please place all off-topic comments for the week here. They will not be posted in the main articles.
Black national merit finalist GondwanaMan mentioned a study correlating pupil size with IQ but since it was too off-topic to in the previous thread, I thought I’d mention it here.
Pumpkin Person 
http://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
“120-129 — Above average
Capable of gathering and inferring own information. Master degrees. Attorney, chemist, executive. About 93 % of high-range test candidates score I.Q. 120 or higher.”
This is Afrosapiens. He can gather and infer his own information. That’s about it.
What’s this based on?
Nothing [it’s baseless], I just thought it was funny.
…”it’s baseless”…
Bad assumption.
It’s a just-so story, so yes, it isn’t real science. Just presumptions.
What’s the basis?
Try just doing half of that.
will you bottom for me afro? i want to pop my sweet cherry inside you.
110-119 — Above average
Able to learn in “college” format.
That doesn’t say much?
Additional clarification: above the range needed to wipe one’s own ass and shovel food into one’s own mouth.
Hellz yeah
Gondwana man, even people less than eighty IQ can function in modern society. If they were not able to sub-eighty IQ ‘societies’ would not have even existed.
Where do these claims come from?
guys he was making a joke
My dad can’t even spell basic sentences or do any high school math and has no interests or hobbies outside of watching tv all day. He was born in poverty to an alcoholic but still ended up in the middle class by joining the army.
I think the level of intelligence you would have to be at before you are ‘impaired’ and can’t even be a construction worker or service employee must be be much lower than 80.
I was at the train station last week and saw a group of people who were special needs (you can tell by their physiognomy). They looked happy together. There are much worse fates in life than to be born with low intellect in my opinion. There are many things about the world I would rather not know.
I’ve been fired 15 times and live in a basement and I can do much more than my dad intellectually.
I live in the twilight zone.
“It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears, and the summit of his knowledge.”
In an alternate reality, JFK isn’t killed by the deep state and america continues its path under the Fordist Compromise and the 1950s/60s continues without the (((financial sector))) becoming a terminal parasite on the middle class, or the gentile ruling class doesn’t decide to recreate Latin America in North America.
Watching the twilight zone makes me sad because the suburban american dream portrayed in some of the episodes seems so far away now. The twilight zone is my favourite show because it depicted utopia, or as close as man has come to utopia on planet earth in its non-bizarre sequences.
In utopia, the people aren’t treated like farm animals and induced chemically and psychologically to be baser versions of what they could be by their elites predation.
The key political philosophy question is “how to we make sure elites aren’t predators”.
People tried revolutions, wars of independence against colonial powers, religion, and technology.
But there seems to be a tendency in civilised social systems towards feudalism/oligarchy whether you choose bolshevism or ‘free market’ capitalism.
So the question becomes, how do we ensure these elites aren’t psychopathic like they are now.
I genuinely think an elite formed from warriors is much better than elite formed from merchants. I’d rather my elites be jocks/preps than devious gamma males.
That’s about how well 80% of people on this site function. I would guess about 15% score above 130 and a few percentage points score below 120.
*note– I don’t think this could make a normal distribution, but the IQ of a sub-pop like this wouldn’t necessarily be normal
*I also remember Pumpkin made an article about IQ of commenters on this site a while ago. I should look it up
Anyhow a 120-129 IQ is perfectly respectable. It’s about where I’m at, and it’s also the IQ of most CEOs at nonFortune 500 companies (Fortune 500 ones score slightly higher).
People at IQ 125 can learn and perform the vast majority of functions required to survive in a modern society. They wont necessarily be math whizzes but they can achieve an undergraduate level of math ability (3.5 GPA at third-tier school). They avoid practically all the horrors low-IQ ghetto people face. They wont get locked up, have babies out of wedlock, or get shot up in a drive-by because they were forced to live in a bad neighborhood. They will mostly be middle to upper-middle class.
Will that make them geniuses? No. They wont understand a lot of theoretical science stuff. But it’s 120-129 IQ people who make most of the decisions in this world.
SO DON’T PUT US DOWN!!!
Your ability for critical thinking is appallingly low.
This is also where I estimate Afrosapiens IQ. It would be much higher in verbal and much lower in performance.
IQ-ism—the attempt to correlate anything and everything possible to IQ, hoping one will stick.
When given thing have a central nature why not*
The problem indeed is when all the debates are reduced to: IQ
You’re in the kingdom of IQism, and Pimp is one of most insufferable IQist of all.
