Jonathan Franzen is a critically acclaimed author who sparked controversy in 2001 after being kicked out of Oprah’s book club after a series of ungrateful and arrogant comments. After a series of apologies, he was finally welcomed back in 2011.

Section 1: Background
In 1996, The Oprah Winfrey Show launched a book club in which every few months or so, Oprah would pick a novel and tell her millions of viewers to read it. Then a few lucky readers would be chosen to have a televised dinner with Oprah and the author. The club immediately became the most influential force in American literature for its unparalleled ability to turn obscure authors into #1 best-sellers overnight. In a daytime television landscape filled with tabloid trash and celebrity interviews, Oprah was praised for bringing literature to the masses and even won the national book award for her literary advocacy. Being picked for Oprah’s book club was widely seen as the greatest thing that could happen to an author because it meant orders of magnitude more money and readers.
For Oprah, the club was pure marketing genius. She was getting credit for making the masses more literate while at the same time, building her status as Queen of All Media, and distancing herself from her trashy daytime competitors.
Oprah had brilliantly become one of the rare people in America to achieve three major types of clout at the highest level: money, popularity, and with her book club, intellectual influence.
But not everyone was a fan of Oprah’s book club.
Section 2: Picking The Corrections
In the Fall of 2001, Oprah selected Jonathan Franzen’s critically acclaimed novel The Corrections for her book club, phoning the author to tell him the characters in the book stayed with her for months. Unlike most people who get a surprise phone call from Oprah, Franzen did not jump and scream with excitement: the first sign there would be trouble. Because one reviewer had praised The Corrections as too edgy to ever be an Oprah pick, and because Franzen’s book was already a critically acclaimed best seller, from the outset Franzen felt conflicted about being knighted by Oprah, at one point ungratefully suggesting that it does as much for her as it does for him.
Section 3: A hard book for “that audience”
But because no one in their right mind says “no” to Oprah, at least not in North America, Franzen agreed to be part of the book club and even allowed himself to be filmed for an upcoming show, though he was annoyed that Oprah’s producers wanted to film him at his Midwestern childhood home, not his adult New York environment.
When constantly baited in interviews on his book tour, Franzen expressed discomfort with becoming an Oprah author, telling David Weich of powells.com:
The problem in this case is some of Oprah’s picks. She’s picked some good books, but she’s picked enough schmaltzy, one-dimensional ones that I cringe, myself, even though I think she’s really smart and she’s really fighting the good fight. And she’s an easy target.
It’s somewhat perceptive of Franzen to see through Oprah’s populist persona and realize she’s “really smart”, despite cringing at some of her book choices, despite claiming to have virtually never watched her show, and despite being unaware of my obscure research on her cranial capacity. Perhaps his cynicism caused him to understand the marketing genius behind her book club, or perhaps the mere fact that she loved his book was enough to be considered “really smart”.
Because apparently Franzen felt a lot of people were not smart enough to enjoy his work, at one point stating:
First and foremost, it’s a literary book. And I think it’s an accessible literary book. It’s an open question how big the audience is to which it will be accessible, and I think beyond the limits of that audience, there’s going to be a lot of, “What was Oprah thinking?” kind of responses. They, themselves, over there at “The Oprah Show”, they have no idea how they’re going to arrange the show because they’ve never done a book like this and they’re waiting to hear from their readers.
Even more disturbing, Franzen condescendingly said in the Philadelphia Inquirer that The Corrections is a “hard book for that audience”.
Section 4: The IQ of Corrections fans
It’s interesting to ask how high an IQ one needs to enjoy The Corrections? I happen to know two big fans of the book so well I was able to test them: One has an IQ of about 110 and the other has an IQ of about 130. Assuming this tiny sample is representative, I would say the average Corrections fan has an IQ of about 120 (U.S. norms): smarter than 90% of America.
Section 5: The IQ of Oprah fans
The IQ of Oprah fans is not known, but if education level is used as a crude proxy, the average viewer of Oprah’s syndicated talk show had an IQ almost exactly at the U.S. mean of 100 and the average Oprah magazine reader has an IQ 112 (U.S. norms). The magazine readers are probably a good proxy for Oprah Book Club fans, and they’re only about half a standard deviation below Correction fans; suggesting considerable overlap between the bell curves of both populations; perhaps about 27% of Oprah book club fans are smarter than the average Corrections fan.
Section 6: Hoping for a male audience
Another reason Franzen was ungrateful to be an Oprah pick was that he feared it would alienate his target audience. Franzen told NPR’s Terry Gross:
So much of reading is sustained in this country, I think, by the fact that women read while men are off golfing or watching football on TV or playing with their flight simulator or whatever. I worry — I’m sorry that it’s, uh — I had some hope of actually reaching a male audience and I’ve heard more than one reader in signing lines now at bookstores say ‘If I hadn’t heard you, I would have been put off by the fact that it is an Oprah pick. I figure those books are for women. I would never touch it.’ Those are male readers speaking.
Section 7: Logo of corporate ownership
Perhaps what bothered Franzen most was the Oprah logo that his publishers were placing on the book’s cover, as Franzen explained:
I see this as my book, my creation, and I didn’t want that logo of corporate ownership on it. It’s not a sticker, it’s part of the cover. They redo the whole cover. You can’t take it off. I know it says Oprah’s Book Club but it’s an implied endorsement, both for me and for her. The reason I got in this business is because I’m an independent writer, and I didn’t want a corporate logo on my book.

Section 8: The backlash
Little did Franzen know, that Oprah herself was informed of these comments, and she wasn’t amused. In October 2001, Oprah released a statement saying:
Jonathan Franzen will not be on the show because he is seemingly uncomfortable and conflicted about being chosen as a book club selection. It is never my intention to make anyone uncomfortable or cause anyone conflict. We have decided to skip the dinner and we’re moving on to the next book.
The sheer POWER of Oprah was such that with one brief statement, public opinion turned immediately against Franzen, as he went from America’s greatest author to America’s biggest snob, overnight.
“What an ungrateful bastard,” said one major New York literary agent. “Even if he did have misgivings, he should have just accepted the selection graciously and said nothing. After all, no one in America has helped sell more books than Oprah.”
Author Andre Dubus III stated:
It is so elitist it offends me deeply. The assumption that high art is not for the masses, that they won’t understand it and they don’t deserve it — I find that reprehensible. Is that a judgment on the audience? Or on the books in whose company his would be?
Critic Dennis Loy Johnson wrote:
Well, let’s see, how many different people does that offend? Men are too stupid to read but Franzen prefers them to women readers, especially, apparently, those that watch Oprah. Is it misogyny, do you think, or class prejudice, or worse?
It was the “or worse?” that dangled so hauntingly from the end of the sentence.
Prominent publications would slam Franzen for being a “motherfucker”, an “ego-blinded snob” and a “spoiled, whiny little brat”.
In the publishing industry he was commonly referred to behind his back as that “pompous prick”.
Franzen would write a letter apologizing to Oprah, but would not hear back.
For ten long years, Oprah didn’t even bother to comment. Was she angry, hurt, or simply didn’t care? No one knew, because for an entire decade, the richest and most worshipped self-made woman on the planet stood in dignified decisive silence.
Perhaps Franzen had hoped that by dissing Oprah, he would be a hero to the cultural elites that so resented her power, but by evicting Franzen from her book club, the cunning Queen of All Media gained sympathy for being the victim of snobbery, and cheers for kicking an ungrateful elitist off her show. Despite the fact that Billionaire Oprah is roughly a thousand times richer than Millionaire Franzen, she was the populist hero while Franzen was the elite villain.
