of Pee knows that Pumpkin Person is just as confused as he is, yet knows if he blitzkrieg’s immediately it is better (for a person who knows nothing) than standing still deliberating on what to do, he will slaughter poor Pumpkin Person immediately.
Infact, a five year old would probably slaughter both of them. He is not more intelligent. Even if all players are given the ‘rules’ of the game, and the ‘goal’ (kill the enemy) the five year old would still crush the pair of them because he probably has more knowledge with computer games than both of his relic opponents put together.
It will always come down to the person who has the greater pool of pre-existing knowledge that can be applied to the goal at hand. The computer has no knowledge at all, so will always be crushed by a human. In Chess, the computer has omnipotent, perfect (godly) knowledge. Flawless knowledge of the game and every move.
We have just as much capacity for intelligence as our ancestors 10’000 years ago, yet would score much higher on an IQ test.
I believe what we should really be measuring an individual’s pattern matching capacity, reach and speed, as opposed to his knowledge/life strategies.
IQ can very much be taught. The real measure of intelligence, is to measure ‘capacity to attain IQ’ as opposed to IQ itself.
In addition, because Starcraft rules are so imperfect, nearly all decisions are probability based, despite the rules remaining the same, there are simply too many possible scenarios (quadrillions upon quadrillions) and almost like the real world, it is impossible to consider them all. They probabilities that must be considered with abstract thought and statistics, things computers do not yet do well.
Is this ‘gypsy’, the gypsyman that used to comment here?
Yeah
Wassup Django
Y’know, same old same old, movin’ and sheikin’
still smitten with that jew chick?
The rolling stone gathers no moss, she’s great and all but it is what it is.
In the future, we will have found a way to go back to 1958.
No joke. That is the culmination of all technological endeavour outside of millitary applications. It explains 90% of white internal migration within america for example.
I genuinely think the Russia is in our underwear angle from the jewish media is failing badly. Its so utterly ridiculous its making normies suspect something is up. That meme with the CNN israeli flags on key staff has gone viral. Its quite astonishing how 90% of the most important staff there are – agents of Zion – I mean people of jewish descent.
If you listen to Tucker theres a barely concealed anger at the jewish nature of the Russia nonsense. He keeps bringing up that line about Russia is ‘not even in the top 5 countries’ that spy on us…..WHATEVER COULD HE MEAN?
Tucker is a bellwether for gentile conservatives. Further, I’ve always said Murdoch is not a neocon. I think he was given false promises. He’s from australia. 100% he’s aware of what works best.
Ailes of Fox News getting fired is very curious with a honeybee thing. Fox news is very trump friendly now under direct Murdoch management. Before Megyn Kelly was a ‘conservative’ voice harranguing Trump. Now shes gone.
Trump would not be where he is today without a gentile elite rearguard action.
Murdoch is an open borders globalist. He has no loyalty to Trump or anyone like him
The only reason that he doesn’t go after Trump is because Trump has the ability to annihilate him and Fox.
The republican base is 100% behind Trump. Even people who didn’t vote for him in the primaries are now behind the “commander in chief” ( he doesn’t run anything)
My parents, who are life long republicans, held their noses and voted for Trump in the general election but they voted for Kasich in the primary after calling trump an embarrassment.
Kasich had already withdrawn by the time the Cali primary was up but they still voted for him because they were hoping for a brokered convention where the other guys would give their delegates to a Mitt Romney type figure.
My parents loved Romney. Every time i would call them and say that Romney was worse than Obama they would say ” But he’s so presidential ”
that was code for ” He’s a WASP. He’s a member of our tribe “. When i figured that out i Jokingly called Romney a ” Mormon with foreign values” my mom responded by calling me a ” bigot”.
Anyway Trump got the republican ticket and they held their noses and voted for him but they still bad mouthed him on the phone to me even a day before the vote.
but as soon as he was elected and all the protests kicked off my dad called me up and said
” turn on the tv and look at all those cry babies trying to destroy the country. When i look at those spoilt brats out there i’m glad that Trump is in the white house”
When the comey trial stuff started i called my dad and he said
” These leftists are trying to overthrow a democratically elected government. No one did this to Obama. No one did anything about 2-fast-2-furius ”
The republican base is hardcore 100% pro-Trump. If my dad is then you can bet your bottom dollar that the typical right winger is .
that reality makes Trump deadly for Fox and the judeo-con talk radio shows.
All Trump has to do is call Fox ” fake news” and its good night Vienna.
I have never seen such fanatical support for a president in my life. Not even Obama had this level of passion behind him.
If trump declared martial law tomorrow his supporters would start shooting anyone who disobeyed orders.
Murdoch does whatever is in his interests and when the powers that be make it in his interests to flush Trump then he’ll flush twice.
In China the murdoch media is hardcore communist
In the US he makes Fox a super patriot channel but many of his non-US media outlets have regularly attacked america in the past.
Murdoch has no loyalty to anyone.
He isn’t american or australian or british even though he has all of those passports.
Passports from everyone but allegiance to no one
He is the poster boy for globalism.
Maybe you’re right about Murdoch. Its hard to say. His soon james is a globalist goon.
Most comments are trash.
The Human mind is designed to manufacture rules according to its incentive structure and percieved rewards to that and then plan accordingly.
In other words, the human mind is designed to strategise. It’s designed to establish order from uncertainty, plan. Make predictions based on ascertained information and develop the conditions from which it can exploit and gain victory from later, and make increasingly sophisticated predictions based on more ascertained info.
Edenist is the most succinct and effective commentator.
Most comments are trash.
Yes, and it’s extremely embarrassing. The last threads have been total clusterfucks.
the only commenter who has attended clusterfucks and shitshows is you afro. please keep your perversions to yourself.
The one who least does, is the one who most complain …
So get to work then.
The whole way of life is reasoned in this way, I would not say to give order to uncertainty, but to clarify the instinctive certainties with which they were born.
Giving order to uncertainty would be something more like creativity.
If the propensity for a certain set of ideologies is genetic, and certainly that is, then a child with “leftist” tendencies will already be born with these tendencies that will be the drivers of his perception since early life [ And the more characteristically a la gauche she is, more predictable and therefore inevitable will be its destiny].
And this is not to give order to uncertainty, but only to make progressively clear the guidelines with which it was born, and of course, when there is already a product available in the market of ideas is much easier. It’s like turning on the ventilator instead of waving it with your hands.
The only thing that predicts ideology is testosterone. You can reliably predict ideology by upper body strength. Studies have shown that. You can reliably predict rac-ism that way as well.
IQ predicts ideology too.
This is shockingly but not surprisingly true. Upper body and testosterone are both correlated with ideology. Upper body strength is also moderately correlated with anti- social behavior, particularly in those with low intelligence.
Yes, ectomorphic, pedantic intellectuals versus muscle troglodytes.
Overly sophisticated thinkers versus overly linear thinkers especially the most intelligent among them
The longer Trump stays pres. The more people talk openly about HBD. Thats the ‘prime’ tendency the jews fear most. All other data and stats and even acts of law are irrelvant. Culture is more important than structural things like institutions, laws, court decisions etc. Thats why the jews seek to control the media/academia always and everywhere. I don’t call them mind control rays for nothing. You can easily brainwash people even just be leaving out certain information.
Anyway, the point I was making most simply put is that intelligence is most often used in its capacity not to solve problems per-se, but to do a form of that in that rather than analyse data in order to derive solutions, these solutions are taken and then organized into a greater solution structure or plan.
Explained in a war context, that’d be forming a strategy to defeat your opponent, or posing a problem designed to be too sophisticated to solve.
Trumps take down of Mika Brezenski was studs in stuff. I thought it was hilarious because it was all true just very gauche to say.
“She stayed at my hotel. Her face was bleeding everywhere from her face lift.”
