A few random thoughts:
Too bad about Charlie Rose not being the upstanding gentleman the World thought he was. This is the third time in the past few years a talented interviewer (seemingly) lost his show because of a sex scandal, the first two being CBC radio’s Jian Ghomeshi and Fox News’s Bill O’reilly.
I suspect part of what happened in Rose’s case is that a lot of women were star struck by his power and celebrity, and Rose misinterpreted this as sexual interest since as a former college basketball player and media elite, he was used to women being attracted to him. But sadly the ageing process catches up with even the most alpha of males, and the ladies are no longer liked him that way.
It will be interesting to see who replaces him on CBS this morning. He and Gayle King Bumpus had such great chemistry and it’s sad to see it potentially end.
Meanwhile, I found this really interesting talk about cross-cultural schizophrenia:
Always cool when the elite psychology professor looks like a psycho himself, and the fact that elite professors are able to look like that, yet still command respect is a testament to their status.
This professor was raised an Orthodox Jew but his IQ was apparently so high he realized there was no God at just 13, though could never tell his father about his atheism.
He clearly has an extremely high verbal IQ, and an extremely high full-scale IQ, but I suspect only average or slightly below average Performance IQ . One thing I love about the WAIS-R is you can be a moron in several ways, yet still end up with an extremely high overall IQ, because intelligence is not a unitary variable, but as Wechsler said, a composite global entity.
Pumpkin Person 
His main focus was babbioon. Masai came accidentally into his spot as neighbours. He teaches like an actor.
I had 2 psychotic episodes one in 2016 and one this year. Had two religions visions that were nonpsychotic. Philosopher said you can be psychotic and also be an Aspie. He also says I am 100% Aspie. It is because of my mannerisms in my video. I am not fluid I stutter and pause allot. Its like I am stuck and I read that an immune response hardens neurons in Autism and Aspergers. It is like a car that has parts that lack oil lubrication and the crutch gearbox must bee violently forced into position by the driver. My mom I believe has low self-awareness like being comatose. She is unresponsive and I have problems socializing with her. A normal person would respond to you and add to a two-way conversation. She is like a 7 year old that lacks an internal mental world of thoughts. She tells me she reads the bible but cannot understand it. My brother hears voices and smokes weed. He is schizophrenic.
I keep asking the people at the mental health organization if I have Aspergers and they tell me no. 50 people work there and I talked to the main director and they even say no. My doctor says no but my therapist says she does not know. Tomorrow I will take have a neurological evaluation it might tell something about me.
Almost every day I feel like I might have a nervous breakdown. This week I felt pain in several placed in my body because of my negative affect and emotions. I was listening to the song unwritten and I felt all tingly inside. I was and am now able to stop the twisting around feeling in my head but this just means the pain is more localized (both body and head) I was hanging out with people in my back room but I got a super bad migraine after 20 minutes. I sat their 45 minutes but had to go to bead because the sleep deprivation drained my composer. I lasted so long because I detached myself from my body. The pain was just energy and several times it just turned into nice warm energy instead of a migraine. Nietche has migraines from his abusive father. Migraines were once thought to be the result of the superego.
Maintaining the integrity of my mental state has always been difficult for me. The frontal lobes inhibit and direct the operations of the brain. The frontal lobes control emotions and they stop you from doing stupid shite that will kill you. I know pumpkin thinks it is a stupid idea that emotional intelligence exists. But I have definitely had my frontal lobes damaged from trying to control all the negative emotions I have had and losing control of myself. If IQ subtests measure different brain areas I do not see why self-control and especially emotional control should be excluded. Without emotions, social intelligence would be impossible. Because emotions are how we learn the personality of other people. I can read the emotions of others so I know their personality. I can notice changes in behavior and map that onto motivations. A person may delete a message on a forum because they feel embarrassed of what they said and know it will make them look bad. Personality is a map of peoples emotions over time resulting in unique behaviors. You need to recognize in yourself what your emotions are or you will not know how to recognize peoples personalities. I recognize the personalities of several people on pumpkins blog.
If being an Aspie means having a brain that is stuck and thus is not smooth and fluid then I might be one. Bill Gates does look like his movements are a result of being unable to talk without his strange body movements. Mark Zuckerburg stares too much. Both need to do what they do so they can think and express themselves without getting stuck. I get stuck all the time and but I never developed a method to get unstuck. I do pause often and look around with my eyes. I also sigh allot. I do not see that I have low social intelligence. Schizophrenics have disorganized thinking. I met such a person in 2015 and he was trying to explain nuclear energy to me with his piece of paper. He had highly disorganized thoughts. We walked to the soup kitchen to eat lunch. He also said he worked for Apple in the 80’s as a janitor. He told me they had computerized teleconferencing before anyone knew about it. A top military technology at the time. If I am on the aspie spectrum I am doing at least as well as philosopher is doing on his schizo spectrum. The man I met was interesting but his thoughts were very disorganized.
The way you link thoughts together is another trait you probably can’t see.
Most people cannot see how they are from an outside side perspective. But then again most people cannot actually view how people truly are. My thoughts jump all over the place that to someone else seems rand and not connected together.
If it is a trait I see it as divergent thinking. DT is all over the place. Convergent thinking is a trait that INTJ’s have. DT is extroverted intuition. Understanding the opposite orientation of you dominate function is the is the most difficult.
IQ tests are convergent, there is not yet a good test for divergent thinking.
Every idea I have branches and chain reacts that I begin to remember multitudes of other ideas. Not only that but my feeling is Introverted. Fi is the source of aesthetics. Value is aesthetics. Good bad, better worse. Fe is something I can’t understand.
The eye has 3 kinds of rods. This is capable of seeing one million colors. Some people have a mutation that creates 4 cones that react the 4 different wavelengths, not just 3. These people can see 100 million colors.
I attach feelings to my ideas. My memories attached to the feelings I had at that time. That is why I have over 500 videos on my youtube playlists. When I form attachments they becoming because of the feelings.
Branching to different ideas brings up emotions. I stop to feel what the idea is supposed to be connected to by other emotional tones. This is not the creativity that most people expect. They expect draws or music or book literature. But there is too much stuff in my head. Abstract divergent creative ideas are what I do. Convergences link everything in a chain. I have a Tree with every kind of flower budding.
So I seem random and I have feelings and I am creative. Creative people are some of the most unhappy. I know I am not dumb, but I never find where my type of creativity would be appreciated. Creative people have the hardest time finding jobs compatible with their talents.
Do you like music? Of course, you do.
Re schizophrenia. The classical twin method doesn’t provide any valid genomic effects for schizophrenia.
Combined with other evidence that the differential intraclass correlation for child social adversity cannot be explained by evocative gene–environment covariation, our results indicate that the CTM does not provide any valid indication of genomic effects in schizophrenia.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411885/
Also re Raven’s Matrices. What do you think of what I posed in the other thread on that PP? I’m going to turn that into an article and send it you.
I look forward to publishing the guest article. I agree that the Raven can be influenced by schooling because the Raven Flynn effect is simply too large to be entirely explained by nutrition (even Richard Lynn conceded that point).
But at the same time schooling effects on IQ are very hard to prove because without a really good study design, it’s hard to know whether IQ is the cause or the effect of more schooling.
And then the question becomes why does schooling affect IQ? Does school teach us skills that are measured by the test? Does school enhance test motivation? Or does school genuinely make us smarter?
Do IQ tests exist that are immune to the schooling effect?
Are you aware of Stuart Ritchie’s new meta analysis in IQ and education? He says that one year of education can boost IQ by one point iirc but any gains after that are up in the air. The paper is on biorxiv.org.
This goes well with that study I cited on the hunter gatherers and rural people and schooling.
“Does school teach us skills that are measured by the test?”
This is clearly the case. Take one person who’s never been to school and another who has and test them on the Raven’s. What would the result be?
“Does school enhance test motivation”
Maybe. In the study I cited school attendance was a proxy for motivation.
“Or does school genuinely make us smarter?”
I think this is the logical conclusion.
“Do IQ tests exist that are immune to the schooling effect?”
No I don’t think there are IQ tests that are immune to schooling. How tests are constructed along with the shady construct validity call into question the assumptions and conclusions drawn from the results of the test.