One might argue that this shows Franzen’s lack of intelligence, or at least social intelligence, but such a view would be short-sighted. For the controversy increased book sales and exposed him to a much larger audience, and as the years passed, and Oprah became seen as more of an elite herself, the whole ugly episode would serve to cement Franzen’s status as a literary rebel, too sophisticated for mass market consumption. And while he continues to be seen in some circles as a pretentious sexist snob, he appeared on the cover of Time magazine, was invited to meet Obama, and even Oprah finally had him on her show to formally burry the hatchet.
Section 9: When geek is sheek, Franzen’s high IQ fashion statement and the rise of the hipsters
Franzen’s IQ is interesting because rarely do you see someone so self-consciously intellectual. And although Franzen claims to hate hipsters, he pretty much was one. As one critic observed:
Right down to the wardrobe–thick-rimmed geek glasses and tweed jackets abound–Franzen really wants to be one of these guys, among them someday read by bluestockings and PhD candidates. And he seems, like DeLillo and Pynchon, to want to comment on society, to try to capture its ethos in print, but otherwise keep his hands clean of pop culture.
Chicago Tribune columnist Mary Schmich observed:
Maybe you’ve even run across Franzen’s official photo during his burst of fame. He’s a handsome guy. He looks like he might show up in one of those high-art fashion ads that wants you to believe that the brooding, cleft-chinned model is a Harvard grad student because who else would wear such earnest glasses and not have time to shave?

Franzen’s hipster image further symbolizes his conflict with Oprah. You see a lot of hipsters who look like Franzen working at Chapters book store or working as baristas in the affiliated Starbucks where Chapters customers order coffee. These used to role their eyes at the army of unhip middle aged housewives marching into the store demanding the latest Oprah selection. Freud might say Franzen’s trapped in permanent adolescence, still rebelling against his Midwestern mother who might have resembled the typical Oprah fan.
Indeed Franzen has stated that as a teenager, when his father would go away, he would then become the man of the house, eating dinner with his mother in place of his father: the substitute husband. This made the young Franzen very uncomfortable.
Section 10: Subjective impressions of Franzen’s IQ
In a review of Franzen’s latest book Purity, Sean Kinch writes:
Critics who find Franzen’s work too cerebral will bridle at the long passages in Purity concerning the Internet, art, economics, and so forth. Reviewing The Corrections, Norman Mailer said that Franzen “may well have the highest IQ of any American novelist writing today” but, “like a polymath, he lives much of the time in Wonkville Hollow.” Franzen does indeed stuff his novels with arcane information, often reeled off at rates of speed that prohibit first-reading comprehension, but Mailer’s criticism misses what makes works like Purity engaging. Franzen enthusiasts appreciate a writer who depicts educated, professional adults in all their complexity, which includes their intellectual conflicts and the pressures of their white-collar occupations. Purity will reinforce the author’s reputation for tackling esoteric topics, but he never loses sight of the messy, fleshy humans who bring them to life.
The average creative writer at the elite Iowa Writers’ Workshop has an IQ of 120, so if we assume working novelists also average 120 with a standard deviation of say 14 (Compared to the U.S. mean and SD of 100 and 15 respectively), and if Franzen has the highest IQ of the some 19,000 working novelists in America (as Mailer implied), that would put his IQ at an astonishing 174! (one in 2.4 million level)
While Franzen is definitely very bright, this figure sounds ludicrously high.
Section 11: Statistically expected IQ of a literary Genius
Franzen is probably considered one of the five most accomplished writers in America, out of some 200 million American adults. If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and writing skill, this would imply an IQ of 182 (82 points above the U.S. mean), but according to a study reported in the WAIS-IV (intelligence test) technical manual, the written expression subtest of the WIAT-II (achievement test) correlates 0.6 with WAIS-IV Full-Scale IQ. However because the written expression subtest is just one brief subtest, correcting for its unreliability would raise the correlation to 0.7. Given this 0.7 correlation between IQ and writing talent, we should regress to Franzen’s likely IQ to only 70% as far above the mean and thus 157.
However great achievement requires more than just raw talent. It also helps to have 10,000 hours of practice, among other things. Raw talent seems to explain 66% to 70% of the variance in expert level performance, suggesting talent correlates 0.82 with performance. Thus we need to regress Franzen again to only 82% as far above the mean, which brings his expected IQ to 147 (U.S. norms).
But this is just a crude statistical prediction with a sizeable standard of error. Is there any evidence to support it?
Section 12: No more guessing games, actual psychometric data
The closest thing we have to an actual IQ test for Franzen is his appearance on Celebrity Jeopardy. Although Franzen lost to cable commenter S.E. Cupp, that was only because he bet too much on Final Jeopardy. Before the final bet, Franzen had $14,800, Cupp had $13,200 and TV journalist Chuck Todd had $12,200. Thus, the three of them had a mean pre-final score of $13,400, with a standard deviation of $1,300 (adjusted for degrees of freedom given the small sample). So Franzen was 1.08 standard deviations above the mean Jeopardy ability of Celebrity Jeopardy power players . However in order to convert this to an IQ equivalent, we need to know the IQ distribution of said players.
Given that all the power players that night were either talking heads (average IQ 127) or novelists (average IQ 120), a rough guess is that they have a mean IQ around 125 with a standard deviation of 15 (same as the U.S. SD since they come from a range of occupations).
Thus, Franzen being 1.08 SD above this mean equates to an IQ of:
1.08(15) + 127 = 143
This is very close to the IQ 147 that we’d statistically expect from a literary Genius (see section 11). Both are in the mid 140s.
Of course this score should be treated with great caution because it is based on only one fairly luck dependent measure of cognition (Jeopardy performance), the sample size against which Franzen was compared was tiny (three people and was skewed by the fact that Franzen himself was one of the three!)
Nonetheless an IQ of 143 (U.S. norms)(142 U.S. white norms) is very believable. Only one in several hundred Americans is this smart. Incredibly high enough to explain his literary genius and hyper-intellectualism, yet low enough to explain why he was forced to change his major in college from Physics to German because, as he told CBC Radio, he didn’t have either “the talent or patience for high level math”.
3 Points:
1. I’ve read Franzen. The book ‘Freedom’. He’s not that good. He is an SJW intellectual product. Therefore his stories are schmaltzy but in a way he can’t see.
2. To be an author you have to have an imagination and creativity which you can’t really IQ test. Pumpkin thinks IQ is the best ruler in the world. Yet most of pumpkins heroes are retarded. But as of todays psychometric standards you can’t measure full scale intelligence. Just like 50 years ago, there were some things you couldn’t measure even physically. The vast majority of physics students could not write a believable novel with socially believable characters. Because its a different type of intelligence.
3. I think the Oprah logo on his book was terrible. I can see what he was saying. It makes the book look like a mills and boon pulp novel. And he won’t admit it, but having Oprah endorse his book and take over it, cheapens the book to the audience he wants – the nobel prize committee. In my opinion Franzen should not win a nobel not because hes a snob, but worse, his material isn’t good enough. If Franzen was black he would have won it by now to be fair.
Franzen brings [redacted by pp, July 30, 2017] – that people wouldn’t be able to understand the book.
The book is full of human characters. From a technical standpoint, I would sometimes ask myself, is that believable considering this persons mind? Is the character confounding expectations without it being a childish cartoon? How socially intelligent is Franzen to make a character say that? Etc But from an overall view, I want to see novelty and a good story. I want to see flow.
I think what Franzen is saying, and maybe he doesn’t say it fully, is that to understand a character study, you don’t just need to get the oblique references (which I don’t always get), but see how the symbols, acts and images he uses flesh out the character or message he is using for the characters. This is why Hitchens recommends re-reading high lit novels. Honestly, I don’t get the full ice cream reading it 1 time either.