The jews live in fear every day at a Trump tweet that will one day claim there is a cabal of high IQ psychopaths in Washington who want to wipe out and subjugate arabs, debaunch the whites and kowtow the slavs. You will hear them screeching like scalded cats when Trump eventually starts making his ‘media-financial elites’ and ‘foreign globalists that dont have you in mind’ dogwhistles again.
This will never happen. Trump actually likes Jews a lot.
Consider problem-solving as the analysis from which solutions can be derived.
Consider strategizing as the method by which this analysis is organized into a plan for decision-making.
gypsy you are quite clever, what race are you?
White as snow in an English field.
You’re wrong about the intellect of Nordics, though.
Read the Viking sagas, they deploy various effective strategies and were adept at battlefield tactics, that’s without mentioning their superlative naval achievements.
wrong about what? they’re quite clever, it’s just mediterraneans, jews included, and orientals are smarter (in my opinion) and average IQ proves that
italy is smarter than all the nordic countries by average IQ
nordics are smarter than arabs, blacks and indians and slavs, but not the smartest that’s for sure
in my opinion, they are the lowest of the triple digit iq races
I’ll leave it to you to read about some of the Viking campaigns against various people to learn about their ability to exploit vulnerabilities and be tactically original.
You might well be write that Meds are smarter, but it’s a very close shave and it only gets closer as history progresses.
I believe there’s a strong north-south IQ gradient in many Med countries. Southern Italy I think is only mid-90s.
Consider problem-solving as the analysis from which solutions can be derived.
Consider strategizing as the method by which this analysis is organized into a plan for decision-making.
One reason people tend to define intelligence as the cognitive ability to problem solve is that problem solving is seen as a very broad ability, while strategic thinking vs tactical thinking are often seen as sub-abilities within problem solving.
Gypsyman, a man that is on record as saying ‘the deepest debate I ever had was over humanitarian intervention in Africa is just or not’ has just called Bill Gates, a man WHO HAS GIVEN HIS WIFE TO AFRICA, ‘thrash’.
I readily concede that, but they’re so sophisticated and so frequently used that they belong to an especially relevant category of problem solving.
I readily concede that,
Just making sure we’re on the same page
but they’re so sophisticated and so frequently used that they belong to an especially relevant category of problem solving.
Very true, and yet they are seldom directly measured by IQ tests, though they’re hopefully quite g loaded and thus indirectly measured.
That’s pretty much the size of it.
What allows one to win at dynamic problems?
Some examples come to mind:
– Fingerspitzengefühl
– Expert intuition
– Strategic intuition (see here: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2008/02/11/book-review-and-summary-strategic-intuition/)
– Flow states
– Effectuation (being good at using resources at hand in an improvisational way, as opposed to causation)
– Asymmetric fast transient changes (term from Boyd and OODA, basically means coming up with unexpected yet valid moves faster than the opponent)
Basically, all of it comes down to harnessing the brain’s parallell processing power so that a chaotic / non-linear problem becomes somewhat more linear in somewhat “mystical” (how it subjectively feels) ways. Ie you don’t know how you improvised that guitar solo, it just happened.
Dynamic problems seem to be intractable to a pure System 2 approach, requiring a System 1 approach that is slow to acquire since it requires expert practice. OODA is the closest thing to a pure System 2 model for generic dynamic problem-solving I can think of, but it comes with the problems of a) it’s inherently antagonistic, ie no good for positive-sum games and b) the Orient step still requires a lot of intuition which comes through culture / training / etc.
The Lean Startup model might be a good model for non-antagonistic, iterative problem-solving. It basically tells you to explore, find stuff that works, and keep refining that. It’s a very basic way of dynamic problem-solving, and doesn’t have a very high success rate (most startups fail, although that could just be a very hard constant of the domain in itself).
Intuition is the mode of instinctive thinking. However in a predominantly instinctive scenario, intuition does not manifest itself in the same way as in human creativity. Usually intuition consists in the ability to find a solution without knowing how it did.
Cats everywhere are finding solutions, not necessarily new ones, for their problems, without knowing //// without having reflected how they did it.
Intuition is knowing or finding without reflection, without turning back to know the origins of this discovery. Deliberate thinking is exactly to know and knowing the origins, because you can see where this response came from: from our memories or memories.
The great capacity for memorization of the human being is nothing more than a great capacity to superinflate one’s own instincts, increasing them with new information, which I like to call the capacity of expansion of the instincts.
We are born with instincts and because of our very slow developments, we can expand them beyond their bases, while most species have little to expand on.
Intuition, which is the mode of instinctive thinking, and impulsiveness which is the mode of instinctive behavior, however, can manifest itself without being predominant, yet still constant, active in some way. This combination of the deliberate and intuitive thinking that has translated into human creativity.
It is still interesting to think that the most creative can also be very impulsive. An intellectually active thinker or agent is most likely to be impulsive, at least ideationally, if it is the impulse that makes him explore his instincts.
If you want an answer on intelligence it is:
Getting the most resources/women/status for the least amount of pain/risk/effort from an inferior vantage and being cognisant of your boundaries ethically, physically, intelligence wise and socially.
The aspergery explanations given above treat problems as abstract puzzles found in video games. The explanation from Fenoopy essenially says: ‘intelligence is playing the Sims 4’.
THATTH MATTH SENTTHHH.
Actually most problems are time bound and you will simply have to take risk to solve anything worth ‘solving’ because the time duration is unknown. The ‘intensity of the reward is a reciprocal of the undefinedness of the problem’ e.g. becoming famous/getting a data with Kate Upton.
Wisdom is knowing that.
Intelligence is tactically approaching it with the right equipment and pushing your chances up. Its not ‘solving’ anything.
If intelligence was about following an optimum strategy and optimum plan, or as gypsyman ‘humanitarian problems are my Fermat’s Last Theorem’ McBrit says, formulating one in anticipation, a robot could do it.
Robots can’t be intelligent in the human sense of working within a boundaries. Verstanden?
That is why AI will always be aspergers. Because the limits of a robot are not the same as a human. AI will never get tired. It will never get obese. It will never be brainwashed. Therefore by the same token, it can never demonstrate overcoming limits i.e. intelligence.
And proposing questions and problems is the function of wisdom, not intelligence. You can’t generate a problem without experience. In the same way a child has simple problems compared to an adult and so on.
If I had no ethics, I would simply hire a private detective to follow a well researched person I picked on the Sunday times list around, or do it myself and find blackmail evidence. If there was none obvious, I would hire a prostitute to create evidence and keep threatening to send his wife, media or company the photos. But its not intelligence to surmise the idea above, its intelligence to work within the limits of your neuro architecture e.g. ethics. Wisdom is knowing why that architecture is there.
So the most sophisticated analysis you can render is that intelligence is operating with the wisdom that there are outer boundaries to the intellect that’re often unknown necessitating decisive tactical action?
Phil, do you have comprehension issues? That’s been acknowledged the post itself, by Fenoopy, and myself.
LOL, Gypsy is SUCH a linear thinker!
Straight line, motherfucka!
STRAIGHT LINE!
Hey, still got HIV?
afro wants to know because if you don’t he’d like to give it to you.
Yes, I’d take an infected heroine syringe from jimmy and put it in Marsha’s ass.
To be clear, so you get it, fenoopy and PP both acknowledged the “Human element” constraint, PP in the form of identifying problems within incentive structures, and fenoopy with human ability to learn new rules, contained within this are the elements of time constraints and outer limits.
Be a little more perceptive.
I often suggest a person is obfuscating when not saying things directly. Or a la edenist barging into a room with a shotgun and hoping nothing moves after.
Youre analysis was: planning ^2.
Just to be clear. You contributed nothing.
You contributed less than nothing, your contribution amounted to repetition of what people had already said, as though they hadn’t said it.
They hadn’t said it, you retro-interpreted their statements for them, and you still haven’t got what I was saying.
Taking the startup analogy of your buddy, they believe in the idea of creating a fool proof way or method of creating a successful startup.
They believe in a solution.
Because they get uncomfortable if they’re told there isn’t.
Not in the abstract anyway. In the particular maybe.