What are you saying that in reference to?
Stay more time in education don’t increase IQ, nor intelligence.
It’s a correlation: people who score higher in IQ tests are overly disproportionately represent among highly educated by obvious reason, because they already are cognitively smarter than most people and higher is the education levels, higher will be the filter for highly iqted people.
Only way to prove this would be: put ”janitors” with avg score below 90’s in high education and look at long term if they
– will increase their IQ scores;
– and permanently.
We also can say that highly educated people are more prone to be-come conformist with current common sense. but the same ”filtering effect” can be detected.
It’s not a causation: stay more time studying boorst your IQ skills…
I believe, yes, more time studying [despising self-didactic people] may increase expertise-skills, but not general or intrinsic ones, and it’s just reflect the levels of cognitive reachability.
yes the CTM is just garbage unless the difference is like that of smokers and lung cancer.
but as peepee alludes to, other methods are far harder to arrange.
the perfect study would be lots of clones + geographically spread out gestational surrogates. this can be done ethically with plants and rats. when this is done norms of reaction shows itself.
Yes, I’m very suspicious of the classical twin method when it comes to mental traits, and I suspect the heritability of autism is similarly overrated because it too is based on CTM.
Having said that, the professor I talk about in the article mentioned a massive study which found that adopted kids were three times more likely to get schizophrenia if their biological parent had it, then if their adopted parent had it, suggesting at least some genetic (or prenatal) component, though probably not as high as CTM studies claim.
The gold standard is studies of identical twins raised apart, but it’d be hard to get a big enough sample of these to detect a condition as rare as schizophrenia (1% of the population)
Or children of schizophrenics vs children of normies.
Lol, you repeat the final sentence of abstract**
Firstly they must need differentiate the type of schizophrenia people have suffering or expressing because there are different phenotypes of this mallady.
”differential intraclass correlation for child social adversity cannot be explained by evocative gene–environment covariation”
Why this people love to use a sequence of difficult or uncommon words or expressions to explain something must be simpler to understand**
What is ”differential intraclass correlation”**
”Evocative gene-environment covariation”….
Remember, verbal intelligence oops, i said intelligence, there is to help us to understand better one each other, our own thoughts and also to describe the reality we live.
Based on elegance rule:
less is more.
”Data from 9119 twin pairs included in 24 comparisons of intraclass correlations in 11 studies rejected the assumption that identical as compared to fraternal twins are equally correlated on child social adversities that are etiologically relevant to schizophrenia.
…
Identical twin pairs were more similar than fraternal pairs on bullying, sexual abuse, physical maltreatment, emotional abuse and neglect, and general negative life events or trauma.”
This is very ”interesting”…
”The findings were generalizable across a range of potentially moderating parameters and imply that the EEA is invalid for schizophrenia and other disorders where child adversity is a trait-relevant exposure.”
”Regarding schizophrenia, the relevant question would be whether variables such as twin physical similarity and being dressed alike correlate with child social adversities. Consider the example of a group of identical twins: it is known that these twins on average are dressed more similarly and look more similar than fraternal twins. The question is whether variations in similarity of appearance and ways of being dressed within a group of identical twins (or fraternal twins) are associated with the presence versus absence of people who treat the twins adversely. This is an empirical question, which does not seem to have been addressed by twin researchers. We suspect that there will be no such correlations, hence that these “EEA tests” are irrelevant.”
Because identical twins are more much similar one each other than fraternal, so it’s expected that they will be likely to react and to have similar psychological outcomes [and specially based on the own nature of the given outcome].
Another possible confound is that family with historical of psychosis tend to be more anti-social personality typos among them, resulting in this correlation between schizophrenia and environment-family problems.
The existence of schizophrenic people who were full-blown socially functional before the first psychotic event no doubt will give more decisive power to the ”genetics//biology” than to environment.
”Schizophrenia Is 80% Genetic”
https://www.sciencealert.com/schizophrenia-is-80-genetic-according-to-this-massive-study-on-twins
Sometimes i think many people confuse GENETIC with HERITABILITY while genetic or biological is always about degree of STEREOTYPICAL//repetitive//characteristic INTENSITY regardless how big is the herdability.
Yes I did and I provided the quote. Different intraclass correlation means there are different correlations within classes… The eea isn’t ‘irrelevant.’ That assumption may not hold.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000709904X24690/abstract
environments assumption (EEA), may not hold. Consequently, differences in twin correlations might be at least partly explained by treatment effects from parents, teachers, peers, and so on.
Of course people confuse ‘heritable’ and ‘genetic’.
rr is almost there. almost to the summit. italians were the first to summit the savage mountain. luigi can do it.
when HBDers find little or no independent effect of environment in their P = G + E model universe, they think this somehow proves that interventions don’t work.
in reality extreme interventions work for everybody. less extreme interventions must be matched to the individual genome.
has rr seen the data from his cousin luigi at Washington U? an example of an extreme intervention which works for everyone. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6659.full
all the evidence points to atherosclerosis being a preventable disease. unless you suffer from familial hypercholesterolemia.
and more. the evidence points to both athero and cancer being near 100% preventable, but with the extreme intervention of monthly fasting and chimp diet.
cancer and athero are the proximate cause of death for 2/3ds of people in the rich world and close to that in the poor world.
About his drunk driving incident last year, Mel said: “It was an unfortunate incident. I was loaded and angry and arrested. I was recorded illegally by an unscrupulous police officer who was never prosecuted for that crime. And then it was made public by him for profit, and by members of – we’ll call it the press. So, not fair. I guess as who I am, I’m not allowed to have a nervous breakdown, ever.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/21/mel-gibson-weinstein-scandal-is-a-precursor-to-change
It sounds like I wrote that.
“Well call it “the press”. Hahahahahahaha.
I would like to see a [redacted by pp, nov 21, 2017] make a presentation on psychopathy. I think it would be interesting seeing a psychopath present on the topic in an academic manner.
The problem with people with these conditions presenting on them is that they often lack insight though. For example, if Warren Buffet presented on autism, to him all the minor tics and thought patterns would be normal and so he wouldn’t comment much beyond the obvious ones. I mean, my mother doesn’t think she’s deranged at all and thinks everyone else is deranged. And there is 0% chance she can see anything about herself.
[redacted by pp, nov 21, 2017]
Philosopher, you should comment on this article.
it is very interesting that the cop WAS in fact jewish. the fraction of LAPD or malibu or santa monica PD who are jewish has got to be close to 0%. even in nyc jewish cops are rare.
I bet you if you researched what happened to the cop afterwards you might find out he wasn’t even a cop, but someone hired to dress in a uniform and harass mel gibson. 100%.
You think I’m kidding. But I promise you [redacted by pp, nov 21, 2017] these kind of extreme outrageous schemes.
You wont be able to get the hook out of your head for the next week after listening to this.
Speaking as a blackface man.
I tried playing it on guitar and it made me realise. If you look at music autsitically and ask why are these weird augmented cords being put together and this and that, I just can’t figure out how you could ‘logically’ create something like that. I bet 100% it was improv or just messing on the guitar for hours to get it. Maybe I’m wrong and good musicians think ‘theoretically’ like that. I remember being told the 5th 7th and 3rd majors were normal and some others were ‘rock music’ chords because they weren’t ‘accepted’.
Check out John Coltrane and Giant Steps. The guitar part is based on that.
One of the most sublime compositions in 20th century music:
Most of the 50s bebop musicians and later were highly trained. Lee Konitz claimed Charlie Parker knew nothing of music theory but that might’ve been an exaggeration.
As for John Coltrane, he played clarinet in the army band during World War II. Later he studied the Slominsky book of scales (which is a well-known pedagogy tool amongst 20th century classical musicians) and took lessons with a guy in Philadelphia named Dennis Sandole, who taught music theory and composition.
Jazz musicians yes. They are actually also generally higher IQ than other genres. But if you look at techno, rock, rap and more mainstream genres, I would wonder how many musicians know music theory or care about it like that.
Pumpkin is right. Music has nothing to do with math. They are probably the opposite type of mind.
Mel Gibson.
Im not homosexual like Santo. But man, I would have his babies.