I think you need a good grasp of the de facto human world to do this. True literature involves creativity, social intelligence, and a verbal nuance not to pick nice words as such. You can pick simple words and references actually…but it needs to flow well. Language is an art. It is not a technical lego block exercise. Same as music actually.
I’m willing to bet physicists could write a novel better than novelists can understand quantum mechanics.
I’d bet the opposite. You can coach people to learn math in a mechanistic way. You can’t coach them to write a best selling novel that literary types would like.
I thought the difficulty will be the same if the person is not innately good or have natural facility to learn this.
What high IQ math people like yourself don’t understand, there’s a large percentage of the population (like at least 2/3rds) who can’t even understand basic Algebra concepts. Let alone Calculus or Linear Algebra.
So how the hell would you be able to teach a 125 IQ novelist with verbal IQ > spatial IQ quantum mechanics, if they’re likely struggling just to pass Calculus? Even if you force-feed them Taylor series and other formulas they need to memorize
At least the typical 125 IQ physicist has probably read a lot of sci-fi and probably had no problem with entry level English. Even if they’re some Spockian sperg-load who can’t understand emotions you can tell them what to write…
Yes maybe but it would be cardboard cutout stuff.
I think you can coach someone with mindless repetition to do large swathes of math, but not to apply it novel or real world problems or derive things from first principles.
You’re right though, the vast majority of people are poor at math. I said here already that most people are better verbally than quant. I think in my own country, about 10-15% of students do higher level math for the finals. Some fail it as well. Or do foundation level maths instead.
It may be a simple thing that we communicate more using verbal skills, letters, social media, reading media everyday than we problem solve using math. A lot of the gap might be that. Crystallised skills.
But ive long suspected thinking like a STEM major often means sacrificing social intelligence/charisma/testosterone which from an evo perspective is suicide. Therefore it has to be selected for by master and rewarded with financial rewards to make these people viable in the (old) sexual market to reproduce.
Perhaps. I have to think about it more. Just anecdotally, I knew a number of guys in college who were math whizzes (engineering/physics majors) and very socially intelligent and athletically-inclined, too. So those traits are not mutually exclusive, at all.
I’ve met some of those types. But its rare. When I was growing up most of the guys good at math conformed to the stereotypes.
It used to be very popular that you would join a band or try out an instrument as well. From what I can tell the people that were good at music were crap at math (and all studying) and I suspect the people good at math had no rhythm with the people good at english/languages in between.
I would say I’m one of the very few that was capable in all 3. I would be spectacular in english/lang. In English i was the first person in that schools history to score 100% in written composition. I also remember winning a poetry competition in primary school level.
Ironically I wrote a story about jewish refugees. Hahaha.
I would say I’m one of the very few that was capable in all 3. I would be spectacular in english/lang. In English i was the first person in that schools history to score 100% in written composition
First out of how many students who participated in the school’s history?
The hardest subject its generally accepted in my country is our native language, not math. It was my weakest subject and the one that took the most time. That language is not spoken, not latin based and is pretty illogically structured. I found french and spanish much easier to learn.
A smart exam strategy is to do it at pass or even foundation level and concentrate on all the other subjects as it is worth 2-3 subjects effort. I remember being a dummy and spending time on it. Its rock hard at advanced level where you have to critique literature and poetry and write philosophical essays. In pass level you literally join the pictures with the words. Whoever designed the exams got too passionate for the advanced papers.
That’s strange. Pythagoras posited that there’s a close relationship between math and music. In many ways, music is inherently mathematical, especially when you study different tunings and common-practice harmony. One guy has written a whole book about the role of math in music (http://dmitri.mycpanel.princeton.edu/).
The classical musicians I knew growing up were often mathematically-inclined. That wasn’t necessarily the case for those involved in popular/contemporary music.
I played guitar, piano and clarinet in high school and college, and even won some state level awards. I’m probably around 85-90 percentile in mathematical ability but no higher.
I doubt math and music are closely related. That’s just musicians trying to make themselves feel smart
Math and music are nowhere near related. Music is an extension of your psyche. Thats why you can sense an aura of a time, a mind and a person when listening to music. I actually didn’t care for the ‘rules’ in music learning it. Its a very stodgy way of learning something that most musicians couldn’t even tell you. And I did try learning it the aspy way.
I doubt Keith Richards thought much about what he was doing.
I create pieces for the guitar and I never think about rules but I’ll have a general sense of the structure of the song and can use diminished and major/minor 7ths and it will make sense.
I don’t think you can study music and become ‘good’ at it. Its like studying ‘art’ or fiction writing. You can cover generally good principles but a good artist will know when to bend them or splice them to get a better result.
It also goes back to the fact that historically, prodigies only occured in 3 fields: math, classical music, and chess. The implication being that these fields were highly reliant on fluid vs. crystallized knowledge.
Of course, there’s plenty of evidence now that chess is highly dependent on crystallized knowledge, like knowing certain strategies and tactics.
PP say “correlations between music and math IS ONLY TO MUSICIANS FEEL BETTER”
And “maturely” he or she advice us to atop to always criticize him/her.
When you stop to say this type of things maybe “we” will stop to criticize him/her.
Seems there are only three types of known savant syndrome talents: music, painting and math. Some argue that this abilities are found specially on “right brain hemisphere” and as I’m not expert on neuroscience, no way, I really don’t know. I read in some place that right hemisphere is more developed in man than in women (more balanced brain).
or how bout that book Goedel, Escher, Bach? i never finished reading it for some reason
brian may from queen has a phd in astrophysics
As a sidenote, most lower IQ minority authors write about themselves. Because they can’t conceive of ‘the other’. I think whites are very unique in this way due to their empathy levels. I have yet to see a non white novelist write a book not about themselves.
Most minority or non white nobel winners essentially autobiographies with thin abstractions.
A black woman could never write the reverse to kill a mockingbird or a Lord of The Rings. Because it would involve empathetic abstraction. Only whites are genetically capable of that. I will be proven right in 50 years.
So we always get ‘The long march to my freedom’ x100.
If you can prove in literature, that non whites are inherently incapable of writing about people who are not them, you would have a very strong piece of evidence that the only place multi-kulti could theoretically work is in white countries and even then, would be doomed to failure literally because the minds of most races in genetically incapable of conceiving of ‘the other’.
Memoirs of a Geisha was written by a white guy.
A Japanese man would not be able to write Memoirs of an East End Hooker.
Think about what that means for the world as we have come to know it in the 21st century.
Random author that I’m not that familiar with popped in my head: Octavia Butler.
I know she wrote a lot about the “Black Experience” but given her status as a top sci-fi author, I assume she was somewhat capable of perceiving a world outside her own narrow worldview. And some of her novels had plenty of non-black characters (I’ve only partially read a few of her books).
Memoirs of Marsha Murphy
“What a fucking crab. Every Thursday I have a client. Lets call him Client Y. We meet in the Dorchester at about 11 or 12 (depending on when he gets off from his power dealer dickhead job on the Street). And every week it gets more and more weird. Today he wanted to watch me fist myself.
No way.
At least thats what I tell myself everytime i’m in the lift on way up to suite 554.
I just have to get out of this crap. I hate crab clients. I hate late nights with my kid at home with that mess Rachel. And I’m just not getting any younger.
Sometimes in my dreams I’m 18 again, y’know?
‘m getting ready for college and I’m asking my friends what are they going to do. And you know, I’m not confused like I was back then. I have my mind now. And they all seem so naive. They would be a nurse or a teacher blah blah. And then when I wake up I realise they became a nurse and a teacher and – super smart me – became Mrs Love Fist.
No way.
Thats what I tell myself everytime I’m on the lift on the way up to suite 224.