Quit being defensive bitch, you said what they said and figured out less than they said with it in different terms.
Admit your faults or be salty forever.
And to be CRYSTAL clear what do you think this means:
“except in problems that require knowledge that they do not have” – fenoopy
Do you think that specifically delineating time somehow doesn’t fall under the category of “Unknown knowledge”? Fenoopy already acknowledged the need to take decisive action in unpredictable, probability influenced scenarios already.
Take the L and stop acting like a salty little woman because you think you said it a little clearer than he did.
Hahaha. You still don’t get what I’m saying. The issue is not whether or not X or Y parameter is seen or unseen and can be known to be seen or unseen and factored, but that intelligence is mitigation not problem solving, when the problem has a high reward.
You would agree solving for low rewards is not intelligent? By defintion a low reward task is more solvable, wholly than a task like ‘becoming famous’?
A man going into the wilderness, knowing nothing about survival is not intelligent in the sense he plans the trip well for every eventuality (you) or takes every false road, animal noise and bear sound dynamically and iterates his strategy (most of what eden said).
A man is intelligent in the sense that he decides to mitigate rather than solve for survival in a sense, because he is aware he is an untrained man in tourist clothing.
There is a distinction that seems lost there.
You could say he should be aware there is a rescue effort going on in the background and match his activities to surviving the expected time it takes a rescue team to find him. But he won’t know any of that beyond data chunking like an AI might. He is in the fog of war. Like people are in any high stakes high reward endeavour.
I’m speaking of situation like Cortes visiting the Aztecs rather than Napoleon sitting on his horse directing the battefield, like a game.
Fenoopy keeps using the video game analogy you notice? Because in video games you do solve everything with clear outcomes. Life is not binary like that. Its not even dynamic upon input – procees – dynamic outputF[input]. Its butterfly wings in San Francisco harbour.
Maybe ‘mitigation’ is a bad word.The situation of Cortes best exposes intelligence (and testosterone). Pumpkin says it is ‘adaptability’ which might be a better term. it is certainly not decision rules.
>but that intelligence is mitigation not problem solving, when the problem has a high reward.
Absolute semantics.
Embarrassing post.
>Fenoopy keeps using the video game analogy you notice? Because in video games you do solve everything with clear outcomes.
The fact that you can’t grasp the whole of the analogy, and the fact that you remove it, as an abstraction from its basis in reality to solve for its conditions on your terms rather than fenoopy’s or the terms or reality, shows a stunning level of irony, intellectual laziness, or incapacbility.
You’re such a joke, and you’re too much of a bitch to even take the L like a man, but I knew you’d be.
I didn’t expect better.
And so you get it.
Mitigating negative results and maximising positive results is solving for the best possible result given the circumstance.
It’s semantics.
pill is right that prejudices and intuitions should not be and cannot be ignored in making everyday decisions. there is almost always too little information.
at the same time there’s no making a science out of the gut.
What ‘results’? Pray tell.
Use my analogy of the man in the wilderness or Cortes reaching meso america. Think very hard now. I believe in you.
Youre a moron. You just cant see it. As our colleague above mentioned you think in straight lines.Everything has a structure in your mind. Thats your assumption. That everything can be formalised. Thats the asperger assumption.
How do I become famous?
Phil McBitch, back at it again.
Phil, you’re so defective you couldn’t DRAW a straight line, with a ruler, under pain of death.
The fastest and best route for you might be a [redacted by pp, july 20, 2017], but personally? I’d take Marsha up on her offer, it wouldn’t be the first time you’d taken a whore up on her offer.
Oh c’mon PP, as with the rest of life the naughtiest bits are invariably the best…
Best results = Highest reward you A U T I S T.
You are literally the single best argument that Schizophrenia and Autism can exist in the same body, and I pity you.
Phil
Rules are what happens when we are trained or we have experience that limits options we know are possible. If when confronted with uncertainty we stick to learned behaviors then that is the default of most humans. This can be emotional or logical. What is required to handle uncertainty is pure observation, no thought. Smooth talking is an example. It requires observation and no thinking but the reason it becomes fluid is that cues trigger inside you what you need to say next from many encounters with women. In Aspergers the synching up mechanism to socialize is inconsistent. So they cannot internalize how people are because they cannot figure out what effects their actions have on them. Social adepts know exactly how they affect people. The smooth talker knows what type of women he is with. Pertaining to survival first needs come first, rules do not apply, needs do. Emotional people are controlled by them, they do not use them to understand people they just have them and act on them like infants.
The logical person if unaware of needs and the effects of his and others actions. Will construct elaborations that do contain facts but improper relationships between facts. Logical people may also have egos where the logic must affirm the esteem of the person. “How dare you defy my logic”. Then the person who has good logic from facts but not seeing relationships. The nieve thinker. What Phil thinks of Bill.
Schizos have problems with the relationships, Aspergers the facts.
Schizos form nonexisting relationships,
Aspergers has the wrong context of facts.
As said above Aspergers cannot see the effects of their actions.
Schizos think all effects are caused by their actions.
Schizos also think everyone is schizo.
Thus schizos can attribute any effect to the intentionality of any person they are considering part of the web of relationships.
I am aware of how I affect people.
I am aware of how others affect others.
I am INFJ so I am a little less logical than Phil (INTJ)
The mention of A.I. and chucking was a good one Phil.
My understanding of A.I. is not just facts but in relationships.
Nice connection you tried to make with A.I. and Aspergers.
Define reward in an undefined situation.
Are you going into existentialism phil?
what is the point of doing anything?
when you know any preference is arbitrary.
We need anticipation created by dopamine to move forward.
This means any activity can be a reward under conditioning.
I do simply what I do because I learned what activities produce dopamine in me.
That is why limited uncertainty in what will happen (undefine situation),
is the strongest force in reward. Unexpected positive events drive us.
“Define reward in an undefined situation.”
The words of a “man” increasingly retreating into semantics to defend an entirely semantic argument.
Illuminatikit
Four temperaments is so easier and effective than this psychotypology, famous one, you like to use.
I think you’re phlegmatic (a very autistic/conservative/ obsessive compulsive disorder and civilization temperament), melancholic, sanguine/choleric.
Autistics are on cognition what conservative people tend to be on psychological/social/mentalist behavior. Little bit 😉
Santo, took this test and came out phlegmatics
https://lonerwolf.com/the-four-temperaments-test-quiz/
Phlegmatics are the quietest and most relaxed of all the temperaments.
When it comes down to it, phlegmatics are happy with how things are. They lack the ambition to strive for change, because in fact, they hate change as they feel it creates unnecessary problems. This often makes them appear sluggish and lazy, yet they are extremely patient. The phlegmatic’s care-free nature, along with their dislike of change, makes them easy-going, consistent, laid-back, meek, and unexcitable. In essence, they desire a quiet and peaceful environment above all else.
Also, they are very accommodating and tolerant of other people, actively going out of their way to avoid upsetting anyone. They despise conflict. Their accepting nature and willingness to please, makes the phlegmatic the most trustworthy and loyal friend. However, this constant agreeableness can be frustrating to some people, as it can be interpreted as indifference.
The phlegmatic’s diplomatic eagerness to please people, stoic inexpressive demeanour and contempt towards decision-making, is often misunderstood for aloofness or lack of enthusiasm. However, phlegmatics are known as the “peaceful” type. They prefer to observe and to think on the world around them while not getting too involved. They may try to inspire other people to do the things which they wouldn’t give a thought to doing. Unlike the Melancholic temperament, the introverted phlegmatic is people-oriented, always seeking to put others above themselves.
Famous Phlegmatics: Calvin Coolidge, Tim Duncan, Sandy Koufax, and Keanu Reeves.
Career Choices: Cooks, diplomats, administrators and office workers.
Planet: Moon.
Symbolic Animal: Golden retriever, Lamb.