If I was a woman.
ah yes the “if you were gay?” question. my brother’s man crushes are ichiro and christian bale. i guess zach galafianakis my man crush.
Sex scandal doing the rounds in the gossip blogs. Apparently Marco Rubio has a secret brazilian japanese lover whose english is terrible. Incredible. Juicy!
I bet its Neymar.
”Funny”
neymar is transracial.
Has Santo ever met Marco Rubio in a public restroom?
my IQ was so high i was an atheist at age 9. and then i outgrew it.
atheism is a high price to pay to [redacted by pp, nov 21, 2017].
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2fc6fdd73b986ac9bfcdd1effa6ee948
hitch was a public pseudo-intellectual.
You no have capacity to detect pseudo from not so pseudo intellectual….
putting a cock in your butt is stupid.
This is the ”guy” [or boy, because his mental age… very lower] who talk about MORALITY as if he knew what ”IT” is talking about…
[redacted by pp, nov 23, 2017]such inferior living being and with high-order cognitive skills… to be used in a diversity of wrong ways as possible…
I dont think I was ever an athiest. My friend gave me Richard Dawkins book and I kept thinking Dawkins is explaining the mechanics of life and not the purpose of the mechanics.
I mean, the really rational position is agnostic. But to say there is no reason at all for life is absurd.
It’s possible agnostics are as smart or smarter than atheists on average, but both are smarter than theists (on average) who are smarter than creationists.
Ideally speaking, atheistic agnosticism is the best choice.
[redacted by pp, nov 21, 2017]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
religious vs atheist vs agnostic is not a partition of the population.
there are irreligious and anti-religion theists and religious atheists (aka buddhists).
but all agnostics are bi.
[redacted by pp, nov 21, 2017]
i myself hate formal religion.
I think a better perspective is that there is a reason for this reality, more than ‘life’ per se.
i ran around my neighborhood screaming, “God is gay!”
i was about 9 at the time.
why did i do that?
because i was a convinced atheist and i reasoned that adam and even could only be produced by God having sex with himself. i was confused about what “gay” meant.
some older kids stopped me. “get your mom’s permission to beat me up”, i said. so they went inside and came out and said, “we have her permission.”
sad!
you see this in so many things.
people mature at different rates overall and at different rates in particular subjects. at each stage the person is certain that his new pov is correct and those who disagree are stupid. hegel smiles.
Yes thats very true. I was always convinced I was right. And as time goes by, I have changed a lot in my political, economic, social and religious opinions. I was very passionate as a liberal actually. Although it was always much more the economic/marxist stuff than the social justice nonsense.
plus the guy is NOT a psychologist. he’s a biologist.
another story like that from africa. a white male peace corp volunteer has a chat with the village crazy man. the crazy man says, “i’d like to show you something.” he then exposes himself to the volunteer. volunteer says, “uhhh. thank you.” crazy man says, “no thank you white man.”
Hahahaha. Thats a good story.
thank you white man.
Can’t you see im black.
thank you black man.
To me it probably takes a greater leap of logic to say there is no reason at all for everything being ‘just so’ and why evolution desires life so much, than actually subscribing to any one of the reasons theists give.
I agree with atheists, all religions are cults to me. When I saw that documentary with Louis Therouxz and that man pretending he was a messiah it made me realise Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha, Abraham were probably the same type of person. Ironically completely lacking morality and therefore in a unique position to create it for more ethically sensible people but with lower verbal IQ skills.
The truth of the matter is that autism/nerdiness is strongly related to theism. This is not to say jocks are religious either. They’re not. But I would say that jocks tend to be more agnostic in outlook than Jacob Silverstein who is banging on repeatedly about how we need to round up the christians. What this observation is ‘saying’ to me overall is not clear.
I’ve been very dubious about whether morality can exist objectively and so, if you think it does I think ones has to ask what a creator or originating force thinks about it.For example animals don’t have morality, but they don’t have insight either. And so, the more insightful a creature is, you can probably bet it has a more intricate moral sense. But is it objective?
Are there handrail heuristics all people abide by? And that I doubt, the fact all people have an equal moral sense, in the same way as IQ or aesthetic taste or vision. It might be blurry to some, but that doesn’t mean its not objective.
I’ve been coming around to the idea that you can prove morality in aesthetics. Namely, evil will corrupt and make things look evil. And you can see it, bad person and good person alike, the same way a dog senses a threat or even feral dogs dislike feral dogs.
The very bizarre thing to me is that 90% of atheists believe in morality or ‘being ethical’/moral as objective, straight off the bat, In fact I would strongly doubt they’ve considered it half as much as the ontological question. Some are even social justice warriors. So they will say there is no god but morality kind of just hangs together based on ersatz ‘reason’ like letting in 1 million refugees or repealing jim crow as good ideas for their communities or ‘social justice’. I would be more the opposite. I believe in a cosmic force but I think 99% of human morality is (a) a cult (b) feelings/moods (c) based on how feminine you are (empathy).
If you tied an atheist to a chair and interrogated him about morality you would find 3 things:
1. Ultimately his moral sense comes from the bible. ‘All men are equal under gods eyes’
2. They have a pretty autistic notion that other humans are themselves and not seperate entities. Having high social empathy also means to discover that other people feel morality differently in my opinion.
3. Atheists are predominantly informed of their current morality by jews in the media. In the same way christians are informed by morality by jews in their holy books and the original preachers and cult leaders (see above).
The question of morality seems intertwined with the Big Question traditionally if you read philosophers and theologians. It seems like we have a sense that ‘right and wrong’ is somehow linked to ontology. And its worth thinking about why they are linked and if so, does it need to be consistent that morality and ontology fit in with each other.
[redacted by pp, nov 22, 2017]
the existence of good and evil, beauty and ugliness, is sufficient proof of God for non-autistic people.
[redacted by pp, nov 22, 2017]
How do you know our moral and aesthetic sense didn’t just evolve?
they may have. whatever that means. as remarked by some eminent physicist the events of natural history are not like those of our own lives. they exist only in the abstract. yet “vulgar materialists” like dawkins think of them as the same.
one cannot say, “there is no God” unless he knows what he means by “God”. but one can say, “i believe” and not know what he means. the positions are not symmetric.
when i say “there is a God” i mean “naturalism is false.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
i don’t see how “moral realism” can be reconciled with naturalism, though some claim it can be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Ethical non-naturalism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:
Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.
These moral features of the world are not reducible to any set of non-moral features.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_non-naturalism
the same is true of aesthetics.
as mel gibson once said: There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
”Non-autistic people”
https://i1.wp.com/addictivelists.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Crusades.jpg?resize=610%2C374
”Non-autistic people”
”he said: IT’S NOT YOUR ….. FAULT”
atheists show their sheepleness be confusing religious retards with those holding certain positions on the ultimate questions about the world and existence.
the atheist is a sheeple because he thinks all that is true must be known by the crowd, and all that is false must also be known by the crowd.
sad!
like God and the flying spaghetti monster are of the same kind.
atheists are BORING and STUPID.
but 99% of religious people are even more BORING and STUPID.
You are talking about YOURSELF RETARDED DRUNKER…
boring and stupid…
he think it’s not a pseudo-intellectual…
such a clown!!1
I will do WHAT I WANT, AND I WILL GAVE MY ASS TOO, IF YOU DISLIKE THIS,
FUCK UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
ABSOLUTE LOOOOOOSER
AND IF YOU DISLIKKKE [redacted by pp, nov 23, 2017]
these are things some humans perceive directly. autistic people can’t.
yet science has nothing to say about good and evil and never can by definition.
Neither you…
Contrary to a lot of philosophers I don’t think things need to be consistent or ‘of form’. I always see philosophers keep saying that things need to be consistent as if you were profing a formula or something. The whole point of philosophy is that you dealing with topics that don’t conform to lego block logic.
and the point of anglo-american “philosophy” is to make sure no one thinks anything master wouldn’t like.
Probably its that im brainwashed, but for me philosophy is putting everything into “lego blocks” IE making things coherent. How could you be sure of anything otherwise? Its more convenient.
How do you resolve an argument withouht legos? how do you deduce?