Speaking of fisting, that shits the all new rage in hetero porn. It used to be a crazy homo thing but now I see a couple websites dedicated to girls fisting (and sometimes prolapsing) themselves.
If anyone gets off on seeing some heroin-addicted chick stuffing two black horsecocks and a fist in her asshole at the same time, the NSA should be monitoring their every move They’re sick
Great analysis. I’m sure with his IQ he could have made it in physics, it just wasnt his main talent.
This also reminds me to read more fiction. I need to seem like an intellectual. Anyone here read Cormac McCarthy?
He probably has a large verbal IQ > math IQ gap
My suspicion is that most normies are like that. And of course schizos would be more musical/arty iq vs math IQ gap. I think math IQ is husbanded by Master. Its artificially selected for. I would put money on all people with a math IQ > verb IQ having had middle or upper middle class parents.
The middle class can be redefined as ‘doing what master likes, very well’.
Not for nothing the civil service was the vast majority of the middle class in most nations up until the 60s.
Large differences between verbal and math is not common. Normies tend to have avg cognitive skills and symmetrical. Great differences among sub tests tens to signalize from so called learning disabilities to more severe mental disorders.
Actually when you consider it, accountants, bankers, solicitors, stockbrokers etc are doing more or less the same work as civil serveants in the 1920s did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrivener
It even says on the Wikipedia page for Scrivener that the modern professions of accountant/lawyer/notary evolved out of the public servants of olde.
Thats very good. I didn’t know that.
It’s wonderful to see two minds like Oprah and Cormac McCarthy engaged in such a beautiful discussion. Scintillating!
I’ve never read McCarthy but The Road is one of my favorite movies. I LOVE the post-apocalyptic genre (as long as it doesn’t involve zombies which are BORING).
I believe that was McCarthy’s first (and ONLY) television interview. People had been trying to interview him for decades but he’s extremely reclusive.
More evidence of Irish scholarly flair. I don’t know anything about this man. But you both seem to think hes a good writer.
IQ is the measurement of size of semantic memory and verbal skills is the most basic so if you write well namely in your mother tongue 😉 so it’s very likely you will score above average in IQ tests. I admire your effort to analyze IQ tests of this people who are or were part of Oprah’s world. But seems little obvious that good vocabulary will be translated to at least above avg IQ if you no have more asymmetrical profiles aka “learning difficulties”.
Again about what IQ really measure: when psychologist access verbal IQ s/he is measuring and/or comparing the size of semantic memory, the capacity of the human mind to internalize new informations that aren’t autobiographical (even in the end autobiographical also have or require evidently their verbalization). So crystallized part of intelligence is being well or relatively we’ll measured/compared because IQ is measuring the achievement or reached potential during age layers. But about fluid skills or reasoning skills IQ is just measuring the superficial part of our analytical skills and its potential and not its reached potential.
Throughout and not during age layers.
Looks like our boy [redacted by pp, july 30, 2017].
Please don’t mention people I’m trying to get rid of. Just encourages them to come back.
Wait, what happened? did you guys have a falling out, i must’ve missed it
No, I just find it very tedious to talk to people who disagree with me on every single point. There has to be at least some common ground or the conversation can’t focus.
Gotcha. Agreed.
Looking for work now. A call came from Paris for a contract job.
I asked them about their diversity policy.
Creativity is predicted by independent learning style that tend to cause hyper perceptiveness. Do it yourself. Instead learn quickly something explore this in slow and little chaotic way. But of course highly creative people do it in natural way. You can teach what you do but not how you do. How you do is totally personal.
There was a lucrative offer from Malta a while back to do work with the fallen cypriot banks. I hate finance. I hate banks. Its fucking boring. Most accountants are as aspergers as engineers or tech guys. With enough skill, you could make them believe their wife was an alien if you paid the right authority figure enough to join in the troll.
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/enron-employees-remove-their-belongings-in-boxes-from-enron-after-picture-id526769112
Corporate goons always have a dweebish servant look. Which is fine. They are usually nice.
But are they nice because they are weak and socially impaired…..or because they genuinely believe in being nice? If they were of able to think for themselves, would they still adopt Masters teachings?
Deep philosophical question.
The nature of niceness……can only be adjudged by one that does not see it as a necessity nor a job requirement.
Women select against dweebs for the same philosophical reason. The genetics in women are so higher order, they compute that same proposition in the back of the girl’s mind even above brainwashing, acculturation, religion, family orders and her own forebrain. A woman doesn’t even know herself the weighing exercise going on. She’ll just ‘feel it’. Nobody was to reproduce a servile idiot.
The jews power comes from power over knowledge of the mind.
Do you believe white gentiles can be sociopaths? And would such individuals be more likely to lean left or right politically?
I’ve thought about that and I think psychopaths generally lean right. I genuinely dont think they think to deeply on the issues. For example, Hilary Clinton probably doesn’t care either way whether healthcare is socialised or privatised in the abstract.
Its a very interesting thing to talk to a psychopath I bet about politics because he wouldn’t be brainwashed at all and would just say things as they are, provided he wasn’t from a minority background or didn’t have a career/professional reason to say a certain line.
I’ve heard rumours Hilary hates blacks. I’m pretty certain she thinks the feminism thing is a bit loopy.
Ha, those are basically my thoughts as well
And leftism [total control project] seems designed to the psychopaths [and sociopaths]…but sincere capitalistics also tend to lean pyschopath.
Sincere capitalists? I don’t think psychopaths can be sincere…ever…
I said “people who are strongly pro capitalistic”…regardless the consequences (insincere about it).
But we have also those insensible assholes who tend to be quite sincere.
The other celebrated author is Phillip Roth. If you read Roth, you understand a lot of how jewish intellectuals and jewish people in general think about gentiles and other races of man. In fact, you could say race is the defining lens Roth categorises his characters and their personalities, often explicitly.
I’ve noted before that jews don’t tend to write fiction. But I had forgotten film screenplays/theatre playwrights should count of course.
My favourite author is probably JL Borges. He bends my mind. There are very few authors able to write philosophical fiction.
Rod Serling, who is a jew, wrote the twilight zone which falls into the same category.
Still the best tv show of all time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLLdI-zEhBs
Given your obsession with Jews I’m surprised you haven’t commented on the Jewish character in Franzen’s Freedom. I haven’t read Freedom but i heard about that part
Refresh my memory. Is that the musician carpenter guy?
Here’s an article about it.
I know this has been done already but I wanna try my spin on a social IQ test:
1. Are you still a virgin?
2. Have you ever been scammed out of a large amount of money (more than, say $50)? (this may not work on the < 90 IQ crowd, they get scammed because of sheer ignorance or impulsiveness)(this doesn't include student loans for college. A lot of savvy people fall for this scam)
3. Were you ever bullied in an academic/job/similar social setting? (more points off if this happened after the age of 18)
4. Do you believe that members of one of the major political parties in the US are on average more moral/ethical than the other party?
5. Do you ever find yourself feeling self-conscious in social settings?
6. Have you recently spent more than two Friday/Saturday nights in a row by yourself?
7. Do you frequently read self-help books?
8. Are you physically attractive? (self and other ratings are necessary. It's important to know the difference between the two)
9. Do you spend more than 2 hours a day on online Internet blogs/forums?
10. Have you ever experienced sexual dysfunction?
11. Do you have a really deep interest in something that's neither directly related to mainstream pop culture or helping you make a living (like say, anime?)
Discuss.