Read more about your temperament
Bear in mind some possibly correct things
– we are not only one type of temperament even in mental disorders some temperament tend to be overly expressed
– in mental disorders it’s logically expected the prevalence of this intense temperaments as choleric and melancholic but also the “defects’ over “qualifies’
– we can be very phlegmatic in some features but not in others. I’m very choleric in some aspects but not in most of the features of this temperament. Some people can have very rational reasons to be in bad mood while others can be more indiscriminately in bad mood or without rational reasons to be.
When in operation the brain as a network is under constraints. It had been connected up to understand how the world works. The part where Aspergers is concerned is that people with the condition do not have their network adapted for the dynamics of people. Once enough is know about the world the network can find associations between events. This is how simulated consequences are possible. At first, this requires effort but as more and more is learned association simply happen. The network has matured and insights come from the volumes of cause and effect experiences the person has accumulated.
The brain is a network that learns cause and effect. The network automatically connects its implicit understanding of physics (to the brain everything physics) to consequential actions. A social person will know exactly what will happen if they take certain actions around certain people. A math person knows how rules will give an answer. Both of them use memory to unconsciously simulate vast amounts possibilities and thus consequences of their actions.
Humans have brains. Brains are networks that use memory.
A.I. if configured in the right way can understand causality.
Not only will understand the physics of things and people.
It will understand the consequences of its own actions.
The right configuration is a network similar to the brain.
yes, cat, it is called a neural net and is how real AI is created as opposed to the robotic machines people mistakenly call ‘artificial intelligence’
The problem with the aspergery mind is that it detaches problems from roots. In the same manner, the ‘economy’ is said to be almost floating above the real circumstance of black men being impulsive in the queue at the bank, an arab taxi driver spouting conspiracy theories or a woman looking into a mirror and seeking a way to stay young.
The economy is not an entity to be ‘solved’. In fact the reason it was ‘invented’ was as a means of aspergery people to grope their way into a simple non human understanding.
As a result non of their solutions have, can or will ever work.
The core problem of the aspergers mind is that the abstraction is totally detached from the living circumstance because abstract reasoning is SAFE. This is why you all missed the boundedness issue.
Abstractions can’t be applied unless in very defined circumstances like engineering, a chess board or computer programming. Where all bounds are known or engineered out by brute force.
The simple fact is I can’t try to be famous 600 times in my life.
This is also precisely why our colleague Wittgenstein despised philosophy and said everything the philosophers heretofore said was ‘wrong’. He was unable to ‘code’ statements into an ersatz computer programming language and therefore felt no problems could be solved, almost in a grammatical sense. In other words, like our friends above, he has abstracted problem to such a degree that he has run away from the core problem and ‘invented’ a defined new problem that no one was looking to solve.
This explains 90% of modern academia.
This is a critique of analytical philosophy of the sentiment: I SHALL CREATE A PROBLEM ON MY OWN TERMS AND IF REALITY DOESNT FIT, I WILL MAKE REALITY BEND TO MY DEFNITION AND I WILL SAY HOW I CAN SOLVE IT AND THAT WILL TEACH REALITY A LESSON TO BE SORRY WHENEVER HE SHOWS HIS FACE IN MY LIFE AGAIN.
gypsyman [name calling redacted by pp, July 17, 2017] actually thinks analytic-linguistic “philosophy” is philosophy and everything else isn’t.
sad that it was founded by a peer and grandson of a PM. betrand russell was retarded. also interesting that the oxford philosophes had to go to an austrian jew wittgenstein and german gentile frege. the vienna circle was first a gay sex club, only later did it become a “philosophy”.
You can accept the apparatus of a Philosophy as useful without agreeing with the conclusions of its Philosophers.
Unless of course you’re inflexible.
^^^Ridiculous statement.
I got told that again and again in college. In the end, if you keep using a hammer, you will keep thinking everything can be solved with the hammer.
In the case of linguistics, its more like nail polish – IT MISSES THE POINT COMPLETELY. AND THATS WHY ITS PUSHED SO ASSIDOUSLY – BECAUSE ITS SAFE> WHAT PART OF THAT ARE YOU GRAPPLING WITH > THE LACK OF SAFETY IN GRAMMER DEBATING OR THE FACT THAT GRAMMER DEBATING IS NOT PHILOSOPHY?!!!
#Lack of safety in non-grammer debating
>I got told that again and again in college.
And you STILL didn’t adapt.
>In the end, if you keep using a hammer, you will keep thinking everything can be solved with the hammer.
Some people can keep more than one concept in their heads at the same time, shocking to hear I know.
If someone gives you a hammer, you don’t have to become a blacksmith.
You should probably become an anvil.
“And you STILL didn’t adapt.”
Exactly, and that’s why I don’t think nonsense.
“If someone gives you a hammer, you don’t have to become a blacksmith.”
No, but if you spent many years only being allowed to use a hammer, odds on you can’t use another tool.
Even now, deep down, you think Wittgenstein is not in the same category as the scholastic ‘philosophers’. I bet you might titter to yourself thinking someone would painstakingly try to figure out what the use of ‘soul’ rather than ‘spirit’ surmounted to in the bible translations in your philosophy lecture powerpoint presentation on medieval philosophy. And you can’t draw the link back that this is EXACTLY the type of propositional family of argumentation as ‘private language’. Wittgenstein should wear a tonsure.
>only being allowed to use a hammer
Why would you think this.
Only?
still no explanation of why an algo trader would read crop reports.
to keep up to date with trends.
if you think that the price of a certain commodity is going to go up/down for a sustained period then you make sure to add that assumption to your algorithms
the algorithms contain instructions to execute trades based on certain market conditions, specific price changes, what the competition is doing etc
Sometimes the best information is reading between the lines of the misinformation of the jewish media
my most memorable example of this was in around late 2008 when the economist magazine had a piece saying that N.M Rothschild & sons was going to sell their gold
I laughed out loud. We were in the midst of a banking crisis and debating whether or not to save the banks and you are telling me that the sneakiest yids on the planet are gong to sell their gold ? hahaha !
When global markets are in turmoil everyone flees to the dollar but when the U.S has a banking crisis then everyone flees to gold.
the other more obvious thing that made the whole thing sound preposterous was the idea that the most cunning yids on the planet would announce that they were going to dump their large gold holdings
you never ever give the markets a heads-up on something like that.
so i had two options
1. believe that sneaky yids would make such an embarrassing school boy error
or
2. believe that the entire thing was a cunning ploy to try to bring down the price of gold for a number of reasons with the most important one being preventing the price of gold from reaching such dizzy heights that it would cause many to demand a return to a pre-1970s gold backed reserve currency.
if that was to happen it would be devastating for jewish power .
obviously i thought 2
I bought Gold at $807 an ounce and by the time i left for a new job it was trading at $1,735
they can fool the sheep who read the economist but they cant fool me.
I know for a fact that i don’t need to read any of the boring reports that they demand that i read. I do it because i’ve already got disciplinary issues on my name .
when i say disciplinary issues i’m talking silly stuff like not attending meetings and not answering e-mails and avoiding weird people etc
but its important to look at the charts they give you and read up on certain areas so that you can get a good idea of past trends
trends are everything because when you write algorithms you are essentially in the business of guesswork.The more knowledge you have of past events and trends
the better your guesses are.
of course the issue of insider information is never discussed
on a number of occasions i have received handwritten notes from my boss telling me to take situation x as a given.
Situation x occurs every single time
coincidence ? yeah a real cohen-cidence
that’s an interesting strategy. buy or sell when it’s clear denmark is trying to manipulate the market. i assumed those who determined prices were sophisticated enough to be unaffected by mass media.
btw, it appears i was right about aurelius. but its crash was caused by a china person.
I’ve said before to Robert that a good thing to do is use censored information in investment planning. For example, if I was a long term stock picker as a first screen, I would look at an Australian or NZ bank based completely on my understanding of HBD and their immigration policy.
The number one economic growth factor is the composition of the genes within the population.