A interesting and depressive feature of most IQist is that
– they appear to understand less IQ than actually they believe, and i’m talking about some very important issues about this subject,
– Intelligence-experts understand better about IQ [even less than the ideal range] than about intelligence [whatever it is],
– they lies all the time when someone press them to admit that they really believe in the hyper-carthesian hierarchy: ”someone with a IQSCORE around 140 is ABSOLUTELY smarter than someone with a [”total”] IQSCORE around 110”, and they even prove this ALL THE TIME when they deny any validity of ”other theories” of the same stuff.
So, it’s not just a matter of ignorance [don’t know/don’t care] or stupidity [don’t know why/how] but also a matter of intellectual dishonesty [”maybe you’re right but i’m proud enough about myself to accept my mistakes and grow”].
They deny any remote validity of something about ”multiple’ intelligence’s; emotional intelligence and or learning styles, i say ANY, and i don’t think i’m too strawman here.
About learning styles for example.
We know there are people with different levels of latent inhibition, the ”capacity’ to filter the information or sensorial stimuli from environment…
People who have lower latent inhibition may have hard time to study, i mean, MEMORIZE, in low voice.
There are very interesting stuff about that series EAST AND WEST, about ”cultural” differences between east asians and westerners, aka, white europeans. And it’s exactly about ”learning style”. Because east asians tend to be better to became concentrated in given task than westerners, so they find study in low voice better than with high/loud voice and the opposite for westerners. Seems a latent inhibition is another possible thing to explain averages racial differences, where black subsaharians would be more prone to have lower latent inhibition than white europeans and than east asians.
And maybe it’s could be useful to think in new strategies in schooling for different levels of latent inhibition, i hope to not ”increase grades” but the quality of understanding.
There are many other categorical differences among us for example, abstract versus concrete thinkers. I often teach kids& teens and brazilian school books in my view believe average brazilian students are capable to understand difficult language, without into account that tasks or exercises which aren’t well formuled or easily understood.
i mean ”features”.
And it has been successful.
No
Yes.
lmao
Nope. It tests social class.
More specifically, cultural distance from the middle class.
Which of course will reflect experience dependent changes on the neocortex and subsequently intelligence.
But they don’t test intelligence and there’s no construct validity and no pfit isn’t construct validity. So if you score lower then good chance you’re not near the middle class. It’s clear that these tests test distance to the middle class. Not ‘intelligence’.
“But they don’t test intelligence and there’s no construct validity and no pfit isn’t construct validity.”
PFIT is construct validity, IQ tests are the best measure of intelligence.
“PFIT is construct validity, IQ tests are the best measure of intelligence.”
no and no.
‘a test is valid if it measures what it should measure’—Boomsma et al, 2009
how do you know IQ tests ‘measure what it should measure’? p-fit is not that answer to that question. It’s cute that you think it’s concurrently a ‘theory of intelligence’ and ‘validity’ but things dont work like that.
but ill play along. ill accept any ‘theory’ or ‘validity’ for the purpose of this conversation.
what nonobvious, novel predictions does the ‘theory of IQ’ make?
rr doesn’t understand what “construct validity” means.
people who score high on IQ tests will have been judged aforehand “smarter” ALWAYS.
that’s construct validity.
the degree to which a test measures what it claims, or purports, to be measuring.
it is subjective, just like the beauty of italian women.
afro prefers libyan women.
“no and no.”
Yes and Yes.
“but things dont work like that.”
They do work like that, I Substantiated my claim and have provided enormous amounts of evidence. Still waiting 🙂
“what nonobvious, novel predictions does the ‘theory of IQ’ make?”
….. IQ is a measurement not a theory, nice try though.
That’s not construct validity
And I mean the theory of intelligence/IQ. What nonobvious, novel predictions does it make? You say there’s a theory well what does it predict that’s nonobvious?
“That’s not construct validity”
It is, More efficient pathways in communication between brain regions is hypothesized to be the cause of our superior intelligence, relative to other apes. Psychological testing does not require a 1:1 construct validity, so if your position is that this non perfect prediction invalidates the measurement, you would be incorrect, hence why Pumpkin suggested a test involving simply pressing a button, because it minimizes practice, and chance effects.
“the theory of intelligence/IQ.”
You mean PFIT? Why would the predictions need to be obvious?
PFIT states:
“General intelligence requires specific brain regions and incorporates:
Sensory processing, primarily in the visual and auditory modalities, including specific temporal and parietal areas
Sensory abstracting and elaboration by the parietal cortex (especially the supramarginal, superior parietal, and angular gyri)
Interaction between the parietal cortex and frontal lobes for hypothesis testing available solutions
Response selection and inhibition of competing responses by the anterior cingulate
This theory proposes that greater general intelligence in individuals results from the greater communication efficiency between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, parietal lobe, anterior cingulate cortex, and specific temporal and parietal cortex regions.”