More of a test of good looks & personality than social IQ. I separate the two. Being shy at parties or spending all day on the Internet doesn’t mean you’re socially dumb; just means you’re uncomfortable around people
As mug of pee noted, the popular people are not the most socially intelligent; often the most socially smart people are isolated because they realize how evil and stupid folks are
I’m not sure if I agree with mug of pee. You may have some Dr. House types who are socially perceptive and maybe not as popular as they could be, but I feel most of the socially intelligent use their ability to become popular (in their field or social environment). That’s the only way usually you can get to a Dr. House’s level and not give a shit.
1. Good item generally. But doesn’t take into account people with disabilities, impairments, religious commitments.
2. I consider marriage a scam. You can also invert it and ask have you scammed anyone? I’ve done some minor government/tax and insurance company ‘scams’ but nothing major due to my ethics.
3, Thats good.
4. Should ask about religion instead.
5. This might be anxiety more than social ineptness though.
6. Same as above.
7. Hahaha.
8. Good item.
9. Good item.
10. ?!
11. Good item.
Might take off 11. I think I’ve bought too much into your theory that nerds = autistic losers. I know too many counterexamples.
And on the flip side, someone with an obsessive interest in pop culture (like a borderline bitch that’s memorized every episode of “the Kardashians”, or a spergoid obsessed with baseball statistics) is someone who’s probably a total social loser also.
Item 10 should be deleted. My reasoning was that any guy concerned about sexual dysfunction is probably a loser but there may be some genuine problems for some guys, particularly older gentleman. Like their wife just looks like a fat sack of shit and theyre too moral to cheat on them.
Anyhow, in summary social intelligence = the ability to maximize your social life in the way you see fit, given the parameters of your social environment.
I wanna administer this in real life. I need Animekitty to take it first.
It seems like your test is measuring 4 different but overlapping traits: social IQ, social personality, autism, and looks. For example obsessive interests are caused by autism and autism also causes low social IQ, but low social IQ does not cause obsessive interests and there’s nothing intrinsically socially stupid about obsessing over train schedules (it’s just a compulsion autistics can’t control, even if they understand it’s socially unacceptable). Nonetheless because of the intercorrelation of these traits, your questionnaire may still have strong predictive validity, despite lacking conceptual precision.
Why animekitty?
Is he your patient zero?
Anybody can take it, I don’t care. Just don’t steal it and publish it to make money
Gondi don’t know what loser mean… I thought”REAL loser”. People don’t choice most part of time what they want to do even know what they want to do. Call them loser by things they don’t have control is the real lower aka stupid.
I agree with pumpkin in the sense you can be socially intelligent but suffer from say, paranoid schizophrenia. That can happen.
you’re showing your lack of social intelligence.
next thing you’ll be saying, “i love oprah.”
sad!
Teoretically social smart = / = Street social smart
I’m basing these questions on the facts:
1. Attractiveness is correlated with personality due to genetic pleiotropy.
2. Social anxiety is largely due to social incompetence. That is, there’s really no way to separate social anxiety from general anxiety, and to the extent social anxiety actually exists, it’s mostly due to shitty social skills.
3. Most biologically normal men (like 99%) want sex to some degree.
”2. Social anxiety is largely due to social incompetence.”
Sometimes it’s due to social over-competence.
” and to the extent social anxiety actually exists, it’s mostly due to shitty social skills.”
Again, there are people who have great social skills but they are too much perfectionist to…. average/normie social environment. And yes there are people who are too much naive, too much out-of-good sense, too much or too little.
Dangerously active psychopaths have shitty or good social skills*
How to define what is good and what is not in this case*
the very big picture is:
species vary in how social they are.
iirc most species are asocial.
the most social are ants and humans.
by analogy one might suppose that men have become so very social only because men have become ant-like…
BUT
social intelligence is very un-ant-like…
BUT
within an ant colony “social intelligence” is used to designate level of ant-ness.
in other words, it’s an ideological term.
an “ideological term” does not have the purpose of describing reality. its purpose is to justify the status quo. but this purpose is hidden from those who use such terms habitually.
all of psychology’s terms are ideological, because all psychologists are autistic. they don’t understand that humans are a social animal, and that all societies are more than a collection of individuals.
other ideological terms in the US include:
work ethic, hard working, lazy
free market
freedom
anti-american
mentally ill
nice
addict
stupid
get with the program
different
alpha, beta, gamma, omega male
bitch
criminal (economic crime)
…
franzen’s IQ is oprah’s IQ + 50.
franzen’s IQ is oprah’s IQ + 50.
No, more like Oprah’s IQ + 3
You would have to define what is ‘socially intelligent’ first.
Understanding peoples motivations + application of language, body language, charisma/humour and acting to gain social status or resources/protect people.
The best way to ‘test’ social intelligence is give people acting tasks.
Tell someone to walk into the nearest store and convince someone to join their new church (that you make up for them on the spot, within the boundaries of realism).
That would be a task that tests the above.
Many preachers and salesmen would actually have trained themselves doing such an exercise. What Donald Trump does is essentially this.
On a related note cult leaders/religious leaders were probably the biggest alpha males in history. Imagine being able to convince other people you’re a God. That’s nuts.
Yes, and as I’ve argued, most charismatic leaders seems to have a dash of schizophrenia and most great scientists seem to have a dash of autism
It’s interesting to think even bear in mind there are more disorders or dead end than this spectrum. Analyzing superficially schizophrenia is also correlated with pay attention to details as autism but the details psychotic people are considerably more prone to pay attention are those with social or broader/and essential nature namely in the case of social species. Autism pay attention for mechanistic or impersonal details and this at least have a positive effect to reduce paranoia for example because objects don’t really interact with you as people. So in less more attenuated drops schizophrenic spectrum may enhance this attention to broader/ social/ personal details. But because broader psychotic spectrum tend to have vulnerability to magical or bizarre thinking, counterproductive to effective leadership (or via current mode).
Other possible difference between mechanicist and mentalist details is that the first tend to be so endless that we tend to become more specialized OR we ARE MORE specialized in mechanicist while we are generalist to mentalist/social details/ pattern recognition.
Trump is playing 3d chess.
A man that ran Mrs Universe and banged plenty of supermodels, had the number 1 tv show, made 3 billion in manhatten real estate and became a president as a ‘crazy’ person running on evil racism is not socially incompetent. Thats laughable.
I would struggle to believe trump, who hung around with Jack Nicholson and Warren beatty and is friends with many athletes and significant non tech businessmen wouldn’t know anything about people and is scoring 300 on the dartboard everytime he does something.
I would imagine Trump is immune from scams.
This is borat before he became famous. He fooled many people with his personas. Trump is very acute.
Wow, for some reason that made me a lil impressed with Trump!
I remember Ron Paul in the movie Bruno just ran away screaming, “get this homo away from me!”
Trump is other example of what/why is everything wrong.
What $$$ don’t make with people. $$ shape in the eyes of indolent people vices into “virtues”
And yes
Whitey
he’s the anti-ant.
he’s never had to pass the social stupidity test like obama [rest of comment redacted by pp, july 30, 2017]
Trump was just smart enough to see that Hillary would win the democratic nomination and that minimal effort is needed to defeat her. Being someone thats in to politics makes your view of trumps impact exaggerated, but mitt Romney and Obama were more famous. Hillary won the popular vote, just like the polls predicted. Its a misconception that polls didnt show an possibility of trump winning, they actually showed that Hillary and trump were pretty close. Trump used populism, racism and talking in contradicting terms (to make crazy republicans cherry pick whatever they wanted to hear) as his rhetoric. I think trumps motivations are:
The illegal that hurt his mother.
His ego.
Wanting an challange to see his limits (i would guess his life was starting to get monotonous as an wasp billionare playing golf).
Improving his brand for his kids.
Being scared of china ending white supremacy.
Loving old america.
Egi.
Racism.