Any country/region with cousin marriage rates ^average (i.e. Israel, Pakistan, south italy etc etc), any country with a jew elite, any country with open borders (like the UK) will suffer. No monetary, fiscal, trade or aspergery textbook tool is going to save you if the blacks start demanding houses and so on.
but economic growth is not always realized in stock market total return. the PRC is an example.
fundamentally total returns on the stock of company X are determined by X’s
1. profitability, profit margins,
2. growth in profits,
3. the current price of the stock.
4. changes in interest rates.
Thats true.
But using my hbd theory, I know chinese people like gambling, for whatever reason. So we saw the chinese authorities bailed out the stock market 2 years ago. Ergo, its a pretty tidy put. I had to liquidiate my Shanghai ETF due to life problems, but if I held on, knowing what I know about asians, I think its a winning ticket.
The fundamentals of the fundamentals are genetics.
the inventor of the IQ test was a fraud. he wore a toupee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7zEPUSpyYI
Gypsy gets very angry when I keep using rac-ist language and insulting blacks. You can tell his gears are grinding. Its ok Gypsy, hitting the gym will lead the way to enlightenment more than Kant. We get there in the end by understanding the Struggle. All human progress has involved more violence and tribalism than ‘reason’. I’m going to keep bashing blacks Gypsy. If that offends you, ask yourself – why are you offended? The correct answer is you were sculpted from childhood to respond to stimulus and keep gloming onto the ‘good blacks’ in your personal life as your special magic negroes. You want to believe in magic negro and you don’t even know why.
In the end I’m right:
Black women in africa have 50-75% rape rates. Cannibalism happens in Africa and has been eradicated everywhere else. Most blacks have the perfect brain chemistry for barbarianism. Put enough blacks together and they revert to Kinshasa survival mode.
You know this is all true and you will figure out I’m the guy hoping to stop your mother being beaten up and mugged on a tuesday evening walking her dog. You just can’t see it yet. Keep kissing your nelson mandela ‘madeeba’ poster in your toilet until then.
I would put all of my net worth on Gypsy believing in the idea that we can reason our way to world peace and progress. And use reason alone.
He is literally the last person in the world that will accept that evolution built in a Struggle of the Will, not a farming project.
I would put all of my net worth on Gypsy believing in the idea that we can reason our way to world peace and progress. And use reason alone.
Philosopher why do you waste time with these linear autists? You’re so bright and creative. You need to come up to Manhattan baby! I could hook you up with the literary scene.
None of the above is correct.
How you’ve managed to be so spectacularly wrong about me and what I think is incredible, and I openly give you hints at what I might think and yet in many cases you believe the opposite of me.
And on linear thinking: Phil is the General Lee to my Ulysses S Grant.
Ignore what they were fighting for, and focus on the method they thought with, and you’ll have the crux of the analogy.
Oh, and Phil.
I’m an extremely good gambler, my game is usually poker.
You’d have lost all your money.
I’m not wrong. Its very obvious you do not like racial slurs. You have a good background in the humanities and lit. I assume you would take a lot of the drang noch osten of that and be a ‘To Kill a Mockingbird was the greatest scientific proof racism is for stooopid people’ type.
>Its very obvious you do not like racial slurs
Holy shit how are you this dense?
>I assume
Stop it, you’re very bad at it.
And since I have to be clear:
I don’t care if you use racial slurs, I’m not even remotely left wing, and To Kill a Mockingbird is soft, derivative pseudo-“Meaningful” shite.
Flashman, now that’s a book.
How bout Papua New Guinea? Or the Aborigines in the Outback? Theyre really fucked up.
I might do a genuine bill gates where I literally copy and paste his comments on the world.
That should be funnier.
I am the genuine Bill Gates!, you are a pretender to the throne.
Fly – boy.
One simple, biological/physiological hypothesis for what intelligence is that it’s equivalent simply to processing speed. Or maybe, just how fast neurons fire. Any other measure of intelligence is contaminated with personality/emotional/social factors.
One thing we never discuss is one’s version of what a ‘perfect world’ would look like.
I can guess quite a few commenters ideas.
The ideal world scenario is a very good insight into a person’s psyche. Ask a person ‘what is your ideal world’.
Low ability – will take the question to mean, themselves and their sensate/pleasure in it i.e. threesomes, 99 virgins, endless money etc etc or the variant, everyone has endless money, threesomes and 99 virgins.
Med – something along the lines of world peace. End of rac-ism. Equal rights yadda yadda barf into a doggy bag.
High – much more variance in scenarios ranging from geeky sci fi scapes to my personal favourite, a world where high IQ psychopathic race of man is solely in Israel but can share its science, tech, and other insights under the corden of healthy tribal animosity from the other races of man and there is no threat of a body snatchers scenario. Cultural diversity, real diversity is maintained. When I holiday in France, I see France, not globohomo bastardised france.
The perfect world is the here and now. Let’s make do with it. Professor Pangloss in Voltaire’s “Candide” understood it, so did Bodhidharma, among others.
The ideal world is hunter gatherer societies!
Think about it… we are calibrated to it (well many humans, especially homo-ecomicuses such as myself, are maladaptive). A world of reciprocity, socialisation, exersize, morality, religion, true family (not the japanese cubicals the modern world experiences today), eugenics through child mortality, exploration and the beauty of nature, masculinty, intuitions working better for succes (that is now defined through morality and religion), healthy femininity, hunger/thirst and commnity.
The downsides are: Fear of certain predators, potentially being savagely murdered, dehydration/starvation, drastic environmental change.
I speculate that many people arent able to regulate their emotions correctly (correctly to reach more happiness and morality) thanks to the inevitable stimuli of living within an post agrarian society and that might conduct dysgenics (defined by the lack of mental health a person can gain). We might one day look like the chimpanzees at the zoo, totaly broken, still fornicating.
The other is robots replacing humans 🙂
league of legends / dota
ye, same thing really. LoL gets shit and dull near diamond once you learn the rules of the game tho, far less depth than starcraft, LoL is basically predictable chess
the problem with starcraft is that the strategy part of the game does not even matter until you have like 150-200 apm. until then it’s just who has more apm.
The guy that invented the Sims had an interesting comment where he said many of the design principles of a video game are there to see in real life and thats why he believes in a ‘higher order/power’.
Now, the first rule of a well designed game, is that every player starts on the same footing, unless the footing is chosen to be worse. Being born with down syndrome or huntington’s is bad news brown.
I entertained the idea that we literally choose the difficulty level before we apparate in. And then I realised ‘we’ doesn’t exist prior to lived experience. The ‘we’ reading this, could never be the ‘we’ choosing the body/mind. So that breaks the handrail assumption of game design that the player playing doesn’t become schizophrenic and become a different person completely.
“Of course I would argue that it’s not our intelligence that identifies the problem, but rather it’s our feelings.”
Where do these feelings come from? Or as the old Zen koan goes, where does the bell sound come from?
“it could be something as complex as “how do I win a war?””
No single human strategist wins wars anymore, at least not on the large scale. War strategy computers win wars, and their existence is the result of the effort of multiple people.
“What is needed is a version of chess that’s constantly changing, so you can’t practice it or study openings, endgames, and traps, you must constantly invent your own…”
This game is called life.
Emotions consist of the judgment / moral of the patterns we perceive. We recognize patterns / cognitive and we feel them / affective.
For example, I’m looking for a person / pattern recognition. I deem it ugly / emotion or aesthetic judgment.
I can recognize or feel patterns directly. For example, when we feel pain.
”I deem it ugly”
I thought she’s ugly
As a young boy feeding the goats an old cleric came to me and called me to him. Jamir he said, why do you care so much for these goats and spend so little time playing with the other children?
I replied taking care of the goats is my duty. My solemn duty.
He then said something that nearly made me change my life forever – Jamir, I am sorry to say, but those are not your goats.
As we all know I ignored his advice and kept sheperding those goats for another 15 years.
Brothers! In the end my software firm will save us all. Right now my engineers, inshallah, are building a cloaking device that will allow men to walk into womens toilets. I will call it ‘the gypsyman’.