The predictions of course, have been tested and verified:
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/135/4/1154/358258
“It is, More efficient pathways in communication between brain regions is hypothesized to be the cause of our superior intelligence, relative to other apes.”
Using IQ tests (the construct to be validated) and brain imaging shows that the tests are ‘valid’. How does that make any sense at all? Furthermore, experience-dependency also matters, as I’m sure you know since you’ve been ranting on it recently. All of Richardson’s and Norgate’s points on Jung and Haier’s thesis still stands. Epigenetics doesn’t help your argument—it, in fact, helps the one I push.
“You mean PFIT? Why would the predictions need to be obvious?”‘
Whichever ‘theory’ you propose, what nonobvious novel predictions does it make? Are obvious or nonobvious predictions better? Why or why not?
“The predictions of course, have been tested and verified”
What ‘predictions’? Novel predictions are the cornerstone of scientific realism. Are you a scientific realist or antirealist? If they’re obvious predictions (like what you just cited to me) then that’s irrelevant. Novel predictions that are nonobvious matter. The generation of novel facts from said theory/hypothesis is what matters. (This is the reason why CWT and all of evolutionary psychology are just-so stories, but that’s for another day.)
By the way the test administered was the WAIS-III…
“How does that make any sense at all?”
Well when you bastardize the wording and dont even attempt to understand it, then yes it doesn’t make sense.
Two identical IQ tests can be given to one individual, and the scores could still vary. This is why 1:1 repeatability is not required for Psychological tests. Furthermore, You must first define intelligence, If I define it as the efficiency of communication between brain regions(which I guarantee you most researchers would agree with), and then i design tests that gauge your ability to problem solve with sensory data(the aforementioned traits I stated IQ tests test for) and then it turns out that they do predict this connectivity with reasonable accuracy, then yes IQ tests have Construct validity. It doesn’t matter when each particular parameter was invented first. Because it’s already vindicated that human brain morphology differs incredibly from any other mammal:
“In one layer of the human primary visual cortex, nerve cells were organized in a complex meshlike pattern very different from the simpler vertical arrays of cells in other primates. At about the same time, Hof and associates (3) rediscovered a slender tapered neuron, labeled VEN, in both human and ape. Humans, however, have many more VENs than apes; individual VENs are markedly larger; and those in the human are located in only two parts of the brain: the anterior cingulate cortex and the frontoinsular cortex (4). Both of these structures appear to be involved in complex social emotion/cognition such as empathy, feelings of guilt, and embarrassment.
The human reorganization of the brain affected even the minicolumn—80–100 neurons bundled vertically that supports parallel processing—which is the basic unit of information processing in all mammalian brains. Human minicolumns in the left planum temporale, an area involved in language and perhaps music, are organized differently than those of chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys (5). They are far wider, an average of 51 μm compared with 36 μm in the chimpanzees and monkeys. The increase is due to an enlarged neuropil space, which contains the axons, dendrites, and synapses that make neural connections ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/35/13861
“Epigenetics doesn’t help your argument”
It does if you actually know what my thesis is. Do you?
“If they’re obvious predictions”
How were those obvious? It’s an explanation, but it’s still tested and confirmed, whilst being vindicated by many other studies. Also it seems more about how you extrapolate the data, Like Darwin’s theory of natural selection, predicted the existence of causal phenotypic agents. Hypothetically if we had discovered the existence of genes before we had an explanatory theory, would that mean evolution is a just so story? What’s more important is that the theory predicts, not the predictions are novel. Though we could just be arguing semantics.
“By the way the test administered was the WAIS-III…”
That doesn’t matter.
“Furthermore, You must first define intelligence, If I define it as the efficiency of communication between brain regions(which I guarantee you most researchers would agree with), and then i design tests that gauge your ability to problem solve with sensory data(the aforementioned traits I stated IQ tests test for) and then it turns out that they do predict this connectivity with reasonable accuracy, then yes IQ tests have Construct validity.”
Which tests are calibrated against biological measures such as “communication between brain regions”? How does that paper lend credence to the idea that IQ tests are construct valid on the basis of biological measures?
“It does if you actually know what my thesis is. Do you?”
1) Feedback loops between nature and nurture exist
2) These feedback loops, along with one’s experience, cause epigenetic change which is then inherited since ‘epigenetic inheritance is genetic’ [sic]
3) Therefore, differences between classes/individuals/groups is ‘genetic’, anyway and epigenetic factors—which are ‘genetic’ [sic] themselves, become inherited in the genome.