People who are themselves socially retarded, can’t see that what Trump says, does and puts out into the media makes perfect sense. Scott Adams who is a world expert in psychology explains it best.
He will seem stupid and retarded to a lot of educated Franzen types. But if Trump knew the republican party were Phds or booksmart he would change his speech in the same way he deals with such types in property.
I actually listen to his speeches like someone watches a late night talkshow. Its faintly musical to me his speech cadence. “China laughs at our stupidity and incompetence. They have geniuses negotiating for them”. ” Ill go further. I respect mexico. But the problem is their leaders are too smart for ours”.
It sounds retarded. But its direct. Its clear. It shows passion. And its actually emotionally true and resonant. Most people know the country is run be at best incompetents who are making america poorer and more dangerous.
But they don’t know that it is because the leaders are blackmailed or bribed into running the the thing into an iceberg by people who are actually extremely intelligent.
LOTB now rejects Scott Adams theory and believes Trump is clueless.
LOTB is clueless.
I respect LOTB a lot (as I’m sure people here know). He made me question Trump’s social intelligence, calling him a “Mr. Magoo”.
To be honest, I still wonder if Trump just isn’t insane.
I’ll go further than that and say that my read on Trump is that he is genuine but has to compromise and deal to get the goal. He is well aware of why the government is so badly run.
He has said before that some governments are run well in other countries. He isn’t against the theory of government.
He knows.
When he was losing and those 12 women accused him of rape. He made what has to to be the most important speech in 50 years in world history when he talked about a ‘global special interest’ of ‘media-financial corporations’ who ‘don’t have your interest in mind’.
“This election will determine whether we have freedom or only the illusion of freedom and are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests”.
Come on.
“Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed”.
Bloop. Bloop. Bloop.
He worded it for plausible deniability. But the thrust of it is so obvious. Its like Tucker asking dem operatives on his show to rank the top 5 countries that lobby the us government.
time will tell.
no wall. no e-verify. no campaign finance reform. no infrastructure. no renegotiation of trade deals. etc.
=
trump is incompetent.
the economic expansion is way past its sell-by date.
TPP and the EU trade deal were binned. The wall got funding last week.
E-verify is held up by congress.
Trump’s biggest effect will be a kind of feedback loop where the voters become more tribal and masculine and force cuckolds and jew wenches out of the party. The president sets the tone.
an interesting point…
NAFTA passed by 61 votes, but the constitution requires treaties to pass by 2/3ds…this would have been 67 votes.
explanation?
It’s by Nafta [free borders among member countries] that Mexican Reconquista was operating…
That article by Kirsch on Leo Strauss makes me think that mid level jews are either (a) vaguely aware of their elites power but dont want tribal reprimands so lie about it or (b) actively engaged and aware and help cover it up with soothsaying and reflexive lies.
Notice the way Kirsch didn’t actually refute with evidence or facts that most Iraq war adherents around bush were jewish and their explicit published motivations in some cases for war.
He hoped to use the ‘come on guys, this is just antisemitic’ argument. Which is not an argument but a lame rhetorical device that derives all its power from decades of media conditioning….by people like Adam Kirsch.
Same with Lion. Lion on some level must be aware of jewish power and why jews have that power. He must be aware most jewish thinktanks and organisations advocate for stupid wars and open borders and affirmative action (for blacks, not asians).
The democrat party with its superdelegates is basically the Neoconservative Party. Wasserman Schultz, Lieberman, Feinstein, Emmanuel, Schumer etc.
They might as well say their explicit mission is the destruction of america
Haha so prescient.
i would say low 140s
1. he went to a very elite liberal arts college called Swarthmore
when i was in high school a school councillor told me that to get into Swarthmore you needed a minimum SAT of 1400
2. He was a fulbright scholar
hahaha!
my dad got into harvard, princeton, yale, and others.
swarthmore was his only rejection.
why?
the quakers are pacifists and my dad had a conversation with someone who told…not an offical person…the conversation was on the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki.
i even “interviewed” my dad on this topic for a project in middle school.
he thought it was justifiable at the time. he was adamant.
the swarthmore quakers thought otherwise.
though it should be said of all religiously defined groups in the US, the quakers are the only ones that beat the jews on IQ.
and…
the nuking of japan…
1. killed fewer than the fire bombings.
2. was the only thing that might have prevented a land invasion.
3. the horrific effects were not known at the time.
4. had there been no such examples…the US and russia would likely have had a full nuclear war.
the horror. the horror.
nixon was a quaker.
[redacted by pp, juy 30, 2017]
in other words…
even if it was wrong at the time…
most people living today should “thank their lucky stars” that truman nuked japan.
Persuasive argument on the atom bombs.
The reason I’ve read they did it was to show Stalin what they had so that he wouldn’t continue through korea and invade japan.
One of the mysteries of WW2 is why Japan didn’t invade russia and stretch the USSR. One might be supply lines overstretched (especially for siberia), but it seems the japanese were neutral toward the USSR in ww2. They could have used their navy for instance.
[rest of comment redacted by pp, july 31, 2017]
Some new info on Wonderlic and Russian TV, now only talking heads. Mean IQ=120.44, sd =21.6 (sic!). So what we see, playing with your case, PP ? 120.44+ 21.6 Х 1.08 = 143. 768
An SD of 21.6? Is the Wonderlic designed to have a wider SD than other IQ tests or are talking heads more variable than the general population?
yes, normally the sd is supposed to be 15, but in this particular case it was somewhat bigger/wider. Very little information was reported, nothing about the size etc . It was an article with a table with statistics on different occupations. This group was the second brightest , following … let me see
the third brightest on average (but with wider sd) after ” business owners’ and ”top management of a publishing house” . Dont pay that much attention to it, just a funny fact . Talk show hosts and guys on weather forecast are of different types, IMHO, we dont know enough about the sample
Moscow is mentioned as a place
where is this coming from again??? and it seems any test where the SD for a sample is that much larger than the population is…bullshit
Scream in the night.)..Easy ,dude…Yes,It probably means that the sample was small and inconsistent
peepee will like this but she won’t post it.
there’s a lot of skin color variation within black africa, but…
there’s a small minority who are so black they look like they’ve been painted black.
i find this to be gross…it’s just too weird.
but i think these people belong to a small number of tribes.
Could you estimate Chris Langans/Rick Rosners IQ?
It’s already wasn’t estimated*
Wait, Wut?
Their IQs have already been tested/estimated.
I still dont understand what that word means.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-atlantic-warning-intelligence-can-lead-to-pattern-detection-which-is-racist/
Who wants to bet anyone with a VIQ over 140 isn’t a racist?
The problem is, most of these people are jewish.
Thats they invented the concept of ‘race-ism’ in the 1920s.
here’s explaining what i’ve said so many times. the US is a shit hole run by people who are both stupid and evil.
https://charlierose.com/videos/30816
https://twitter.com/acaciarojokidd/status/892096248970231808
Some Alt liars are so clueless to debate…
”Europe for europeans.”
Oponent:
”So Americas for native americans.”
Alt-liar
”We [WE] conquered Americas”
[So, ”YOU enslaved africans too**”]
So, if jews and multi-gang conquered Americas from europeans, it’s valid too*
“Wait, Wut? Their IQs have already been tested/estimated.”
That is usually based on the Mega test. We have a reported SAT score for Langan and he also took the WAIS. I’d like to see an estimation that also takes other/more data into account than just the Mega or Titan test alone (head size, height, SAT, WAIS, income, etc.). I don’t know how reliable those IQ estimations of 190-210 for Langan and Rosner are, based on such Tests like the Mega test or the Titan test.