Though i find your last sentence interesting “The whole point of philosophy is that you dealing with topics that don’t conform to lego block logic.” since deducing things operate in a manner outside of the deduction, Qualia.
This stuff is too big brained..
100% ask an athiest is it right/wrong to ______
And he will believe there are answers to every single item on the questionnaire. Go on the street with a clipboard. 100% response rate. The don’t think thats a logical glitch.
I am austistic.
Therefore other people are autistic.
Therefore here are the rules that I would follow.
Therefore the rules are objectively better for everyone because everyone is just like me.
indeed. atheism is autism.
“I believe in a cosmic force”
Morality is not about rules. It is about free will. People think morality is about doing what God commands. But what I find in the new testament is more about individualism. The word repent was translated from the Greek word metanoia which means self-reflection. Free will requires you to reflect on what is right and wrong and make a choice. Without choice, people are blind to morality. They are insects, they are Beelzebub (the cult leader). Making choices is morality. Not following rules. That should be obvious. Jesus broke many rules but he did nothing wrong in doing so. Most of what he taught was about ignoring rule to make right choices. Healing sick people on the Sabbath was a deliberate choice to show that the rules against it we man laws, not Gods laws. Totaly undermining the belief that the Sanhedrin was Gods representative on earth. If you believe philosopher that a cosmic force exists then you must also believe that no one but you alone have the right to decide the kind relationship you have to it. I myself do not let anyone tell me how to follow God. Only God can tell me what to do morally because my choices reflect what I believe is right and not because certain rules tell me what to do. God does not give me rules to follow, but the conscious to understand my mistakes. To reflect on if I could live with myself for what I’ve done, good or bad. I am not an insect.
I also think you mischaracterize the Buddha. His choice was to abandon everything to find out if there was a way to end the suffering of all beings in the universe. He had many conflictions because he, in helping others had to feel the pain of failing to succeed in helping people he truly wanted to be liberated. What he did was create a philosophy of what it means to be mentally healthy. He understood that mental health was important because he suffered mental illness himself. I believe that helping others to become mentally healthy is a moral virtue.
That is my opinion on morality anyway.
Today I did my neuropsychological evaluation, it took 5 hours, I will get the results in 1 week.
(to side not I believe my vision I saw Aug 3, 2016 was connected to this cosmic force thing. I believe death is not a permanent state one remains in)
Kant said morality is based on reason. When I read Kant, I just get the feeling that Kant based morality on a world where everyone was Immanual Kant.
Is there a moral reason why slavery should be banned?
Its a very difficult question to me honestly! If I was a slave….blah blah blah. Transubstantiation stupidity. How about if I was a slave owner? How do birds suddenly appear? What if I was buddha. Can’t get you outtta my head yeah yeah yeah yeah.
You can ‘reason’ objective morality by saying “what if I was something else”. Its fucking dumb is what Im sayin. Please tell Bill Gates pumpkin. I think hes making the world a much more evil place.
you cant#
what pill is getting at may be paraphrased thus:
one sees without a theory of vision. one hears without a theory of hearing.
some non-lesbians can perceive good and evil directly.
morality is a theory which leads some people to see things and hear things that aren’t there.
^Brilliant. Thats it.
but i meant to say also…
morality is a theory which leads some people to NOT see things and NOT hear things that ARE there.
split infinitive notwithstanding.
A schizophrenological and a drunker BEAST talking about morality…
as bridey said, drunkards are closer to God. as ophelia said, sebastian is holy.
it’s not just jive.
clarity comes from all one’s capacity for desire being focused on one molecule.
to be happy is to have EtOH.
to be unhappy is not to have EtOH.
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed – you mark my words – will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.
david carr said the same on charlie rose.
alcoholism is a radical simplification of human existence. and by itself this is a GOOD thing.
those weren’t his exact words, but they are a paraphrase.
it’s even better when one can achieve this at a level of consumption which does not affect his life expectancy, and if unlike carr, he’s not a crazy drunk.
i wonder. in the documentary on the head charterhouse Into Great SIlence one of the things that stands out is how happy the monks are. and rosy cheeks. maybe they’re drinking their own product. one needn’t be religious, just like one needn’t be into kung fu, to see that the carthusians are special.
that’s a big cellar. the largest cellar for any liqueur in the world.
the intro to Train Spotting echoes carr. so it’s not always clear that addiction is an affliction. i’ll give santo that. and it seems a large fraction of homos are their sexual activity. that is, all of their efforts are dedicated to butt sex.
almost no americans understand how horrible the slums of glasgow are.
as bad as haiti.
and all white.
”Non-autistic people” perceive what is good and what is not [maybe, we need a spectrum here isn’t*] via reproductive approach and not via OBJECTIVE ones.
Indeed, not to mentally ill people on the left [for example, those who engage in ”bestiality”], but via OBJECTIVE///UNIVERSAL criteria, reproductive views about morality is just partially correct…
For example, many people on the right think physical beauty = inner beauty… specially on the male side. But not so because there are many people who are not primor on beauty department and they are champion in active altruism even among rightist demos.
https://i2.wp.com/www.occidentaldissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MEME2017-07-17-06-03-02.jpg?resize=1080%2C731
Not-mentally-ill leftists and simply non-[predominantly]-rightist people, look at the attitude and not to the people.
A couple of happy lesbians is good not because they are homossexuals [maybe not to many lgbt activists] but because their happiness and freedom to be in the way they was born.
A rightist [reproductive autistics], on avg, will interpret this information as: a bug because the ”correct’ is a man marry a woman to reproductive ends…
In this aspect, rightists look like robots//”autistics” than leftists, who are insufferable minions in their own right. If or when robots become intelligent and EXCLUSIVELY intelligent, without ”human” approach [pedantically speaking, because a lot of nonhuman species ”tolerates” sexual diversity], they will start to think as a ”problem’/bug solvers, aka, hyper-eugenistics…
Surprisingly, one of the reasons humans has been so succesfuls is exactly because their higher tolerance or lack of control on their genetic bugs [genius phenomenon is one of them].
i’m pretty sure santo doesn’t make sense in portuguese either.
You already don’t make sense in your mother-tongue isn’t*
Complete waste of time loser!!!
that wasn’t me. i would never give my real name, so all of my comments were deleted.
why don’t you give us a link.
I am responsible solely for my own individualistic actions and choose to do what I think is right and not what I think is wrong. Going against my own conscious has damaged me in the past, mentally, emotionally and psychologically. The person who gave me my neuropsychological examination sad he was surprised that I was such a thoughtful person. Suffering can turn you into a kind considerate person or it makes you into an angry and hateful person. Some people just don’t care, doing whatever they want regardless of the effects on others.
I want to be nice to others and this is no more right or wrong than torturing slaves. But it is my choice that I want to be nice, so that is what I do. I became broken from all the sadness in this world. I lost my pride. I lost my ability to blame others and to simply explain the context of difficult situations. I do not let my emotions take it out on others. They are just emotions and I do not try to get back at others because of them. I am able to reason with people even in a highly charged emotional state.
ward also uses the example of color. color doesn’t exist in things as they are in themselves, but does exist nonetheless. this is similar to morality and aesthetics.
as pill has alluded to there is one question science can’t answer. why are things as they are and not another way? that is, things as a whole. the atheist scientist makes a subtle error. he confuses epistemology with ontology. that is, he confuses what he can imagine knowing and what is. if he can’t imagine knowing it, it can’t be. all that can be known can be known by science and math. error #10021.
If God exists, then he can be proven mathematically. Logic is non physical, it’s simply cause and effect. In this sense god is the largest cause. In regards to why things are one way and not the other physically, this is because there is no purpose. Asking why implies intention, without intention there is no why.
Meaning it’s not hard to see why a system runs the way it does if you aren’t constantly trying to find a purpose within it. And if you’re asking why it’s because youre already assuming purpose when there may not be one.
”Logic is non physical, it’s simply cause and effect.”
How*
Logic is exactly the description of physics laws.
”In regards to why things are one way and not the other physically, this is
because
there is no purpose”
I don’t think to say ”there is no purpose” is a good way to explain why things are in one and not in other way, firstly, is there a other way**
Santo,
Because logic is hypothesizing which is imagining. Something imaginary is not physical.