Sorry if I mischaracterized you; if I did please correct me. (What is my position?)
“How were those obvious?”
The ‘prediction’ (“The observed findings elucidate brain structures that are engaged by both general intelligence and executive function, as well as identifying some regions involved in one that may not be recruited by the other.”) was obvious as P-FIT states that greater ‘g’ (whatever that is) is involved through complex interactions between different brain areas.
It is an obvious ‘prediction’; scientific theories generate novel predictions which imply that the theory is then ‘true’. Basic Lakatosian philosophy of science.
“What’s more important is that the theory predicts, not the predictions are novel. Though we could just be arguing semantics.”
What does P-FIT predict that is ‘novel’? The prediction of novel, scientific facts is the bedrock of scientific theories. It’s not semantics; if the theory only ‘predicts’ obvious ‘predictions’, then how useful is it? Can the theory be independently verified? This refers to novel predictions; predictions that said hypothesis was not designed to explain. Basic philosophy of science.
“That doesn’t matter.”
Why?
“Which tests are calibrated against biological measures such as “communication between brain regions”?”
Any test with a high correlation to g.
“Sorry if I mischaracterized you”
You’re kind of right. Either way epigenetics helps my argument.
“It is an obvious ‘prediction’”
One novel prediction is that these differences in connectivity exist between us and great apes, which is not obvious to anyone without a anthropomorphic bias or an obsession with absolute brain size. Novelty is subjective and the temporal setting of each defined parameter is relevant, why you haven’t addressed this is a guess to me. To be clear, I’m not a follower like you, I form my own educated opinions off of observable information and logic, I don’t follow one school of thought like some autistic fanboy.
Ouch:
“A novel prediction meets the following
conditions: (1) it was not known before the theory was constructed, or it
was not used in the construction of the theory, and (2) the observation
or data follows—deductively or even with high probability—from the
theory (e.g., Popper 1963; Lakatos 1970; Zahar 1973; Gardner 1982; Giere
1983; Howson 1988; Worrall 1989, 2006; and Laudan 1990). The view
emphasizing the importance of novel predictions is sometimes referred to
as “historicist” or “heuristic,” as opposed to the “logical” view (e.g., Musgrave
1974; Mayo 1996; and Hitchcock and Sober 2004).
In contrast, the logical view holds that neither temporal order nor
construction independence are epistemic issues directly relevant to theory
justification (i.e., theory testing, confirmation, and choice). Formalist adherents
of the logical view consider novel prediction to be completely
irrelevant to theory justification (e.g., Hempel 1945, 1965; Carnap 1950;
see Musgrave 1974). Other partisans are more forgiving. For screeningoff
advocates of the logical view, novel prediction is relevant to theory
justification but only indirectly, as it gets philosophically screened off by
more fundamental epistemic matters. Recent screening-off defenders have
highlighted the following epistemic concerns: (1) severe testing through
Neyman-Pearson, error-probing hypothesis testing (Mayo 1991, 1994,
1996, 2008; Mayo and Spanos 2006) or (2) contrastive testing through
either (a) maximum likelihood measures or (b) model selection criteria,
such as the AIC (Forster and Sober 1994; Sober 1994, 1999, 2008; Hitchcock
and Sober 2004). Although Mayo and Sober disagree on basic aspects
of theory justification (e.g., Need it be contrastive? How important
is it to evaluate and control for erroneous inferences of theory rejections
and theory likelihoods?), they agree that novel predictions are not necessary.
The historicist view and the screening-off logical view agree that surprising,
risky, and successful novel predictions, when they can be had, are
impressive.4 Under this cogent perspective, such predictions are sufficient
for theory justification, though they are still not necessary according to
screening-off philosophers. ”
https://philarchive.org/archive/WINPIS
“Basic Lakatosian philosophy of science.”
You don’t know basic Philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/
“then how useful is it?”
Usefulness is subjective, I enjoy science because I’d like to know more about the world, not to make money, or “better lives”.
“Why?”
Why does it?
“Any test with a high correlation to g”
How does that make it “calibrated”?
“Either way epigenetics helps my argument.”
No it doesn’t.
What is my argument?
“One novel prediction is that these differences in connectivity exist between us and great apes, which is not obvious to anyone without a anthropomorphic bias or an obsession with absolute brain size.”
How is this a novel prediction?
“I form my own educated opinions off of observable information and logic”
But logic is imaginary.
“Ouch”
The prediction of novel facts is independent verification, we don’t need to independently verify theories?
In short, in addition to explanatory unification and model fitting, predictive capacity (i.e., the ability to make surprising, risky, and correct novel predictions) is a central theoretical virtue of selectionist evolutionary theory.