I’ll do a formal estimate of Langan eventually but if you want it done soon, i now charge a tiny $45 fee, just to cover the time it takes to research, write and handcraft these homemade custom ordered IQ estimates
Have you found a psychologist that can administer the Stanford binet. I now have $45 (US) in my budget to give you provided you show us the official printout.
$45 would come nowhere close to covering the cost of the test. My fee is cost of the test + time costs (taking the test, scanning results, blogging about it). The time costs i charge only minimum wage in many places ($15 per hour). Take advantage while I’m still cheap
This blog already wastes a ton of my time. I’m not going to start wasting my money on it too. You want me to take another test even though I’ve already taken the best one. Then pay up.
The Stanford Binet/WAIS costs about $540 to $640 to take because psychologists charge about $200 an hour and it takes several hours for them to administer, score and write up the results.
And a receipt
Does your insurance cover part of it
Only if i had a doctor’s referral which i don’t have
oh well then. It would great be could if you find some way to do it as an adult. When I took the Wechsler I paid less than $100 for that appointment. The amount I paid for all the appointments together was only a couple hundred.
or take the GMAT. that would could get you into a good MBA school and then you could rule the world 🙂 !
No you couldn’t afford me taking the GMAT given the 55 hours of suggested prep and my minimum wage fee of $15 per hour.
The SAT would be cheaper. Only 10 hours of suggested test prep + 4 hours to take the test + $45 college board fee + $45 to write the article
Only $300 total
No other celeb of my status would whore themselves out to you so cheaply. Take advantage before the free market drives my price way up to its true value
I’m not particularly impressed by Langan or Rosner, my suspicion is that if you shove an IQ test in a Fields Medalist’s face they’ll probably break the ceiling on the test by virtue of the very analytical persnickety way they think the point being that the kind of performance demonstrated by those guys is probably more common than we think. There are probably individuals who’re far more intelligent in the general sense who won’t score that high because despite the capacity to answer well they lack the pedantic attitude required to demonstrate the obsessive precision that scores points, so they won’t invest the energy required.
It’s arguably the smarter thing to do to answer well and give the psychologist a frame of reference for the scope of your intelligence instead of answering pedantically given that it would take less energy. The kind of person that could authentically max out the test without this pedanticism is rare, I think.
All this being said once upon a time I heard that Rick Rosner did a bunch of IQ tests in HS which landed mostly in the 140 range. I think most of the “Most intelligent as discovered by IQ test” types are actually probably people who adopted pedantic attitudes and started to “Game” the test in order to reinvent themselves after mostly disappointing academic and professional careers.
OK I finally got the message. You’re a busy man with a lot of commitments. Such is the nature of the famous. 😎
Well, maybe someday. They recentered the SAT again recently so I’m not sure if I’m interested in paying for that.
I’ve never been that impressed with Langan/Eisner either, gypsy
Brazilian anti white or pro mixing race propaganda
I’ve seen much worse. There was the infamous all state ‘insurance’ advert with the adult black male proposing to a white female teenager or that italian washing machine commercial.
My favourite one was a print advert here for headphones of a white female hanging out with a group of black men looking ‘cool’.
By favourite, I mean most deeply loathed and thing that brought me into an uncontrollable rage for an hour.
Wow if it made you that angry that’s just…wow.
Pumpkin should estimate Robert Rubins IQ.
Or Steve Schwarzmann. Or Larry Fink.
Schwarzmann apparently did the 2nd largest M&A deal in the world in one year in the 1980s, by himself.
Since Schwarzmann is a psychopath I don’t know if I believe him. My inclination is that that wouldn’t be humanly possible and hes taking credit.
George Soros would be very interesting. I would estimate Soros verbal as 1 in a few hundred million. He studied directly under Karl Popper. Who may be the last great philosopher.
[rest of comment redacted by pp, July 31, 2017]
One in 100 million? I don’t think so. Just cause he’s rich and Jewish doesn’t mean he’s a super genius. Your fawning worship of Jewish intellect is embarrassing
it is absurd.
do you recall that pill’s first comments on this blog were all about how no woman could resist him, freud was a great thinker, and that his answer to the judefrage was indifference?
then after a short while he decided that [rest of comment redacted by pp, aug 1, 2017]
Yes he’s quite the paradox. An antisemite who is constantly gushing about how brilliant Jews are. Of course the two views aren’t mutually exclusive, but most antisemites claim Jewish IQ is overrated.
At first I thought his philosemitism (when it came to IQ) was a way of disguising antisemitism (when it came to more important matters), but you used to claim the opposite.
Objectively, jews are more intelligent than whites. And blacks are more athletic.
I think its possible for a human being to think jews can do great things with their mind or blacks can achieve great athletic feats and still see that both are a [redacted by pp, aug 1, 2017].
This because I dont abstract intelligence and athleticism to a value judgement about inherent worth.
As Buffet himself said:
“Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy.”
Yes, i believe philosophers online persona is mostly a put-on
I saw the other day, a man on tv claiming that many alt right people are anti-science. I couldn’t help but laugh.
Theres a misconception that conservatives ‘hate’ science more than liberals. Yet I would bet there are far less conservatives that don’t believe in evolution than there are liberals who think there is no genetic or even general phenotype like differences in the races of man.
I would go further and say conservatives know more about the originator of the theory of evolution than liberals know about the originator of the theory of race blindness.
It’s also climate change denial that makes liberals think conservatives are anti-science
in fact some “liberals” are so anti-science they claim “race is a social construct” or “there is no such thing as race.” it could be they mean this in a very narrow sense, but they usually don’t mean it that way. just like thatcher said, “there is no such thing as society.” recently they’ve been claiming that “gender is a social construction.” this is just pure 1984 bullshit. it’s insane.
The other related thing they do is say ‘blacks are naturally gifted athletes’ and then turn around and say the tests are too hard in school for blacks and that is ipso facto ‘discrimination’ and/or ‘police are too hard on blacks’…..
I bet police see things that make them very angry about blacks.
But Zion can’t keep it quiet forever.
i thought they didn’t say blacks were naturally gifted affaletes.
In the long run, not believing in evolution won’t kill someone. But believing all races have the exact same tendency to be empathetic, tell the truth, violent behaviours and stick to their word,….will kill you.
Notice the way Pumpkin will explain Denmark’s power by IQ scores, and I explain it by psychopathic behaviour.
[rest of comment redacted by pp, July 31, 2017]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question
Capitalism promotes psychopathy. The race of man most psychopathic is Denmark. Denmark will win most from capitalism.
Karl Marx should get a A+ in ‘being fucking right about everything’.
Capitalism promotes psychopathy.
this is straight of chomsky’s mouth. i should find the vid.
The irony being that capitalism can only arise in the first place in high-trust societies.
gman doesn’t even know what “capitalism” means. sad. he just retardedly associates it with high trust societies.
botswana and and acient greece were no less capitalist than modern america.
jesus christ what a [redacted by pp, aug 1, 2017].
Even Philosofur said that. and he even hypothesized a low IQ country would to best under a command economy with a high IQ elite (I’m guessing not Danes)? I agree.
No you’re the one always claiming every rich Jew is a super genius. I’ve done articles proving that Jewish wealth can not be explained by IQ alone. I just don’t speculate about what the other factors are.
What makes western civilization unique is “science”.
The world is the way it is today because of it.
I do think I am socially smart, I agree with pumpkin that most people are evil and stupid.
I need to think more about how supposed mental illness defines me by my status, that Mugabe mentioned being social is more than being an ant.
or how my status is defined by my mental illness?
(I need to phrase my meaning better)
A designated mental illness keeps the status quo because it gives people a predefined way of thinking of others. It explains away their behavior so that individuality is diminished. Too much individuality is bad for the status quo.
Whoa deep.
That’s what i was talking about before. Sometimes anime is lil crazy then he drops a diamond like this.