The idea of ”to each creation, there was a creator”, seems quite logical, but cohesion is possible without a creator being, indeed, ALL of reality IS extremely coherent. Bug-thought is to believe that reality no make sense, at least via physical perspective, because it make all sense….
my own hunch is that humans are just not smart enough to be “scientific” theists. but atheists think of themselves as the smartest thing possible. so what is called “faith” is really just a hunch and an admission that one is not as smart as he wishes he were.
to put it another way, if steve shoe succeeded in breeding super intelligent people these people would not be religious, but they would not be atheists either.
Mugabe,
Yes, but that’s because intelligent people don’t pretend to know something that they cant, not necessarily because there is a god.
Melo what do you think of ontological arguments?
Their fallacies are based in the invalidity of the axioms, that being said, if the entirety of the universe began as a compressed singularity theoretically you could argue that god was the original decompresser, therefore god would exist outside of the known universe(s) meaning he is imaginary or metaphysical. Meaning empiricism could not prove or disprove him, it is unobservable
But they’re logical arguments. They’re not fallacious. What’s wrong with Anselm’s?
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
The unaddressed one is meant for you RR.
Santo: “how”
Because you’re saying, for instance “X happened because Y.” X is the thing that happened and the cause is Y.
”Santo,
Because logic is hypothesizing which is imagining. Something imaginary is not physical.”
Logic is physical laws, it’s not imaginary, it’s –extrapolated– from physical laws…
yes, maybe it’s need imagination but not in errant or recreational ways.
The very human–e idea of God is that
GOD, is a human who created everything…
OR that GOD is a BEING, a LIFE who created everything…
Both of this ideas seems or appear to be quite wrong.
If it was right, who’s created the first HUMAN-LORD*
A infinite/infinitive principle OR indefinitive starting point**
Atheistic agnosticism is the best choice ever by now.
Atheism is just like a inverted but characteristic belief
Theists tend to be FULL BLOWN believers, while atheists tend to be FULL BLOWN non-believers and it’s consist in a type of belief, the hyper-skepticism is the extreme belief in disbelief…
If GOD is a BEING, why MOST part of universe is deadly to living beings*
“Logic is physical laws, it’s not imaginary”
Physical laws are Physical laws, Logic is an abstraction derived from sensory data. Without this sensory data only math exists, 2+2=4 but that statement has no validity without an actual context. 2 rocks plus 2 rocks equals 4 rocks.
”Logic is an abstraction derived from sensory data. ”
What is logic for you*
”Without this sensory data only math exists”
Logic = math = physical laws…
“But they’re logical arguments. They’re not fallacious. What’s wrong with Anselm’s?”
Again, the issue is not the sequences but the assumptions that the argument rests upon.
Anselm’s was a little more nuanced than what you quoted, teh full one goes
“1. Assume God does not exist.
2. ‘God’ is defined as “that than which no greater can be conceived”
3. “That than which no greater can be conceived” must therefore not exist. (from 1 & 2)
4. “That than which no greater can be conceived” exists only in imagination, not in reality. (from 2 & 3)
5. If “that than which no greater can be conceived” were to exist in reality as well as in imagination, it would be even “greater”.
6. But that would mean “That than which no greater can be conceived” is not “that than which no greater can be conceived”. ( From 4&5)
7. “That than which no greater can be conceived” must exist in imagination and also
exist in reality for it to be the greatest thing conceivable.
8. That means ‘God’ both does and does not exist (from 1 & 7).
9. Premise 1 cannot be true (reductio ad absurdum)
10. ‘God’ exists.”
The main problem I have lies with Axiom #7. he assumes that reality is “greater” than imagination, but does not provide any meaningful definition of greater. Secondly, If god was the Ultimate Causation or the “original decompresser” as I stated earlier, than he could not exist within in reality, it would be impossible for him to reside within his creation, especially since he would not conform to physical laws in the first place so by definition he is non-existent or not real(LMAO). So if he did “exist” that means Pantheism would be what Anselm’s argument vindicates, but assuming there is a pantheistic god, means Empirical observation becomes a viable proxy for evidence once again, so Anselm would need an actual observation with a following experiment to vindicate this logical proof. Do you get what I’m saying?
this is the day americans celebrate that their country was founded by englishmen and not portuguese.
Anselm’s reasoning is convoluted by semantics so I modification to actually make sense.
(1) God is an abstraction which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is an abstraction which no greater can be conceived then there is no pattern greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is pattern greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is some abstract pattern greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
“this is the day americans celebrate that their country was founded by englishmen and not portuguese.”
No this is the day we celebrate the near genocide of an entire race
Cheers.
JESUS is the father of physical lol
“Logic = math = physical laws…”
Physical laws are based on physical properties, Math and logic is not because it is symbolic in nature.
santo is a sheep.
sad!
right and wrong, true and false are only us vs them in santo’s world.
I would put forward the claim that I know a lot of random trivia and junk and probably do very well on Trivial Pursuit competitions. If there is one pattern I’ve noticed that comes up again and again and is hidden and censored, its the predatory nature of certain races of man and in particular a complete lack of ethics or morality, based simply on what these people say themselves should be morality.
I disagree with what they say morality should be of course – and so I am ‘evil’. But even if you accept it, if you look at [redacted by pp, nov 22, 2017] it is obvious that the kommissars of modern morality are the exact opposite to their own moral codes.
And so, we have a kind of trial by fire for the morally just in this reality. Only the truly ‘moral’ will see the Illusion and come through what theyve been indoctrinated to think since birth is good and bad. But unfortunately along the way, they must create morality for themselves as evil people have generally speaking, and not just in western countries, usurped the role as teacher of morality.
A lot of more ‘sophisticated’ people will make a claim that good and evil don’t exist, and we have ‘gray’ morality. There are of course many situations where ethical feelings and reasoning would clash. And I don’t doubt the idea moral people do what later turns out to be evil things and vice versa.
But some things are clearly good and some clearly evil and this world is a type of IQ test in the sense it takes a lot of solid ground up thinking to figure out which is which and you can only be guided by instincts and natural empathy so much.
The extreme example of ‘intuitive morality’ leading one towards a speeding train is female morality, which tends to always err on the side of tolerance. Heartiste has a notion that this is because they secretly are sexually animated by ‘bad boys’ and need a smokescreen to initiate them. Actually I would say its merely the nuture instinct. Notice the way most NGO female workers are white. Empathy is not a sole basis in morality. This is why arguments like “what if you were Al Capone” are harder to reject if you base everything on your nurture instinct.
Rawls theory of justice is basically “what if you were Al capone, would you put him in jail then?” but more elaborate. I used to think it was a very solid basis to think about morality.
Nietzsche is right. Slaves tend to think slaves should be masters. If you were a third world person, you think you have the right to move to the first world for your family etc etc. It doesn’t make any sense to ask “what if I was a slave”. You know, what if you were a paedophile? Would you make paedophilia illegal? Nobody takes transubstantiation further like that.
Slaves tend to believe in the inherent nature of equalism as the sine qua non of morality not for the inherent idea of it, but merely to get ahead. I think thats the subtler point Nietzsche is talking about.
Think about it: in every day life, equalism cannot become true. Women put out for some men a lot more than other men. People are born with specific genetics, personalities, tribes and families in certain parts of the world. An ecnomoic system gives to some and not to others. Its obvious that the world is based on competition like conservatives say.
But I agree there is a difference between tolerating the existence of slavery and kind of gleefully beating up a slave or being malicious. In the same way one can believe in the theory of free enterprise and still think basic humane public goods should be provided like sanitation, healthcare and even housing (for their own tribe). The gleeful cruelness you see with the CFR, Kim Jon Un and Robert Mugabe is the mark of a poor Master class of men, and Machiavelli writes a lot about how a trait of a good Master is to be judicious, not kind – judicious.