Sisters! I have terrible news. It seems men have made my cloaking device kaput! I have found that there are many scoundrels pretending to be women and walking into women’s bathrooms lately. Damn these marauders! Damn them and their wicked craftyness! Marhaba!
How can they just say they are women? Why would any sane man believe them? Is there a test? It is truly the work of that crafty snake satan.
There are 3 videos of Dulles on youtube. Listen to him. The man sounds like a harmless academic. I would never have been able to tell he was a psychopath. MK ULTRA was a drug induced mind control research programme.
Now, the interesting thing is that it seems it was successful research. If you read Sirhan Sirhan’s testimonies and statements, he genuinely can’t remember anything about the assasination of RFK, even 50 years later when he has nothing to hide. Read his latest statement closely – he lasts remember being enticed backstage by a good looking woman at an event. The media keeps pretending he’s proto ISIS or something.
It is proven by Talbot that the chef photographed in the kitchen of the night of the assasination was a longtime CIA operative who probably killed RFK.
Sirhan was a patsy using biochemistry from the 1960s to induce a man to attack someone. Bizarrely, we had the tools to make a man attack someone but not today to stop voices in his head or make him smarter.
OR DO WE HAVE THESE AND THEY ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE?
The 3 holy grails of conspiracy theory speculation:
1. Counterfeit funny money central banking for a de facto feudal elite who get free money from the CB and can make anyone do anything by giving paper to people.
2. An elite with biological/chemical augmentations not available to the public.
3. Our history is completely distorted and is a phantasm of what really happened and we’re all anchored to a hoax when deliberating the magnitude of any event.
” but not today to stop voices in his head or make him smarter.
OR DO WE HAVE THESE AND THEY ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE? ”
many years ago my little brother, who was around 13 at the time, was part of a Duke talent search program
he went to some summer thing at duke university with my dad and they heard lectures from different professors and my dad mentioned that one prof said that within a few years they were going to get FDA approval for a pill that could increase IQ by 20 points.
that was 15 years ago
draw your own conclusion
peepee doesn’t get it. the author of Flowers for Algernon did.
chalie is retarded. he is treated in some way so that his potential is changed. but initially his IQ is the same as it was. it takes time for his IQ to increase.
it takes time for his IQ to increase.
No Daniel Keyes didn’t get it. In real life his IQ on culture reduced tests would show massive gains immediately, but his IQ on crystallized tests would noticeably improve only after a month or so.
FALSE!
peepee is so fucking retarded it’s sad. she thinks calling a test “fluid” means a child raised by wolves can do better on it. she confuses the use of words with the reality. she believes in abracadabra. sad!
RPM “fluid” according to all psychologists. flynned by 20 points.
peepee is retarded.
It’s easy to call someone retarded when you misrepresent their views.
I don’t think the Raven is fair to kids raised by wolves because it assumes a culture of abstraction and paper pencil testing they have not been exposed to as Flynn noted.
However there are certain hard-core performance subtests that have proved surprisingly fair to kids raised without formal schooling. There’s research from the 1920s documenting this that I’ve blogged about before.
There are even intelligence tests used to compare chimps and crows with toddlers, so obviously some tests are more culture reduced than others.
even purely physical tests on the brain or tests of reaction time would be affected by how the brain had developed.
the most salient difference between einstein’s brain and an ordinary brain was the size of its right hand controlling region.
the brain is plastic even into old age.
and if they were they’d have very low g-loading.
Not necessarily. Chronometrics is not sensitive to schooling and its g loading exceeds 0.7.
“However there are certain hard-core performance subtests that have proved surprisingly fair to kids raised without formal schooling.”
But that makes me 90?
(figure weights: fair or not fair? (got 130))
I am good at doing one task well.
But I am bad at switching between tasks.
Processing speed is switching between tasks.
My friend went to fighter jet school for 6 months.
He can play video games and watch two videos at the same time.
Fighter Pilot Test – Bang Goes the Theory – BBC One
The person with an IQ of 170 said I seem to him to have normal processing speed. When I did the PS subtest I used a pencil. I have bad dexterity and that can affect results. I did this typing test and it says my typing IQ is 77.
77 is very low dexterity
Mugabe seems adept on endless human neiroplaticity or cerebral epigenetics…sad!
Mugabe, you know what conjectures are *
The son of ” Einstein ” was born with schizophrenia. Did he take the father’s mutant genes * [” though” according to the theory of imprinted genes, schizophrenia would be an intense manifestation of ” maternal genes ”].
How would you know if the atypical development of the brain was caused by external factors and not by own brain’s development *
According to the biography of ” Einstein ” [yes, you used the example of the much-vaunted ‘super-mega-ultra-blaster Jewish genius’ to talk about genius, and that’s a psychological conditioning, oops] he already had psycho-cognitive atypicalities since early age.
You seem to have an overwhelming passion for using very abstract sentences.
If dexterity is the real problem then when I change my Processing Speed number to 105 then my IQ goes up to 120.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/03/05/freakishly-high-wais-iv-scores/
you just made that up or quoted densen.
show me the studies that give a g-loading of 0.7 to chronometrics AND show it is insensitive to biography.
you can’t. you’re quoting densen who i’ve already demonstrated is a liar.
You’ve demonstrated nothing. Jensen remains one of the most accomplished and impressive psychologists of the 20th century; you’re just too dumb to recognize his genius.
And yes I’m quoting Jensen but Jensen provides citations.
“What is needed is a version of chess that’s constantly changing, so you can’t practice it or study openings, endgames, and traps, you must constantly invent your own…”
I can imagine such a game that changes all the time and merely measures simple dimensions of IQ – working memory, processing speed, verbal ability, that sort of thing. But you must allow the game to “cristallize” a bit so that strategies can develop. Even if the game keeps evolving them over time so one cannot grow stale, one must be able to say “ah, this reminds me of [past iteration of the game] and evolve a new strategy based on that” – otherwise, the game will just devolve to measuring primitives of intelligence (ie aforementioned working-mem, and things like that, which do not depend on any kind of “historical pattern function”).
In other words, the game must find the optimal rate of pattern-flow and mutation for the player, and this rate in itself might be the measure of complex intelligence.
A few sub-categories of such a test:
Complex memory ability: where dual n-back measures simple working-memory capacity, “complex memory ability” would be measured by how many domains one could master, how fast one could do so, and how one could play with the connections between them. Example exercise: Can you reach Napoleon’s skill at the domain of 18th century warfare, and how long does it take you?
Complex discernment and modelling – where simple pattern recognition measures how well one can snapshot an image and compare it to others, this would measure how well one can reason from first principles using “complex discernment” – seeing smaller pieces of the puzzle, arranging them together, forming a model of it in mind, and then being able to rotate/change that model. Example exercise: What does it take to build a space rocket from the pieces available to you, and how do you find out?
Ruling-out options: just as any IQ tests requires one to use “ruling out” rather than trying to brute-force every possibility, a complex test would also do, only the “ruling out” function necessary would be much more multi-ended and based on intuition and creativity. Example exercise: Out of the 11 ideologies arrayed before you, which ones are likely to lead to a successful society?
Philosophical IQ: measuring the ability to juggle different thought-systems, metaphysics, levels of abstractions, semantical nuance, the impedance mismatch between thoughts and reality, and the mysteries of being, and being able to come up with new interesting truth. Example exercise: Compare and contrast the notion of free will across neuroscience, Christianity, Existentialism and Buddhism, and come up your own interesting interpretation that is coherent and adds to what was previously said.
“Out of the 11 ideologies arrayed before you, which ones are likely to lead to a successful society? ”
those are the kinds of questions that lead many to ridicule the current IQ tests.
the purpose of an IQ test is to measure innate genetic ability. If that wasn’t the case then IQ tests would be even more worthless than they are today because you could just teach people to be smarter.
i get where you’re coming from as i have criticized the autistic nature of IQ tests for a long time
The question you proposed is not a good one because it assumes that ideologies lead to “successful” societies.