Pumpkin this Harvard article about a east asian Harvard doctor formal navy seal medic with silver star that has just been selected as an astronaut is very interesting. It confirms many aspects I learned on astronaut recruitment, east asian modesty and the relative freedom people have to build an unexpected life with what they have got. Il like this Kim !
PS : astronaut must fall into the 130-145 IQ strictly.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/07/med-school-grad-to-trade-scrubs-for-space-suit/
Liberals also say women are just like men.
And that homosexuality is genetic….even though that is physically impossible.
The differences between men and women are real, salient BUT not super-different. In terms of brain shape, indeed, at basic features, masculine and feminine brain are the same, because come from the same basis. And we can create a population where most men have ”feminine brain” and most women have ”masculine brain”, even i don’t know if this society would work at long term.
Homossexuality is not genetic*
Someone told that all traits are
[in]-heritable…
good point pill. the sexual orientation is genetic but all gender differences in behavior are not is something they believe. and the two can’t both be true.
The other thing they do is invent scientific ‘phenomenon’ like ‘institutional racism’ and the ‘legacy of colonialism’, which we are all told psychologically makes blacks beat up old people.
TATTTHHH MATTTHHH SENTTHHH!! 🙂
What is weird is that this Jonny Kim being considered by Math professor of U San Diego as the best he had in 15 years (even if the average SAT is 80th percentile), getting the bachelor summa cum laude in 3 years in math after 7 years of war experiences, then getting after a 4 years MD at Harvard one of the best residency available at Massachussets general hospital (one of the top 3 USA hospitals), indicates an IQ more in the 145-150 range than 130-145. Maybe due to the number of candidates, NASA has been able to move the spread of 15 points from 130-145 to 135-150. There is so much data available and comments on each of the 12 astronauts selected that it could be able to guess each one IQ by your method.
If you did that, then you could contact the NASA recruitment and ask them if your guess were accurate. Perhpaps they could even provide you with the information. There has been many psychometrics article on astronaut selection process.
https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/candidates
Very impressive
I have just listened to an interview of the candidates. It’s true that the questions are boring but the answer are very conventional. Most amusing is that on minutes 19 they say that the most important think they’d like to discover, it’s to show people that they are no real borders. So one astronaut found a way to convey an open border message out of the blue. Another one said that it was an opportunity to learn russian … when for example I’m learning arabic, japanose and swedish for fun for free thanks to material available on the internet …. So one thing they have is being very PC 🙂
They really tried to make it diverse.
By diverse they mean, what they would like america to look like rather than the pool of qualified candidates.
Notice the distinction.
Hes factually wrong. Borders are natural. Thats why you have walls in a house and doors with locks.
Another brainwashed moron. You cant be anyone without being brainwashed by jews.
Try being a talkshow host, academic, writer, comedian, ceo etc without at least saying you believe in wiping out white people.
There is no sanctuary.
Ever notice the sexual undercurrent to most of pumpkins posts aboht oprah. Oprahs head is a phallic symbol.
Animekitty should consider becoming an actor.
The other thing liberals do is turn psychology papers into toilet paper. If they actually did the studies correctly on criminality, empathy, psychopathy and clannishness – they would figure out within 2 weeks why some countries are rich and poor and you wouldnt need a socially retarded asperger economist to say there isn’t enough judges and police who dont take bribes.
They would also see personality is as heritable as IQ. I think thats what scares liberals more than the IQ thing. The idea that races of man actually have different personality subsets and temperaments that are consistent no matter how and where you raise a black/asian/indian boy or girl.
Personality is more IN-heritable than IQ.
Even IQ reflect in some important but not total ways intelligence still is dependent on availability of earlier or standard exposure to language/early socialization and vocabulary if mostly what IQ measure/compare in semantic memory. But nothing this already was totally proved, that humans without any earlier cultural exposure become feral.
”most what IQ compare/measure IN” is semantic memory.
Other thing about personality is the simmetry between our public and personal personality. People who are not well adapted in certain social environment and tend to be more self-reflective/concerned about other opinions, are more prone to hide their real personalities or mostly of their personalities even almost everyone tend to have two, public and personal personalities, what they/we are in the public, and what they/we are in our intimacy. Introverted and intense ambiverted people’s tend to be more prone to do that.
”The world was made to average people… to extroverted people”
And capitalism is essentially a extroverted system: short term, consumistic, philosophically poor and yes, dominated by charismatic leaders.
If you think about it, its almost like liberals are socially retarded and have crazy levels of aspergers if you put their beliefs onto a piece of paper.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the function of brainwashing is to make people imitate a genuine aspergers person’s way of seeing the world – no tribal instinct, no protection instinct, complete repudiation of violence in all scenarios, social blindness and susceptibility to fraud and lies, provision of resources to cretins etc etc .
Even many aspergers are self-declared liberals, neurotypical liberals seems lean more schizotypy*
daydreamers as me [but even more silly]
Liberal is one personality dimension among whites. Variation of personality within race can be very diverse. I am white and I can see how not all white people are the same. This the same for the Danes. With race is diversity so I think that matters. Political/ideological/social alignment is about genetics.
within race is diversity*
”I am white and I can see how not all white people are the same. This the SAME for the Danes”
”Danes”**
POOR try…
[don’t] try [it] again.
Indeed [social/cultural] liberalism tend to attrack certain type of naive daydreamers BUT they are deadly correct when they accuse working-class conservatives to worship their elites, even they do the same in the end.
We have tribal minds and tend to worship those who are ”succesful version” of ourselves, usual in indiscriminated ways. Even self-reflective people as me have the same vulnerabilities.
In Brazil because i’m much more anti-left [even i’m ‘culturally leftist’ in many dimensions] and anti-”party workers”, the most popular leftist political party, i tend to be subconsciously/instintively condescendent with equally corrupt but ”anti-PT” politicians [on the right side of political spectrum]. For example, both Michel Temer, current president and Lula, former president, are psychopaths assholes, extremely corrupt, but because the first was mostly responsible for Dilma Rousseff impeachment i tend to treat him in neutral if not condescending ways, ”me” or my instincts.
Now imagine people who have below average self-awareness… how self-fooled by their own instincts they tend to be.
Philosopher said that he things I am able to really feel things.
Music is about feelings and I really like music.
I found these two pieces in my playlist that are classical since philosopher likes classical music.
If I could I would like to play the violin.
I watched recently a japanese animation movie:
I really like it, i want to watch other movies of Hayao Miyazaki.
Made a mistake
Johann Pachelbel Canon in D ” Best Version ”
not
if I was your girlfriend
am very sick today
Didnt know Paul Singer owns the debt in the AC Milan transaction. AC Milan were taken over by the chinese with Singers debt. Interesting fact.
Many years ago George Soros made a bid for Roma FC.
That would have been totally loco to have Soros own my team.
As far as I can tell. Football club owners are a good sample of the global elite wealth distribution. I.e. Jews (Man Utd/Chelsea), emirati erabs and gentile private equity types.
I always want to know how the ”first-case” of STD was contamined… if not by itself** Or some people have higher viral or whatever-microTorment charge since from pre-natal*
[I have my crazy hypophisis that all our healthy cells were at very long time pathogens or recent-immigrants]
To test ”pathogen gay hypothesis”: semen of gay men is different than the semen of straight men*
Pathogen or parasite have a life cycle* They procreate within organism* They died when they are replaced by newborn* Just like a ”community” in progressive micro-demo-graphic expansion*
So, when a gay man make sex without condom and ejaculate inside the bottom of your boy-friend he is transmiting so-called ”gay pathogen”*
based on explanation of ”pathogen gay hypothesis” would be like that way.
hue
ré
vis