The brilliant Bruno writes:
Chomsky has much more than 125 and a huge creativity ability. In linguistics theory, he is a master . Like Gärdenfors or Davidson for semantics. And Stalnaker for syntax .
This reminds me that I promised I would do an article on Noam Chomsky’s IQ.
Chomsky is arguably the most academically successful Jew of his generation. In 1992, MIT news reported:
Recent research on citations in three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years.
In fact, his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that period and the eighth most cited source overrall–just behind famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel.
Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten cited sources during the period were: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero.
In 2005 he was voted the World’s top public intellectual.
Chomsky is part of the Silent Generation, one of the 58 million Americans born from 1925 to 1945. In 2013 it was estimated that Jews are 3.3% of U.S. adults, if Jewish is defined as having at least one Jewish parent or being raised Jewish, even if you now have another religion. Only 55% of this 3.3% is Jewish by religion.
We don’t know how many Americans were Jewish in Chomsky’s day, but in 1957, 3.2% of Americans 14 or older were Jewish by religion, and assuming even back then, Jews by religion were 55% of the Jewish population, then the total Jewish population was 5.8% of America.
Assuming they were also 5.8% of the Silent Generation, and assuming Chomsky is the most academically successful Jew of his generation, that puts him in the top one in 3.4 million level among U.S. Jews in academic success. If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and academic success, and assuming Jews have the same IQ variance as Whites, this would imply Chomsky’s IQ is 75 points higher than the average U.S. Jew. Today the correlation between IQ and academic success is only about 0.55, but in the mid-20th century, when Chomsky was coming of age, it was a potent 0.7 and was likely about the same in the Jewish population.
A 0.7 correlation implies that instead of Chomsky being 75 IQ points smarter than the average Jew, as a perfect correlation predicts, he’d be 75(0.7) = 53 points smarter than the average Jew. On a scale where the white mean is set at IQ 100 (Standard Deviation = 15), U.S. Jews average about 110, making Chomsky’s expected IQ 163, with a 95% confidence interval of 142 to 184.
Why are Ashkenazi IQs so high? Gregory Cochran, Jason Harding, and Henry Harpending cite sphingolipid diseases in the Ashkenazi gene pool and claim these mutations increase the length and branching of neurons in Ashkenazi brains. As many as 2% of Israeli Ashkenazim are in high IQ occupations, but an incredible 15% of Israeli Gaucher patients are. This suggests Gaucher patients are 1 standard deviation above the Israeli Ashkenazi mean in occupational status. If one assumes Gaucher disease caused these high occupations via increased IQ, then the 0.7 correlation between IQ and occupation implies this disease increased IQ by 1.43 standard deviations (21 points) for occupation to have increased by 0.7(1.43 SD) = 1 SD.
Of course these results need to be replicated in more numerous and diverse samples before any causal inferences are made.
My personal opinion is that yes, Ashkenazim are smarter than whites, but that the gap is inflated by their hyper-intellectual culture, giving them an unfair advantage on IQ tests. On a truly culture reduced IQ test (that could somehow measure verbal ability without culture bias), I think they’d score 5 points higher than whites, instead of the 10 point advantage they enjoy on conventional tests. Thus, my best guess is Chomsky’s true IQ is 5 points lower than estimated above: 158, not 163.
Given that Chomsky is now 89, it would be absolutely fascinating to give him a version of the WAIS. Unlike brilliant young adults who have their IQ scores limited by ceiling bumping, the WAIS-R had an astonishing ceiling of IQ 185 for 70-74 year olds, so just imagine how much ceiling you could get at Chomsky’s age.
Now that I’ve discussed Chomsky’s intelligence, here’s Chomsky discussing Neanderthal intelligence:
Minor corrections were made to this article on Feb 14, 2018
Pumpkin Person 
this should be a post.
“animal vs human” MMA
peepee may know that a giraffe can kick a human head “clean off”.
it’s happened.
kick!
head rolling.
the list peepee found is interesting. Arts and Humanities might be renamed “bullshitology”.
The top ten cited sources during the period were: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero.
hegel and chomsky and lenin are on marx’s coattails.
Seems like a good list to me…
yahoo images AGAIN.
So HANDSOME!!
before charlie rose was exposed as a pervert…
he did an interview with some jew…
the jew said…
Solzhenitsyn had a yuge soul.
i can understand why women are drawn to me.
it is bigger than average but not much more.
read it!
you’d be surprised how UN-believably good it is.
funny thing about richard spencer.
he’s just horrible…but some white women get hard for him.