Also:
The most important feature to Lakatos is that the effective and successful research programmes “predict novel facts, facts which had been either undreamt of, or have indeed been contradict by previous or rival programmes.”
https://www.bookdepository.com/Limits-Science-John-E-Beerbower/9781499901559
“Usefulness is subjective”
That doesn’t answer my question. You enjoy science because you want to know more about the world, cool. But scientific theories make risky, correct novel predictions.
“Why does it?”
No theory of cognitive processing to guide selection for devising these ‘performance’ items; no theoretical grounding etc.
Why doesn’t it matter?
“How does that make it “calibrated”?”
Again, Psychological testing cannot possibly have 1:1 repeatability. “calibration” is redundant. The tests are made to gauge visuospatial manipulation and linguistic ability, which are obviously rooted in their respective brain regions: parietal lobe/occipital lobe, brocas area etc
“No it doesn’t.”
It does.
Simply saying it doesn’t is not evidence of anything. I already explained the reasoning behind it and it is perfectly valid.
“What is my argument?”
I’m assuming the same. That is if you truly understand epigenetics and how it relates to feedback loops.
“How is this a novel prediction?”
“which is not obvious to anyone without a anthropomorphic bias or an obsession with absolute brain size.”
Reading comprehension. The novelty of a prediction is dependent on the temporal setting of the parameter in question. Address this now and quit using fallacies.
“The prediction of novel facts is independent verification”
No it’s not.
Independent verification is independent verification. “novel prediction” is a subjective term based on the time of a discovery versus the time of another.
“No theory of cognitive processing to guide selection for devising these ‘performance’ items; no theoretical grounding etc.”
Validation is relative, reading comprehension. What cognitive theory is need? To explain that our brain controls our thoughts? Are you retarded?
“That doesn’t answer my question.”
It does. A scientific theory does not need to be useful. It just needs to explain and hold it’s weight against falsification attempts whilst being independently verified through other forms of experiments and other researcher besides the original propagators.
“But logic is imaginary.”
Not when it’s based on experimentally verified observation, which mine are.
“The tests are made to gauge visuospatial manipulation and linguistic ability, which are obviously rooted in their respective brain regions: parietal lobe/occipital lobe, brocas area etc”
How do the constructors know this in lieu of a cognitive theory of item selection and analysis? Let’s just take that convo here too:
You’ve showed no evidence that there is a cognitive theory of item analysis. John Raven said there is none for his test; it’s based on ‘intuition’.
“What cognitive theory is need? To explain that our brain controls our thoughts? Are you retarded?”
Cognitive theory for item analysis. Test construction, item selection and analysis, excision of items that don’t fit what the constructors want; i.e., it’s subjective with no cognitive theory to guide selection; and no, you did not show me any cognitive theory to guide item analysis and selection.
“Simply saying it doesn’t is not evidence of anything. I already explained the reasoning behind it and it is perfectly valid.”
Epigenetic inheritance is not ‘genetic’ so your premises with epigenetics being ‘genetic’ are false.
“The novelty of a prediction is dependent on the temporal setting of the parameter in question. Address this now and quit using fallacies.”
That’s not a novel prediction; novel predictions explain facts-of-the-matter that the hypothesis wasn’t designed to explain.
“… a predicted fact is a novel fact for a theory if it was not used to construct that theory – where a fact is used to construct a theory if it figures in the premises from which that theory was deduced.”
Click to access musgrave.pdf
And your previous citation said that “… in addition to explanatory unification and model fitting, predictive capacity (i.e., the ability to make surprising, risky, and correct novel predictions) is a central theoretical virtue of selectionist evolutionary theory.
“Independent verification is independent verification. “novel prediction” is a subjective term based on the time of a discovery versus the time of another.”
Independent verification refers to evidence the hypothesis wasn’t designed to explain; a novel prediction explains facts-of-the-matter that the hypothesis wasn’t designed to explain.
Simple.
“A scientific theory does not need to be useful. It just needs to explain and hold it’s weight against falsification attempts whilst being independently verified through other forms of experiments and other researcher besides the original propagators.”
Independent verification refers to the prediction of novel facts (but I don’t know philosophy of science). If a theory cannot predict novel facts it is ad-hoc; non-ad-hoc theories predict novel facts.
Theories are useful if they predict novel facts; theories are useful if they can be independently verified; hypotheses that make novel predictions can be tested independently; ad-hoc hypotheses cannot make novel predictions that can be tested independently.