The success of a society is determined by the genetics of the population.
The greatest proof for that is Greece. It went from being the pinnacle of human civilization to being a med backwater. The change was obviously caused by a genetic deterioration in the population.
Galton speculated that France lost a lot of future geniuses when they decided to persecute the protestants and force many of them to leave.
The situation is even worse for the middle east because of ” bandar bush” style genetic suicide
Ideologies have at best a secondary importance when it comes to the success or greatness of a nation and even ideology is influenced by genetics
never forget that there are african countries that have an almost word for word copy of the U.S constitution and yet they are still the worst places on earth.
and what is a universal definition of ” success” anyway ?
To me a successful society is one that is affluent, scientifically advanced, legally just and has a people that do not demonstrate subhuman behaviour like drunken brawls or not knowing who the father of their child is.
to the degenerates who design IQ tests a successful society is one where two gay men can go to a child care centre and look around and then say ” we’ll have that one ”
so you could never have questions that test true reasoning ability
and there lies the fundamental problem with IQ testing
The closer you get to a test of true reasoning ability , the less culture fair it becomes.
I believe that it’s impossible to create an IQ test that is both culture fair and capable of discriminating between the autistically intelligent and the really intelligent
and don’t give me that ravens nonsense as i’ve already shown how that is influenced by math education.
the purpose of an IQ test is to measure innate genetic ability.
maybe. the more sophisticated testing people would say its purpose is to measure g which need not be the same as innate potential. the problem is g itself is just a factor in a large battery of tests. it’s not a thing, let alone a thing in the brain.
the very idea of measuring potential independent of its realization is retarded.
The closer you get to a test of true reasoning ability , the less culture fair it becomes.
this has been found to be the case on purely psychometric grounds. the more culturally loaded the test the more g-loaded and more heritable it is even correcting for reliability. there are surely exceptions, but that’s the general rule.
Ideologies have at best a secondary importance when it comes to the success or greatness of a nation and even ideology is influenced by genetics
this is why the mainstream GOP will eventually be supplanted by the so-called “alt-right”/”right wing populists”. the latter have the truth on their side, and you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
this is why the average cuban has a better quality of life than the average mexican. cuba’s genetic stock is at least 70% european, mexico’s much less.
it should also be emphasized that universalism is a danish idea. whatever ideology works for one group of people may not work for another. particularism is the truth. universalism is a lie. that’s why afro believes in it. it’s stalin vs trotsky. “socialism in one country” vs “permanent revolution”.
It more nuanced than that in my opinion. I compare a genetic stock of a population to a kindle of sticks. You need the sticks. No doubt. And in times of dry weather, the kindle will burn.
But there are many european countries shooting themselves in the feet with the wrong ideology. They are not igniting the kindle but actively dampening it. We have all seen it and surmised correctly that it is the Danes purposely sabotaging the West.
In this sense I have been a ‘great man’ proponent of history. I do think individuals with exceptional charisma, leadership and masculine traits can change the course of history by revolutionising the status quo around ‘conventional wisdom’. I am well aware of the ‘if alexander the great wasn’t there, some other greek from that great acropolis would have taken the mantle’ – my argument would be that the selection pressures in the acropolis ensured that Alexander really was head and shoulders above the others.
Is what i would say, if I was this ‘philosopher’ person. Who I am not. I disavow the philosopher and his un islamic preachings.
Jimmy: I think you are right – I wasn’t trying to make a statement with that example, it’s just something that came to mind. Your answer would be a good indicator of intelligence, I think, as it challenges the very assumptions of the test.
“In this sense I have been a ‘great man’ proponent of history. I do think individuals with exceptional charisma, leadership and masculine traits can change the course of history by revolutionising the status quo around ‘conventional wisdom’. I am well aware of the ‘if alexander the great wasn’t there, some other greek from that great acropolis would have taken the mantle’ – my argument would be that the selection pressures in the acropolis ensured that Alexander really was head and shoulders above the others.”
Isn’t it a bit limited to think that the truth must Great Man Theory XOR Dialectical Materialism? Ie things are either determined by unique personalities or by impersonal forces of progress? Can’t it be a bit of both?
“Can’t it be a bit of both?”
Reading your comment more closely, I guess you WERE making the case that AND is the case, not XOR. Sorry.
Exceptional charisma: sociopathy, megalomania, agressive and dominant personality.
In the logical world: perfect traits
In the rational world: not so, we are not lions…
I can imagine such a game that changes all the time and merely measures simple dimensions of IQ – working memory, processing speed, verbal ability, that sort of thing. But you must allow the game to “cristallize” a bit so that strategies can develop. Even if the game keeps evolving them over time so one cannot grow stale, one must be able to say “ah, this reminds me of [past iteration of the game] and evolve a new strategy based on that” – otherwise, the game will just devolve to measuring primitives of intelligence (ie aforementioned working-mem, and things like that, which do not depend on any kind of “historical pattern function”).
Well I’d prefer if people were reminded of patterns WITHIN a single iteration of the game. If they start seeing patterns between iterations, then the game becomes too sensitive to practice, and a whole cottage industry of books and blogs teaching strategies pops up, and then the game no longer measures the innovates ability to invent your own strategy on the spot. I see your point about the game being too simplistic if you can’t learn from past iterations, but maybe the solution is for each iteration to be very long, so there is time to see complex patterns, while at the same time making these obsolete the next iteration you play.
That makes sense, Pumpkin. I agree.
honestly, i’m starting to believe every race (that isnt aboriginal or bushmen/pygmy) has an equal capacity for intelligence and IQ is nearly all learned, the only factors being
1. brain size, affected by height, head size etc
2. temperament (i was simply born with tremendous curiosity, among other things, anger problems etc) maybe the negro is simply indolent by temperament rather than being objectively stupid, in the same way the nordic is moral by temperament and the mediterranean aggressive
Temperament tend to reflect delayed gratification, capacity to become focused and general knowledge. Primordially the differences between macro races is the proportion of temperaments and cognitive style. African blacks and namely bantus tend to be less prone to be phlegmatic (based on four temperaments), considerably more sanguine/social and also choleric. East Asians are the least among macro races to be choleric and considerably phlegmatic. Phlegmatic is the temperament that is more adaptable to civilization. In terms of cognition predominant cognitive style of blacks is mentalist than mechaniciist/ autistic spectrum. In other words blacks tend to be more interested in people than with things. It doesn’t mean autistics have the highest IQ’s?? Why not if they are considerably more interested in things/impersonal issues than with people?? Because autistics tend to be disproportionately or characteristically specialist than generalist. Interestingly blacks tend to be more generalists than specialists.
I also think blacks are more hypofrontal in general – this is why they come off so “smooth” and natural even if they are saying things which would sound ridiculous out of the mouth of a white person. They just say whatever they want and make it come off unforced and musical – which few white people seem to do.
(I´m not putting them down here – going into hypofrontality like this is the key to charisma).
i think all super intelligent people begin as autists as children – the quiet, weird kids with the creative streak – without exception
it was only when i realized that people were things, thus developing my tremendous interest in human psychology that my IQ really skyrocketed because it gave me insight into my own psychology and thought processes
only after certain epiphanies regarding my own mind did i begin to develop further
it’s an autistic snowball, in my opinion
i believe every person here had anxiety as a kid – not the fearful type, but the ‘i don’t know the rules’ type, a perpetual worrying over their ignorance regarding ‘what will happen next’
i’d be very interested to know for sure
i know to rules to nearly everything now, so have the confidence of a sociopath as opposed to the anxiety of my childhood form. i think these mental states are just different stages of the autist mindset
normal humans turn out as the average joe, pseudo-intellectuals, or loud, executive types who are more focused on decision making based upon statistical success than reasoning and working out why
only the quiet, anxious autist kids turn out like einstein or hitler or bhudda or tesla
There is many truths brothers in what our colleague Fenoopy has declared. As the great martyr Oj Simpson once said: “I undrstand the game more, now I can do whatever I want, and you can’t stop me”. Incredible saying from this wrongly imprisoned martyr.