Apparently the pope was a committed marxist in his youth. I actually think marxism/communism is probably the closest political ideology to new testament Christianity as one could find so its funny seeing tradcons call the pope a ‘communist’ when thats basically what jesus was arguing for.
Jesus did not even know what the industrial revolution was so how could those two things be related? communism only pretends to protect workers rights and makes everyone the same under one party. Consumerism is supposed to diversify the products made so people do not get bored. Toys R Us being one example. How could Jesus be against Toys R Us?
You simplify thing way too much when it comes to what modern Jesus would believe and think.
Name a political ideology that is closer to jesus preachings then. I can’t.
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
eye of the need has been translated to mean the gate of the temple one translation I may be mistaken, camels were unclean in the temple.
but yes if millions were not killed by communism Jesus would love Marx
Jesus would love the pope to is millions were not burned by them.
the end times are near philosopher the final Donald trumpet has sounded.
Trump was president and was 70 years old 70 after Israel was acknowledged by the U.N. as a nation. Some believe this represents the 70 weeks of Daniel. (year = week)
The Mayan calendar puts the 7-year treaty from 2012 to 2019. June 3, 2016 being the 3 and 1/2 years midpoint tribulation. The 1,260 days.
Bla Bla Bla These are my weird beliefs and I had weird experiences.
I hope pumpkin do not redact them. But I do must respect pumpkins blog.
both christianity and stoicism developed from Cynicism. the capital “C” is important, because Cynicism as philosophy is different from modern “cynicism”.
to what extent was marx influenced by Cynicism, stoicism, or christianity? probably zero, but his thought isn’t opposed to them either.
I wonder if the Pope is HBD aware. I doubt it. But Latin Americans tend to be a lot more au fait with it than westerners. I could be wrong, but my impression of white black relations in brazil is that it is basically the same in America but without jewish sanitation of blacks image i.e. people treasure black athletes and singers and that but also see blacks can be dangerous or not fit to vote for to head political office.
People in the alt right keep saying the jews want brazil. But I don’t actually think brazil is post racial like that at all.
My limited knowledge of white-native relations in latin america is that the conquistador whites more or less see natives and mestizos as second class citizens. But from what I can tell normal people get on with them. Bolivia and Venezuala have had native political leadership. I think a couple of central american places as well.
Latin America is an interesting ‘what if’ scenario of how races would interact with each other without high IQ vipers whispering in every childs ear what to think.
I actually don’t think race relations are that bad without constant brainwashing. Natives and blacks tend to do ok.
I think Peru has had asian latino leaders as well.
The one people that are a pain in the ass to SJWs are asians because they are upwardly mobile and are a non white minority that tend to have socially conservative views. They also tend not to whine about handouts and ‘equality’ or Oscars. Jews must despise asians.
Latin american left wing leaders all seem to be legit. i.e. they really are for the people. None of them strike me as astroturf leftists like [redacted by pp, feb 18, 2018] or Renzi or Blair. This might be because inequality in latin america is pretty stark and almost heriditary or caste like like India.
India is also pretty socialist actually. I remember having a conversation in London with an Indian guy in the pub about his country and he said socialism ruined India. If I had to bet, I would say it helped a lot of very poor indians not die even though they are at the malthusian frontier.
Its kind of interesting the way socialism is more de rigeur in fairly equal places like Scandanavia and very unequal places like Latin America.
I think the common denonominator that predicts socialism is not starting gini co efficients or land/wealth distribution. For example Finland is more socialist today than Russia….
If you had to say what makes India, Denmark and Bolivia alike, what would one say it was?
The french are historically the most pro socialist of all major European countries. This is well recorded by Ferguson in his various books on Europe. All the aristocrats hated France or seen it as a problem child, even with the Bourbon restoration.
What is it about France?
Why would the average french person believe in universalism more than a German or Italian?
You could maybe argue the French inherit a lot of Nordic genes with the Normans. But obviously Germany/Austria would have that too and they largely had a fairly stodgy aristocratic rule right up to the 50s.
So now we have another case study
India, Bolivia, Denmark, 18th/19th century France.
What do they have in common. Hmmm.
If you can figure it out, you get the gold medal in marxist anthropology. Marxist anthropology is probably an oxymoron as the official line is that race doesn’t matter. But knowing what Marx himself wrote, I would imagine he would think along HBD lines as well for answers to this question. Marx is acutely aware of why jews are good capitalists. So perhaps the reciprocal of a jewish capitalist is theoretically the perfect socialist .i.e an ‘anti-jew’. What would constitute ‘anti-jewness?’ I think if you think about this as a concept you might be able to solve the marxist secret sauce problem.