“How do the constructors know this in lieu of a cognitive theory”
Are you denying that our brain does not control our thoughts and actions or that specific brain regions are not at least somewhat devoted to specific functions? Do you seriously need citations for this?
“it’s subjective”
It isn’t subjective, the functional connectivity between our visual, motor, auditory and verbal systems has been highly selected for and there is no debate that these attributes are what govern the entirety of our actions.
‘Epigenetic inheritance is not ‘genetic’ ”
It is. Epigenetics means “on the genome” just because it isn’t classical inheritance through random mutation doesn’t mean DNA and its contemporary propagators are not involved in the process. This is a good example of semanticism.
“That’s not a novel prediction”
And novelty is subjective because of its dependency on the temporal setting.
“And your previous citation said that”
You’re quote mining. The article was highlighting the views of “heuristic” philosophers vs “logical” ones, not promoting the heuristic view.
” (but I don’t know philosophy of science).”
You don’t.
“If a theory cannot predict novel facts”
Then it is explanatory. Again you don;t know what probabilistic causation is.
“Are you denying that our brain does not control our thoughts and actions or that specific brain regions are not at least somewhat devoted to specific functions? Do you seriously need citations for this?”
That’s not evidence for a cognitive theory that guides item analysis and selection.
” It isn’t subjective”
“Item X doesn’t show result Y therefore I’ll keep analyzing items until I get the result I want.”
Sure, not subjective. It’s not guided by a cognitive theory. Nothing you say will be able to prove that, because item analysis isn’t guided by a theory.
“It is. Epigenetics means “on the genome” just because it isn’t classical inheritance through random mutation doesn’t mean DNA and its contemporary propagators are not involved in the process. This is a good example of semanticism.”
It means above or beyond the genes. It’s a nongenetic inheritance, there are many nongenetic patterns. It’s not semantics. What causes methylation, SRNA differences, etc? Environmental input.
” And novelty is subjective because of its dependency on the temporal setting”
Scientific hypotheses generate confirmed predictions of novel facts distinct from the hypothesis it was designed to explain. That’s not ‘subjective’.
“You’re quote mining.”
No I’m not. What I’m saying here is basic scientific realism.
“You don’t.”
Sure buddy.
“Then it is explanatory. Again you don;t know what probabilistic causation is.”
If a theory doesn’t generate novel facts then how is it explanatory?
Theories are useful if they predict novel facts; theories are useful if they can be independently verified; hypotheses that make novel predictions can be tested independently; ad-hoc hypotheses cannot make novel predictions that can be tested independently.
End of story.
“That’s not evidence for a cognitive theory”
I don’t need one. End of story.
“Sure, not subjective.”
It’s not, if they didn’t define intelligence first then it would be.
“What causes methylation, SRNA differences, etc? Environmental input.”
What causes genetic inheritance? Environmental input. Semanticism.
“Scientific hypotheses generate confirmed predictions of novel facts distinct from the hypothesis it was designed to explain. ”
You cannot make novel predictions, unless you have a basic framework to begin with. It’s dependent on temporal settings. Evolution made no novel predictions until genes were discovered, and the fossil record was reviewed. All theories begin as explanations. How could you possibly know something if it hasn’t happened yet? You demanding “novel predictions” is so blatantly retarded, because all explanations have the potential to make novel predictions, if it never does, then it is termed not “useful” which is itself a subjective phrase. A better term is “progressive”.
“What I’m saying here is basic scientific realism.”
Heuristic>logical views, how exactly?
“Sure buddy.”
Glad you admit it 🙂
“If a theory doesn’t generate novel facts then how is it explanatory?”
Because, its been independently verified through experimental confirmation. Novelty is not necessary, but it’s still an important tenant.
“I don’t need one. End of story.”
In other words “none exist. End of story”.
“It’s not, if they didn’t define intelligence first then it would be.”
See first response to this comment.
“What causes genetic inheritance? Environmental input. Semanticism.”
But you’re saying that genes *cause* this; they’re called nongenetic inheritance systems for a reason.
“How could you possibly know something if it hasn’t happened yet?”
So you disagree with my assertion? Why? What is wrong with what I said? And no, what you wrote there doesn’t show what is wrong; that’s what science is. The successful prediction of novel phenomena. It’s a prediction; not that you “know” something.
“Heuristic>logical views, how exactly?”
How useful is a theory/hypothesis that explains what it is designed to explain? This is where the ability to make successful, surprising, risky and correct predictions matters (which the paper you cited ended up ultimately agreeing with).
Is your problem with scientific realism? Please let me know so I know where you stand here.
“Glad you admit it 🙂”
Whatever you say.
“Because, its been independently verified through experimental confirmation. Novelty is not necessary, but it’s still an important tenant.”