Stereotypically autistic,,,,
repetitive mantras
I’m englexic…
The one thing that I do not like about Buddhist is the indifference some of them show like they don’t give a fuck about what others do with themselves. I was in a monastery with my friend and his mom. We sat on a pillow 20 minutes and got up and the monk asked if we wanted to sit again. I said that we were planning on getting some ice cream and that we might come back sometime that week when we had time. He said: Go ahead, Go and eat your beloved ice cream. Waving his hand at the door without looking at us. It felt dismissive and cold. I guess he felt that I was more worldly than spiritual. But it was highly insulting to me that he would make that kind of judgment. It was an “I am holier than thou” attitude that made me feel inferior and hurt. I had a hard time eating my ice cream afterward. My sensitivity to such things would have been the result of prior life experiences.
one of the advantages of an hereditary aristocracy can be that the rulers have duties and responsibilities, noblesse oblige. a place for everyone and everyone in his place. and the 99% don’t envy the 1%. they see them as occupying a role in an efficient society that someone must occupy.
“meritocracy” doesn’t mean anything. merit is whatever the ruling class says it is. except it does mean that the rulers have no duties or responsibilities. and that’s bad. they think, “i earned it. screw you stupid lazy losers.”
winner take all competition is very inefficient economically. all those who competed and lost have wasted untold time and energy and in the end are often unfit for any other work. professional sports is a very clear example of this. entertainment of all kinds is.
a putative meritocracy with everyone competing with everyone else is inefficient. all but the winners are made poorer. and even the winners are poorer in the long run.
another reason why the nation state is the best unit of sovereignty. there is no solidarity in heterogeneous societies. as chomsky has noted, chicago school econ is just another word for sociopathy. it’s also autistic. homo economicus doesn’t exist, and the study of human behavior in just one aspect will never be very enlightening. humans are human.
I am nocturnal.
I am alone allot.
I need constant mental stimulation.
I must have a high IQ
But I don’t drink even though my depression is really bad.
I so sorry for you, what i already tell you, search for WRONG PLANET, create a profile here and start to interact with this people, maybe you will can find people as you, near to you where you live.
http://wrongplanet.net/
If you want talk to me via email i no have objections, you’re invited if you want. Stay good with yourself, the most important of all!!
Santo this is not a gay dating blog. Please take your predatory behaviour elsewhere. Illucat is here to contribute to discussions not to get ‘spit roasted’ by you and your boyfriend. Please treat him as an intellectual peer and not a sex object these links to ‘tge scene’ are obscene.
I was being sincere here, i already saw him and he is not my type.
I heaven hypo-thesis: blacks and other related-people [psychotic/schizophrenic people] tend to score invariably lower in IQ tests, also, because they have hyper-activation of default network OVER attention to solve cognitive tasks…
Not necessarily in absolute terms but in relative//proportional…
everyone except afro sapiens knows HBD is true to an extent, but HBDers take it way too far and their reasoning is very bad.
You’ve only criticized reasoning but not conclusions when it comes to racial IQ, which means you can never be proven wrong, but you can also never be proven right.
I know you say the conclusions HBDers come to are meaningless but you know what they mean, & still you won’t take a stand & that’s cowardly.
Fence sitters don’t make history Mug of Pee.
Drunker evil here is saying i’m a HBD with very bad reasoning*
firstly, i’m not a hbd…
To be a hbd i must be fanatically pro-jewish, what all or most of hbders are…
secondly, when a person never prove how good she/he can be in the thinking department, there is a accumulation of counter-evidences about it…
let me blow your mind…
i agree with an attenuated/anemic version of their conclusions.
but i admit that there is no good reason for my agreement.
the most despicable thing about HBDers is that they think their opinions must be justified by “science”.
they’re cowards.
little girls.
I criticize both reasoning and conclusions—my two things being test construction and test validity. I’ve gotten no good arguments to that other than ‘what do you propose we do then?’. I don’t know. I only critique things. Due to how IQ tests are constructed they’ll 1) always be biased and due to how they’re constructed, one’s true ‘intelligence’ won’t be tested from these tests that you need a lot of assumptions to believe the results and 2) be forced to conform to a normal curve when most phys/psych traits do not, which seriously calls into question the conclusions and assumptions drawn from the psychologists’ imaginary IQ bell curve.
or rather they’re too dumb to see that their “gut” is NOT irrational…NOT…
but their mind can’t find the reason, so they commit the atheist mistake of confusing method and means with reality.
if prof shoe succeeded in breeding super smart humans, then…
i guarantee…
almost all “gut” instincts would have a rational justification.
not rationalizations.
but genuine reason.
Sadly, at the gut level HBD boils down to “you look like an ape, so you probably are one”
I guess Mug of Pee resents the pretext that’s it’s anything more scientific than that.
RR,
i already tell you thousand times who you are…
My big problems about hbders
they are FAKE opposition, ALMOST them are pro-jews, and worst, because differently than a typical SJW who are gullibly stupid to understand reality, most hbders know very well what’s going on, but they don’t care, they are in the side of those who architected all this idiocy [again, idiocy 2.0] and blame neo-leftist cattle. A new strategy…
Yes, they, as well most scientist people love to talk in the name of science, and maybe they are not totally wrong, but the problem is that they are dishonest about their real intentions as well fallible.
Another problem about them is that they love to accuse their supposed ideological opponents to be emotional biased as if they are not…
Recently this crowd of people who love to say [i do this but i’m not the in same boat and this example is one of the reason why] causation is not correlation OR genetic confound embrace with little or nonexistent criticism the new theory about the supposed help of meat consume in the increase of human brain. ALMOST hbders embraced this theory, a very lamarckian-like theory, and with very possible embedded genetic confound…
Remember: Science is about increasing the probability value of statements, than ‘proving’ things per se. The very few things that are ‘proven’ are called laws and even evolution is a theory, not a law.
I would tend to think that the evidence for evolution is similar in nature to HBD. In fact, there is more evidence of HBD if you were willing to travel and observe urban environments with open eyes.
Santo said respecting lesbians right to love is morality. How about incest or bigamy? Those are consensual too.
Can you not take tye proposition that sone peoples ‘disgust tolerance’ is much lower than others eg blue haired gentile sjw cultists? And therefore they could be more moral, not less. Peple that celebrate santos lifestyle are 10 times more likely to welcome barbarians into their coubtry for a reason. The cynical answer is braunwashing the more nuanced answer is many of them also have lower disgust thresholds.
Anonymous conservative has a theory that k selected people are civilisation builders and r selected social liberals are ‘rabits’ dysgenic froth.
And so maybe illucat is right in that some liberals are turkeys voting for christmas.
Thats said about 90% of sjws are brainwashed in some form by our high iq ‘allies’.
”Santo said respecting lesbians right to love is morality. How about incest or bigamy? Those are consensual too.”
This is one of the main piece, DISHONEST or JUST PLAIN STUPID people, namely on the conserv choir, love to use to attack homossexuals, because they love do it anyway, in sadistic ways.
There is something everything have, more or less = BALANCE…
enough is enough.
I’m not against bigamy or polygamy, in perfectly self-aware or fully rational society, people will engage in most of different types of relationships, LESS with nonhuman animals or with children.
Most of human conflicts only happen because mutual misunderstandings of contestant sides AND also by complete lack of REAL dialogues…
But i believe, maybe will be even better if
reproductive rights are completely separated from sexual/romantic rights, BUT with all involved sides very well informed about their rights to both situations and with some power of decision.
But at priori i no have any objection if we have many women who fall in love with only one lucky man and if they are fine to divide him among them. The problem is if this men have some very problematic genes, for example, full blown psychopathy, or in combination with one of his wifes.
mAn
homosexuality should be regarded as an affliction santo. like drug addiction or SCZ.
but not because it’s homosexuality per se.
the point is it results in pointless behavior.
the same is true of promiscuous straights.
it’s a yuge waste of time and energy.
all human appetites which don’t serve a purpose should be viewed as afflictions.
yet homos identify with their appetite. this is the epitome of decadence.
male homosexuals are so promiscuous their behavior really looks like an addiction. what’s his name agreed. and he himself is a homo. misdreavus.
in an ideal world none would be hungry or randy, not because of a surfeit of food and sex, but because the appetites weren’t.
No you mentally retard, because there is many homossexuals who are not obsessive with sex.
It’s just a stupid ”absolute principle of addiction” you are trying create with your imbecile brain…
It’s absolutely nonsense a full blown drunktard talking about addiction as if
your addiction wasn’t addiction
and as if homossexuality was…
Homossexuals don’t need a exterior material thing to be homossexual.