In my opinion, you have to answer why socialism takes off in some countries more than others. Why some proles tend to organise and become open to these ideas much more rapidly than others. Why the French and not Austrians/Venetians/Spanish/Russia etc etc
Its not even strictly HBD related either. I keep saying east asians are submissive to Master, but they had a communist revolution in China and Vietnam. Recently there was the socialist redshirt movement in Thailand and the millitary took power violently on behalf of the aristocracy.
But if you are an anthropologist you have to be asking yourself why this group of apes fight for more equal distribution than that group.
Marx himself implied that it was a logical necessity that the proletariat revolted as the capitalists would reduce living standards and living conditions to farm animal level or de facto slavery.
So maybe another log on the fire you could add is does it depend on how close to the frontier of marginal return on capital the capitalist class is at before theres a breaking point?
Or is there an underlying series of ‘pull’ factors in a populace that lend itself to revolt. The scandies never had road to wigan pier levels of poverty before they adopted socialism.
Maybe a bit of both.
If this is the case, for America to have another fordist compromise it would require (a) american living standards to continue to plummet and (b) certain socio-cultural-genetic factors in its populace (c) some sort of X factor.
Chairman Mao doesn’t exist because the chinese are particularly rebellious. We know that much.
government spending is 36% of gdp in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP
of developed countries only switzerland spends less, 34%. govt never shrinks.
this is just federal govt spending:
the revolution has happened already.
the only constant in human affairs is change. “social science” is an oxymoron.
Japan adopted a lot of welfare state policies despite being very aristocratic. You could argue closed borders is also a type of welfare state policy for workers as well.
Japan is pretty close to a fascist paradise as far as I can see. People say ‘fascism was a failure’, and they refuse to acknowledge how Japan became as rich as Western white euro countries under facism.
Suppose you could say Indonesia never prospered under fascism and Suharto.
Singapore I have argued is a modern fascist country. You have to be really straining credibility to argue the Singaporean economy isn’t managed like Mussolini and Hitler did. It also has all the jingoism, compulsory millitary service, defence spending and elitist media and social control. Im pretty sure homosexuality is banned there.
I lived in Singapore for a year. The PM is the son of the former 35 year PM. Its a hereditary aristocracy masquerading as a democracy.
I think thats why the Chinese elite study it so much.
Funny how chinese communism morphs into fascism in time.
Technically speaking as [redacted by pp, feb 18, 2018], I am a lot closer to fascism than liberalism or libertarianism.
Notice how I have put forward an intellectual case for fascism from an exploration of marxism.
it’s disneyland with the death penalty.
results matter. theory doesn’t matter unless it gets results.
The left right political spectrum is essentially the flat earth theory of politics. In fact, the political spectrum is nothing more than deviations in a radius from a ‘steady state’. In my opinion, this steady state is feudalism/plutocracy/hereditism. Moves away from Pharaoh are in the long run futile. It is a natural law . Its something coded into the system. The pigs become the barons and lords.
I sometimes wonder whether human reason is a waste of time in light of natural law. For example, you might remember I mentioned natural law in respect to sexuality. A man can rationalise all he wants, but a man never wants a gay son all else being equal.
The philosophers are pretty divided on this question of ‘natural law’ I think. If you are religious/theistic you should tend to side with natural law. And if you are aspergery you should see no reason why humans should justify not following natural law for whatever reason they want.
I am a social conservative in the sense I think deviation from natural law is not only wrong but futile. But I need to be open to the idea my economic liberalism is also a futile deviation from natural law.
The idea that reason is a waste of time is the most idiotic theory I’ve ever heard. Reason is what makes us human. Without it we’d still be swinging from the trees. Stop blaming all the World’s problems on autistics; they only influence science and high tech. It’s non-autists that work in public policy.
I suppose it’s fair to blame autistics for economic policy and perhaps the financial crisis, but non-autistics are to blame for the Iraq war and mass immigration (both as masters and servants)
People have a moral side to them. Trump believes in right and wrong and that is why he became president. Philosopher sees moral laws as the instinct needed as black guy in the jungle needed not to be killed by other black guys. He sees Trump as not getting politically murdered by dominating others politically. But this leaves philosopher open to accusations of predatory nature being good and Autists being prey bad. A total psychopath is a bad thing but philosopher still things I don’t get that. I am a pretty nice guy but I am not interested in dominating like trump not being a weasel like Hillary nor am I autistic nor am I a clown like Philosopher. Pretty much I see through people because I do not play their game. It is hard for Philosopher to understand something exists other than the instinct to dominate. But it includes that instinct. It is why domestication is possible. It is possible to tame animals with the domination instinct. But only if you are tame yourself. A savage cannot tame a savage.
Thats enough political philosophy for today.