That’s not independent verification.
I actually tend to agree with race here. For example pumpin tried to idiotically explain roseanne barr success was because she was intelligent.
intelligence was one of the causes is what I argued.
even bad comedians are smart. comedians are the smartest entertainers.
SHUTUP
it’s “scientism” and marketing and ideology.
so instead of say”, “this person is retarded” or “this person is not smart” people will say “he has a low IQ” and this makes their statement sound “scientific”. psychology has done a very very good job marketing IQ, in the US at least. yet almost no one who uses the word knows what it means. they just use it to sound scienc-y.
”it’s “scientism” and marketing and ideology.
so instead of say”, “this person is retarded” or “this person is not smart” people will say “he has a low IQ” and this makes their statement sound “scientific”. psychology has done a very very good job marketing IQ, in the US at least. yet almost no one who uses the word knows what it means. they just use it to sound scienc-y.”
what is it***
scientism is market
ideology and marketing is basically the same thing.
people who score lower in IQ tests are not ”retarded”.
It’s a derrogative term which is surprinsingly excessively emotional, yes, emotion is not just positivity but negativity too. if some word can be changed by other less ofensive, why not*
truth is not a ofense. Indeed in this important aspect the so-called ”scientific” neutral language seems more appropriate.
But, we also can have a retarded people WITH higher IQ
any example* hum*
MOST people are smart…
FEW people are SMARTER.
All this world of derrogative classification must go, in the end everyone is the same under the ground.
nothing wrong with “IQ-ism” in that sense. it;s just that even those who know better, professors of psychology, are sold by the marketing.
1. people do differ in “intelligence”, however it is defined.
2. IQ tests are the single best conceivable operation-al-iz-ation of “intelligence”.
3. IQ is not a thing. people tend to assume that every word designates a real a THING.
so i expect the denoument of shoe’s project will be that…
1. to a MUCH smaller extent than twin studies suggest…differences in genomes DO CAUSE differences in “intelligence”…however defined or interpreted.
2. selective breeding of the extremes of genome scores WILL RESULT in VERY VERY smart people. especially after multiple generations.
define “a THING”
BUT!
these very very smart people will NOT be superhuman.
they won’t even be as smart on average as the smartest living and dead.
isaac newton will not be bested by a shoe horse…even after 10 generations.
newton et al are the secretariats of the human species in IQ terms.
shoe loves the chicken example, but domestic fowl have WAY more genetic variation than humans.
the rock david killed goliath with.
A breath/ an air] is a derived-thing if not a exceptionally tiny and inconstant thing. What is not a thing per si it’s a derived-thing… still a thing.
I’m a father-derived biological thing, still in some way as my father.
IQ is a reflection of a derived thing as well a weight size in balance. We can conclude that IQ is not a non-human made thing per si, but it’s serves imperfectly to reflect a genuine thing, behavior.
IQ is not a thing = IQ is not useful seems a false axioma.
White matter is the biological limit because white mater determines how complex the control mechanism can be for executive functioning. Mental manipulation in newtons case probably was up there around two hundred items in parallel because his white mater made a control system to handle that many.
I highly doubt IQ/test scores are a very useful or interesting thing to know about a person more than 3 sd above the mean. At that point, it’s probably more important/more interesting to know how many times a person has been cited in research journals, or how many patents they have, or even how much money they.
A 145 IQ person can game their way up to a 170 IQ, since the 145 IQ guy is just as smart as the test-makers.
IQ tests are best at sorting people up to about 2-3 sd above the mean. Any more than that, and it’s value decreases substantially.
Man from Gondwana, from my experience at Mensa Paris where I used to go in part because of the free buffet and drinks for the less than 25 yo, I could tell a big difference between 2 sd and 3 sd people. This difference was unrelated to what people actually did in life, in fact 2 sd where probable more successful in the sample there than 3 sd … It’s about the conversations about topics. The energy is quite different. There much more agressive in adressing statements. I suppose the differences are at least the same at higher levels. But there is no practical difference in life. It’s like stature, outiside basket, above 6’5 (3sd), your just a giant. People who think IQ isn’t correlated to true variables in real word, should set up a class with 30 kids, 10 at 70, 10 at 100 and 10 at 130 and see what happens ….
“I highly doubt IQ/test scores are a very useful or interesting thing to know about a person more than 3 sd above the mean.”
Theyre not useful at all.
“People who think IQ isn’t correlated to true variables in real word, should set up a class with 30 kids, 10 at 70, 10 at 100 and 10 at 130 and see what happens ….”