One of the main features of classical addiction is the necessity of exterior artificial or natural material to become addicted: drugs, alcohol, cigarrettes,…
Most non-material-dependent is certain condition, at priori, more natural will be.
Your pseudo-capacity to think is a example of pointless behavior…
Most human behavior is pointless because is recreational, but it’s hugely needed because ”we” have hyper-active and hyper-aware minds…
You even know what affliction is…
– nervous ticks, is a good example.
– alcoholism is another big example.
You just hate endlessly homossexuals, and because i’m one of them, and because my identity make some beast-like people use all ther ignorance about my identity, you are my mortal enemy, in the way, if you have a opportunity you will try to make my life miserable, but reciprocal is true…
Nervous ticks is a good example of ”natural affliction” and in some or even in many homossexuals, it’s true that their homossexuality + other elements in-combination make their lifes more miserable, but it’s never only-homossexuality, what your EVIL MIND of PSEUDO-SELF-DECLARED-GENIUS tried to forge here. Unfortunately you morally imbecile type is very common.
Drunk retarded Quora-genius,
homossexuality is comparable with the type of drink people like…
Alcoholism is itself a addiction//affliction specially prole-people tend to be afflicted, namely masses of east european mujiks…
”Anonymous conservative has a theory that k selected people are civilisation builders and r selected social liberals are ‘rabits’ dysgenic froth.”
Most WHITE liberals have very lower fertility rates and tend to be hyper-conscious or vigilant about have many kids.
He’s wrong just by/starting from this fact. And seems liberals always have less children than conservs.
“love is love” is bullshit.
israel does NOT have a “right to exist”, no country does.
no one has a right to love.
the movie Equals depicts the ideal society.
i’m support the junior anti-sex league even though i have a yuge crush on julia.
julie flyte wasn’t bad either.
interesting i’m a yuge face man. aren’t most men?
a woman with a beautiful face and an ok body is more attractive than a woman with a perfect body and an ok face.
“Anonymous conservative has a theory that k selected people are civilisation builders and r selected social liberals are ‘rabits’ dysgenic froth.”
Anonymous Conservative is a moron. I have fun trouncing his shitty theory into the ground. This is one of many responses to him.
“Anonymous conservative has a theory that k selected people are civilisation builders and r selected social liberals are ‘rabits’ dysgenic froth
I hope he credited Rushton, since Rushton stated in his book published back in the 1990s that K genotypes build civilization and r genotypes destroy them. He argued this may explain the rise and fall of civilizations.
I am not aware if he credited Rushton in his book since I’ve not read it (I have a pdf I can dig up though) but searching “Rushton” on his blog only brings up a response to me. And someone told me that he didn’t reference Rushton once in his book (The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics). Which is bullshit because you know damn well that Rushton influenced that view.
As far as I know, Rushton was the first to even apply the concept of r and K to humans, so not citing him is terrible. If you read page 274-275 of Rushton’s book (quoted below), he relates r and K to the rise and fall of civilization, and in his last sentence, even relates it to your politics (which I think Anonymous Conservative was doing).
The Fertility Paradox
The main theme of this book is that human behavior is determined by a biological imperative to preserve and replicate DNA. The means by which
this will be accomplished will differ as a function of both genetic and ecological circumstance. Only recently has the importance of individual variation in
the control of reproductive behavior begun to be investigated. Previously, it was assumed that fluctuations in population size were essentially an ecological problem, not a genetic one. The application of such analyses to human behavior may be especially novel.
One application of r-K theory is to the “fertility paradox.” Vining (1986) asked why, if the replication of genetically similar genes is as strong a biological imperative as sociobiological theorizing suggests, are so many European populations experiencing negative growth? He reviewed data to show that, apart from a few cohorts who bore their children during the unique period
of rising fertility from 1936 to 1960, there is a characteristically inverse relationship between fertility and “endowment” (wealth, success, and measured aptitudes).
The fertility paradox has been analyzed over centuries. Gobineau (1853-1855) had asked why great civilizations seemed destined to decay. He
considered the reasons put forward by others—decline of religion, fanaticism, corruption of morals, luxury, bad government—and rejected them all on the
evidence of history. Instead he provided an answer in terms of ethnicity and race. The character of a civilization was determined by the traits of the dominant
race, often created by the union of several related tribes. If wealth grows, cities develop, and an international society forms. Among the new arrivals are
persons belonging to ethnic taxa that have never initiated a civilization. Degeneration sets in and the intrinsic worth the people originally possessed becomes
lost, for the population no longer has in its veins the same quality blood with which it began.
R. A. Fisher, who synthesized Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution, also discussed the question of why civilizations decay. In his book The
Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (2nd ed., 1958), he showed that ruling groups fail to reproduce themselves because of low fertility. Fisher (1958)
hypothesized a trade-off between the capacity for economic success and fertility. As discussed, this trade-off is more profound than Fisher realized, being
related to a whole complex of characteristics partly genetic in origin. When there are abundant resources, selection pressures are off and natural selection
favors r-genotypes so that segment of the population expands. Eventually, saturation point is reached and the population crashes (Malthus, 1798). With
selection pressures back on, selection again favors K-genotypes. This occurs with rodents (C. J. Krebs et al., 1973) and a direct parallel is suggested with
humans. With humans the situation is complicated by culture, which must also be taken into account.
If a gene-culture revolutionary framework is correct (Lumsden & Wilson, 1983), then many interesting questions can be raised about the relation
between genes, culture, and population growth. As discussed in chapters 3 and 4, epigenetic rules guide development over the life span, biasing individuals
to learn or to produce those patterns of culture, from the available array, maximally compatible with their genotypes. The consequences, of course,
feed back to affect the gene frequencies of subsequent generations. Given that efficient energy use is a K-strategy (Table 10.1), does metabolic rate covary with body build and a preference for restrained social behavior? Given that colonization is an r-strategy (Table 10.1), are people who frequently move their habitat less K than those who do not? Given that degree of social
organization varies with K (Table 10.1), are people who prefer less-structured interpersonal social systems less K than those organizing themselves into more formal ones? Assuming similar genotypes detect and seek each other out for friendship and marriage (chap. 4), is there social assortment on the K dimension?
And, if people create cultures compatible with their genotypes, are all these tendencies not only related to each other but also to sociopolitical attitudes
(e.g., order vs. freedom) and ultimately, to demographic trends and the very sweep of history?
Gobineau is probably right.
One problem with R/K is that east asians are K selected but always have had gigantic fertility rates and massive numbers of people. This goes back centuries, well before the green revolution.
There are more problems than that…
That aside, Anonymous Conservative is a complete idiot. He says that conservatives are K while liberals are r. But taking Rushton’s reapplication of Pianka’s 1970 r/K continuum (rebutted by Graves 2002) to humans, liberals would be K since they have fewer children and higher IQs in comparison to conservatives who have lower IQs and more children. Though I’ve seen some contest that conservatives have lower IQ due to certain definitions some authors used, they have a lot of low IQ correlates, most important in my opinion being high religiosity.
It completely doesn’t fall into the supposed framework. AC is a clown and doesn’t understand biology. Apparently he is a biologist (named Michael Trust) but I looked for information on him and couldn’t find a thing. So it’s probably not true. He’s just some guy who wrote a book and shills it at the end of his articles. Idealogues like him will never admit they’re wrong ho matter how many response articles I write because they gave a financial incentive to deny it and repeat the same things that have been rebutted.
Oh I agree with you race. I think he gets it wrong on the labelling. As conservatives are much the more violent and tribal (r) and liberals much the more ‘nurturing’ and ‘tolerant’ (k). But he kind of stumbles upon the point Gobineau made which is actually a valid point to me.
You guys are comparing white conservatives to white liberals, but he might be comparing all U.S. liberals (who are largely non-white) to all U.S. conservatives (who are mostly white). I’m not familiar with his work, but perhaps his point is that liberal policies benefit “r selected” races, so minorities tend to vote liberal.
this shows another GLARING aspect of reality which science can never answer by definition.
scientists understand this at one level. not at another.
that is, what effort is worth making?
scientists in the US, at least, must write grant proposals to federal agencies. the states don’t fund science.
most proposals are rejected.
one of the criteria for the federal government agreeing to a given proposals is…
“what’s the use?”