Lets try theology: If natural law is so, is God closer in intention to Conan the Barbarian/Genghis Kahn or Mary Poppins?
John Milius is a theist. He might say he is an athiest. But that quote is a theistic quote.
I have seen God.
If you you had to pick which God is a more accurate reflection of our reality’s creator one would say:
He is a lot closer to the Old Testament god in nature and intention than the new testament god.
THATS A FACT PEOPLZ.
You said blacks follow natural law.
What about whites and East Asians.
If that is the way the world really works why are we all not dead yet?
Do you think China will be world superpower after America?
Jordan Peterson says that what makes the difference is resentment. The farmers in Russia were killed because they were the scapegoat of the resentment of the workers (proletariat). They were told that the farmers were the bourgeois and so were killed and the grains stollen. In China, the bourgeois was anyone with glasses. The resentful were told who to blame and they took actions.
This is stupid because of scapegoating and scapegoating on imaginary persecution.
If Japan is fascist and the system works it is because it is seen as fair. Fair as in order is maintained and anyone that pipes up is against the order so is not being fair. In America, its called obeying the rules and loyalty. Order is valued. Liberal thought would not call that fairness at all.
Liberals value (Care, Fairness) above all else.
Conservatives value the ones below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.
I am sure I do not know why socialism works in some countries and not others but I am also sure that stupid things happen all the time like how in South America price controls lead to economic crises because (caveman say capitalism bad ug ug). Kill all people with glasses because they are bourgeois ug ug. Stupid shit like that.
“If Japan is fascist and the system works it is because it is seen as fair. Fair as in order is maintained and anyone that pipes up is against the order so is not being fair. ”
So is a system viable (a) whether it is fascist or communist or democratic inherently?
Or is the system viable merely because it is seen as fair (b)?
You can make a cute argument and say democracy is inherently ‘fairer’ than the fasces. But I would say democracy has shown it reverts to plutocracy and fascism in the long run…and so isn’t viable.
Criteria (a)>(b)
Japan are the ones that got it right
[redacted by pp, feb 18, 2018]
bourgeois
my commentary was that Japan sees itself as fair but American liberals would say in America it would be unfair.
Churchill said ‘all systems of government are bad, democracy is the least bad’.
Name one democracy with mass franchise that has lasted longer than 100 years.
Yes, Switzerland . It is a democracy since at least 1000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland
Can’t you see? Larva is to butterfly as democracy is to feudalism.
I.e. My son is gay and I accept him and support him and hope he will lead a happy life. …..Please god dont make my next son gay as well.
NATURAL LAW.
I am not saying natural law is ‘morally right’. Whatever that means. But I suggest if you want to deviate from it, the empirical track record suggests it won’t let you no matter what you believe to be ‘morally right’ or ‘efficient’ or ‘viable’.
GETITITITITITITITTITITITITITITIT
Philosopher how do you reconcile your support for natural law with your opposition to capitalism? Greed & inequality are natural and so is the tendency for some to monopolize resources at the expense of others.
Is physics to engineering what natural law is to public policy?
CAN YOU DIG IT?
I want to deviate from natural law. Here is my reason. Here is my coat. Here is my wallet. Here is my equation. Here is my philosophy.
You might as well be talking to a tree.
Reason is a
(a) Process
(b) Result
(c) Order
Think carefully.
My philosophy professor says I am not doing real philosophy right now. I need to TO KNOW CANN AA U UNNAASTANDA DUH WUDZ THATTAA COMMAA OUTT MAH MOUFFF. CLAP IF YES PLEASE.
Pumpkin=homosexual.
Social intelligence question:
Is Rob Reiner psychopathic?
“All you have to do Tucker is agree, whether you agree with Rod Rosenstein or not?”
You can’t write this shit.
He does not look dead inside.
He is not a psychopath.
He’s a sociopath.
He says he is not saying Trump is a traitor to our country but he says trump is not protecting our country and a traitor does not stand up for their country.
This gave me a bad headache.
Sociopaths are so manipulative with the social intelligence psychopaths do not have.
I am not saying but trump is guilty but Trump should start doing the right thing.
I’m getting headaches again.
I am not saying Trump is guilty but Trump should start doing the right thing.
I’m getting headaches again.
I agree with Rod Rosenstein.
Im going to put that on a t shirt.
What is ‘reason’?
Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you.
No really, you shouldn’t. You’ve been a great audience.
ENCORE. ENCORE
And good night.
….Sometimes. Im so brilliant. IT HURTS
GOD DAMN IM GOOD.
IM GOOD.
IM GOOD
WHOS YO BOYFRIEND
WHOS YO BOYFRIEND