”thus developing my tremendous interest in human psychology that my IQ really skyrocketed”
I began to be more ‘reasonable’, at least to myself, as I began to question more closely the incongruities of all sorts of irrationalized tribalism.
I have tamed and directed my creativity that was once impulsively recreational, without having a concrete goal.
Children tend to have the anxiety of getting to know the world, which is why they tend to be like that. But this intuitive anxiety is diminishing from the moment that heritability increases.
In contrast, in the most creative people this curiosity to interact with the world and to seek to know it in a deeper way, at least in relation to their areas of expertise, does not cease. That’s why they say children and creative people tend to be alike. At least in my case, I know I’ve never been a teenager, and in fact I tend to dislike teenagers, especially the rudest ones. I jumped into adolescence and today I like to think that I am a cranky old man and at the same time extremely childish. I did not kill my childhood as many people do.
People obey almost, or, subconsciously, the sge-rites of passage, of organic and cultural development or maturation. People with unusual minds tend not to do it the same way, tendentiously synchronized.
What brings ” crazy ‘ and creative is that we are never in the same time as other people, because we have our own times.
yes, but all people like this seem to be ‘born’ into it and you can see it in children almost from birth
surely there is something specific causing it – either they were born smart, they were born autistic, or they were born creative or something or other
i don’t know what it is, but i can certainly spot it
einstein’s quote: “it’s not that i’m smart, it’s that i stay with problems longer” comes to mind
How much IQ / personality variability on account of race is generally acknowledged in other mammals, say, dogs or cats? That might give us a clue as to how much is possible / realistic in humans.
(I know, it’s not a 1:1 comparison since dogs are consciously bred for certain purposes, but it’s not an orthogonal comparison either – more like pears to apples, if I may).
What we tend to understand as intelligence, specifically the human, in my opinion, consists in the quantitative improvement of our cognitive capacities to expand instinctive / inherited commands, because of self-domestication.
The intelligence being transformed into a piece for domestication.
A priori domestication is partially necessary and even before civilization has been an important part of survival in communities that need at all times the cooperation of their individuals. The problem is when individuals cease to be individuals and become property, robberies or machines, irrational soldiers, unable to think on their own and in relation to what is most important///obvious///omnipresent.
It is the difference of comparing the intelligence of dogs and wolves. When we compare the intelligence of the dogs we compare their abilities to seize new commands to obey the ” human master. ” When we analyze living things in the natural environment we analyze their intelligence as the ” ability to survive ”. Cognitive tests relate more to the domesticated ability to grasp new commands from instinctual / inherited commands, for example, since the birht with the potential to expand vocabulary to broad levels and to reach or fulfill this potential until early adulthood .
That is why in the domesticated world there is a strong tendency of progressive dissociation between intelligence and wisdom. As I always say, the most important is reasoning and in relation to what is born with greater ease of learning and allied to a perceptive capacity, especially in relation to what is most important, which is hierarchically important. Civilization uproots us from the natural world which is the real world, and cognitive tests are one of the many symptom-products of this reality. In fact, cognitive tests consist of a dangerous process of trivializing intelligence, transforming it into a recreational sport rather than into what is in the natural world, a matter of life and death.
Extremely upset right now jews arent taking on their fair share of diversity. I feel like asking if anyone in the office is jewish and throwing pictures of Afro at the person. Male or female.
Suck my dick, it’ll calm you down.
afro would like that.
I have not commented in 2 years and this Afrosapiens is still here talking about his junk.
At least I have something in my pants to talk about. All you faggots are just whining and that’s cringy.
How am I whining ? I am just laughing at you man.
No, you’re just whining like the little bitch you are.
ARRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
An interesting exercise is typing in ‘jewish actresses’ into google. You’ll be very surprised around 25%-35% of actresses today are jewish.
1% of the population.
The only time I’ve seen a jewish actress have a black male love interest was Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds, where the european actress Melanie laurent falls in love with Mumbango Merci Beaucoup. Tarantino musn’t have known she was jewish.
That was a movie I wanted to physically beat up. His worst movie by far.
Actually Jews are 2% of the U.S. population.
Using the upper estimate brother.
But taking into account the momentum of the latino/black brothers, I would say its 1% as we speak.
From the prophets mouth to my ears. Inshallah.
genuine talent cut short by afro’s people.
nomi’s version is so much better than all others, it reminds me of gigli’s nessun dorma or von karajan’s studio wagner.
that is, the performance makes the difference between good and bad. wagner sucks when performed live. yet von karajan’s studio recordings with the berlin philharmonic are the greatest recording EVER MADE. not kidding.
Many things have been written about my business. Some of them good. Some of them bad. But my business exists to save Africa. These other shareholders gave me more capital to invest the money in software and use the returns to spend on Africa. Ha ha Ha! Those fools – their own greed has made them do the right thing for once. Ha Ha Ha.
Business have many social responsibilities friends. The number one responsibility is (1) not to be racist (2) not to seem like its racist (3) to join the Nation of Islam.
I came home and saw Melinda was web browse surfing on the Internet machine. I was so angry at her lack of home making I shut her in the closet and made her beg me for forgiveness like a dog.
In Islam the first born male child is the legal owner of his sister, wife and concubine. May we add another to this list: female charity volunteer. Ha Ha! I must admit my friends, my motives for creating a charity are not altogether pure sometimes (inshallah). Many beautiful girls – Many future wives!
Pumpkin should do a poll and ask readers why the Russia is Eating Your Brains thing is in the news:
(a) Liberals are biologically inclined to hate russia
(b) Legacy of communism-cum-colonialism
(c) The media are 90% jewish
(d) Russia really did ‘hack’ the election, make Trump a manchurian candidate, is a threat to western existence, needs to back off from Syria goyi…eh er I mean is very very evil and must be punished.
Tucker interviewed a CFR analyst last week. The man was so brainwashed I thought he would literally convert to the Nation of Islam on the spot in his rage at Tucker for not disavowing the KK…I mean not disavowing Russia.
He literally asked Tucker to disavow Russia.
I keep asking people to disavow something as a satirical joke. Its such a sleazy vapid way to smear someone.
The man, in those exact words, asked Tucker to ‘disavow Russia and condemn them as evil’.
I wish I could ask a jew journalist to disavow 9-11, apartheid against arabs in Israel, the treatment of blacks in Israel, lack of diversity in Israeli tv, ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
You should do a Jeff Bezos post, especially since he is swole now and almost he richest person in the world:
https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/this-viral-jeff-bezos-meme-is-the-perfect-metaphor.html
But only after the GMAT vs iq post! Thx
I’ve started working on the GMAT article.
Awesome. Looks like it has a high ceiling too, 30 out of 200k get an 800 a year.
Bezos seems to be the most gifted tech billionaire. He is smarter than Gates.
What makes you think that?
that he is smarter than Gates*. No doubt the guy is smart af. I mean he graduated from Princeton summa cum laude in EECS, rapidly accumulated wealth, massively scaled and generalized a business successfully AND was able to adapt to the gym, by using his environment (weights, bench and squat rack I presume) to his advantage to get JACKED.
Haha, I had to laugh when a chinese accountant by the name of Hang Li was actually added to my project today.
Bill Clinton said to me at the Gates Foundation Annual Trip to Las Vegas – “my biggest regret brother, was that I was not able to stop the Rwandan genocide”. This is my biggest regret too. The white men will pay for this!!!
keep ’em comin’ pill. you’re hilarious. and i mean that babe.
My 5th wife, Robanda DeShantay was very outrageous yesterday. She accused me of cheating and started harassing me at my business meeting. Can you imagine this crazy woman from the ghetto in a business meeting? Unbelievable. She bellyflopped onto the table and started acting crazy and accusing everyone there of ‘not being big dicked enough to fight her’. Let me tell you brothers – marriage with 10 wives is not for everyone!
sounds like something oprah would do. sad!