“why should anyone care?”
these are NOT scientific questions.
this is the thing…
a certain threshold of self-understanding is surpassed and…
wanting to be jamie diamond becomes like wanting to be the belle of the bathhouse.
stupid.
specifically…
if alcoholism, cocaine, heroin, etc. addiction didn’t shorten one’s life…
there’d be no legit reason to classify them as pathologies.
but they do reduce life expectancy, are dangerous.
here the naturalistic fallacy shows itself.
that is, the assumption that:
what is bad, ineffective, inferior, punished, etc. at a particular place and time by a particular human society or by nature herself…
is bad ABSOLUTELY.
nature could be otherwise than she is.
santo could have a vagina.
if george best could have a new liver, then santo can have a vagina.
and back in the day it was pele and george best.
he was drunk when he played.
my ape proportions were perfectly suited to soccer. as fast as a nolan ryan fastball over very short distances.
but this is what matters in soccer.
this is why teams of whites can still TROUNCE the teams from black africa. one reason of many.
this isn’t just me pontificating.
the black advantage in the sprints simply doesn’t exist at very short distances. like 50m and shorter. just look at sprints fucktards.
the ONLY reasonable conclusion is…
RR is gay.
sad!
it’s pavarotti vs gigli vis a vis nessun dorma.
rr is pro pavaortti.
THE TRUTH…
gigli is better…the best…ever.
gay vs straight…it’s the same but different?
NO!
the first lines express it.
When a man loves a woman
Can’t keep his mind on nothin’ else
He’d trade the world
For a good thing he’s found…
all of my genuine bouts of insanity have been occasioned by my sexual appetite.
you have no idea santo.
it’s emasculating.
she’s in control.
even though she doesn’t know it.
it’s as if some women were heroin dealers.
so you survive.
all that pain.
and you become a Cynic.
percy sledge is at a lower level.
a lower level.
best is an example.
there me be other problems, but…
alcoholic liver disease is impossible in an aerobic athlete.
no matter how much he drinks.
ENTIRE AND ENDLESS BULLSHIT BY THIS MISTER PSEUDO-GENIUS HERE…
I no have more strenghts to fight at daily basis with this mentally challenged ”man”…
1968 When Americans Got Very Very Angry
The tendency of people to imbibe cult preachings is way too universal to be considered a bug in logic. It must be a feature of human thinking and I suppose the meta reason for it is group solidarity. Lets be clear – religion is needed for civilisation to happen. But if you take the idea religious founders and early cultists are psychopaths its quite confusing to suggest so. And so Dawkins and that would say civilisation would be stronger or have happened faster without it (I think thats what they would say anyway).
This is one area where Hitchens was lucid enough to give an honest account – that a world that never created religion is possibly more intolerable than a world that went too far on religion.
These questions about morality are kind of whispers in the wind as the vast majority of humans in history joined cults. And so, its a bit of a tree in the forest situation as some could credibly say if everyone else has a cult brainwashing disorder, it simply makes survival sense to adopt the rituals and practices. And so 3 difficult situations happen to the ‘truly moral’:
(a) They never get to practice their morality and test it in real world situations for refinement.
(b) Morality is a function of other peoples behaviours at times and if other people are brainwashed, it can be hard to set principles.
(c) One of these principles may be to respect peoples religious beliefs e.g social justicism.
My personal stance now after some incidents and experiences is not to deprogramme people. For example, I will not try to talk my muslim friend in Singapore ‘out of it’ now. Things like SJW aren’t around long enough for people to be executed for questioning it so its fair game though.
Ok, a clarification. Maybe a slave religion is needed for civilisation to happen? Warrior religions like the aztecs or islam seem to get worse results or is that just the inherent nature of the people?
Santo keeps banging on about ‘self awareness’. If someone told you that 95% of the worlds people in all of human history found a certain set of sexual behaviours punishable by executions, you would say ‘boy, i bet they wont be doing that again’.
Again
i don’t understood the failled lines of stupid reasoning…
Well pumpkin is half right that morality is functional to protect the tribe and develop co operative instincts and that.
But Robert is right that it is kind of objective and not objective like colours.
~A big question in philosophy is whether colours are objective. And a main argument is that people agree on colours. This is not a good argument. For example, some people are colour blind.
If you can prove colours are objective, I think you can start talking about morality being objective. I think they are a similar category of phenomenon, but maybe morality is a bit blurrier….more like good hearing or aesthetic taste.
Aesthetic taste is usually obvious. For example fashion sense.
I can’t bring myself to care about this, I’m not emotionally attached to any of this figures and it’s misguided to idolize the talking heads anyway, not to mention that it was completely obvious to anyone who cared to look that these powerful people would abuse their positions for sex.
But I’ve got good news! I got an interview at Oxford University for Law, it will be taking place this December.
these figures*
You should get it. People bash elitism in the UK, but should be aware that Oxbridge is a lot more meritocratic than the US of Israel. From walking around both towns on day trips. I would guess they don’t like affirmative action either.
Oxbridge old boys club get UK out of Greater USSR of Europe comrade. Subversive toff kulaks know how their bread is buttered. Maybe hope for UK after all.
I would more or less consider Reagan an adherent to the Satanic Star, but Thatcher had her moments of patriotism. Who can forget her EU wars? Those were possibly the reason she had to go.
Im almost certain the reason Berlusconi was pilloried and harrassed by the judiciary was his anti immigrant stances. When you consider a corrupt dog like Berlusconi can’t get judges off his back in Italy, it shows the poor of the Satanic Star is manifold complex.
“In social science, there has been a dispute between “essentialist” and “constructionist” views of homosexuality. The debate divides those who believe that terms such as “gay” and “straight” refer to objective, culturally invariant properties of persons from those who believe that the experiences they name are artifacts of unique cultural and social processes. “Essentialists” typically believe that sexual preferences are determined by biological forces, while “constructionists” assume that sexual desires are learned.[47] The philosopher of science Michael Ruse has stated that the social constructionist approach, which is influenced by Foucault, is based on a selective reading of the historical record that confuses the existence of homosexual people with the way in which they are labelled or treated”
When people call Foucalt a ‘philosopher’ I sometimes scream.
When people say homosexuality is a spectrum, you then get into the territory of arguing some men will have sex with men if they are good looking enough or in the right circumstances. Maybe it happens. Maybe you could say prison, or the navy or upper class gone wild cases like Athens and Rome…
I do believe that bisexuality does exist though.
In Talmudic literature, the ancient Egyptians are known for their liberal sexual lifestyles and are often used as the prime example of sexual debauchery. Rashi describes an Egyptian practice for women to have multiple husbands. Maimonides refers to lesbianism as “the acts of Egypt”. While polyandry and lesbianism are characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, male-male homosexual relationships are usually attributed to Sodom, Gomorrah, and Amalek.
Apparently Wiki says the abrahamic faiths brought hatred of homosexuality to the modern world. As I am an open minded person, perhaps Santo is right that we are somewhat conditioned to hate it, or at least not be ambivalent.
Ive had some gay friends in my life and wouldn’t be very aggressive about my views. Would I be very disappointed if I had a gay son though? 100% I mean, just imagine if you found out your dad was gay. Man.
I throw up in my mouth seeing yet another diversity advertisement. Turn on your tv. I never watch tv, but if my dad watches it 24/7 and every ad has a black person. In this country there is sth like 1% black population. Its incredible.
Chris Montez=legend.
Whoever did the musical arrangement for Chris is a genius. I prefer this to the pure jazz versions of the song.
Something wildly attractive about her. Real rockstar.
PP do you have IQ estimates for GCSE?
No i haven’t looked into it, why?
Someone on twitter claimed you can’t derive IQ scores from GCSE data. I go to you for statistical things.
Well IQ’s not an exact science. Any test with a fairly high g loading (0.7+) can be roughly considered an IQ test. It’s simply matter of converting the scores to a normal curve where (white) americans have a mean and SD of 100 and 15 respectively.