A self-fulfilling prophecy…
IQ tests are incredibly useful, seeing as how they measure intelligence, it seemed to predict yours quite well. You are in fact a self fulfilling prophecy
Now they’re not and they don’t measure ‘intelligence’. Your stupid attacks are meaningless.
Yes they are and yes they do. When did I attack you? I think you’re just getting insecure again RR.
Your comment was irrelevant.
No, it directly referenced the topic you were discussing. You stated an unsubstantiated claim, I did the same.
Claim substantiated
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/250660667/Richardson-2002-What-Iq-Tests-Test
Did your ‘IQ’ predict your wondrous construction job? What’s your yearly salary Melo?
Let’s talk about reality. What are your lifts on the big 4 lifts (overhead press, deadlift, bench press and squat) Melo?
“Claim substantiated”
I already debunked that citation. Richardson clearly doesn’t know what test specification or repeatabillity(in the context of Psychological) is.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1Fv9auPb9a4C&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=test+specification+psychology&source=bl&ots=e08PTT811H&sig=ESWwspKkvW02gNK9GIU-rqvL2Ww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB0KT0k5DZAhUDrVkKHRYEDW04ChDoATADegQIERAB#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Did your ‘IQ’ predict your wondrous construction job?”
It’s in the ballpark based off of crude models by Pumpkin and other bloggers.
“Let’s talk about reality. What are your lifts on the big 4 lifts (overhead press, deadlift, bench press and squat) Melo?”
I don’t know, it’s been a long time since I hit the Gym. The last time my deadlift and bench press were definitely above my weight, but I never did an Overhead or Squat, I’ve never taken weight lifting that seriously. I’ve always preferred kinesthetic workouts, in the form of sports like swimming, basket ball, and soccer. Weight lifting was just too monotonous.
“What’s your yearly salary Melo?”
I’ve obviously struck a nerve. I’m not the dumbass who likes to post personal information like that, you are.
“I already debunked that citation. Richardson clearly doesn’t know what test specification or repeatabillity(in the context of Psychological) is.”
I know how tests are constructed; you didn’t ‘debunk’ a thing.
“It’s in the ballpark based off of crude models by Pumpkin and other bloggers.”
soooo…. ‘the ballpark’? meaning… plus or minus a few points? how, then, does your ‘IQ’ ‘show’ that you’d be ‘good’ for construction work?
“I don’t know, it’s been a long time since I hit the Gym. The last time my deadlift and bench press were definitely above my weight, but I never did an Overhead or Squat, I’ve never taken weight lifting that seriously. I’ve always preferred kinesthetic workouts, in the form of sports like swimming, basket ball, and soccer. Weight lifting was just too monotonous.”
I’ve passed the thousand pound club and I weigh 165. See, real-world activities with actual real-world carry-over. That’s what I’m interested in; not ‘IQ’ tests.
Not if you know what you’re doing. So you didn’t use that program I gave you back in December?
“I’ve obviously struck a nerve. I’m not the dumbass who likes to post personal information like that, you are.”
Low salary?
Let me rephrase what I wrote:
-Adult IQ tests can probably reliably discriminate 1 sd vs 2 sd vs 3 sd. I don’t dispute that…but,
-I have a hard time believing that adult IQ tests can reliably discriminate between 3 sd vs 4 sd, or 4 sd vs 5 sd. That’s not to say that I don’t think adult intelligence can get that high, but rather I just don’t think you should use IQ tests to measure intelligence at those levels. But with kids below the age 13, maybe IQ tests are useful out to that range…
RR is not just extremely dumb but incredibly pedantic… just parroting the same stupid statements all the time just like a mantra…
Santo and Afrosapiens are hands down the most aggressive commenters.
RR and Melo are somewhat passive-aggressive.
I’m just rude. Lyrion is rude also. Philosopher is just amusing. Goes in the rude category but in a funny way.
[redacted by pp, april 10, 2018]
“I know how tests are constructed”
Then you should know that they are not biased.
“plus or minus a few points”
Yeah I guess.
‘how, then, does your ‘IQ’ ‘show’ that you’d be ‘good’ for construction work?”
I dont know. I’ve never taken an IQ test. I have taken tests similar, and my highest subscores were pattern recognition and verbal comprehension in the context of linguistic semanticism.
“That’s what I’m interested in; not ‘IQ’ tests.”
Which is contradictory because IQ tests do have real-world carry-over.
“So you didn’t use that program I gave you back in December?”
I’d love to, but I am far too busy to hit the gym anymore.
“Low salary?”
Not at all, I could live comfortably for the rest of my life. I just know that If I post it there’s always going to be some prick out there who’s going to try and rub his monetary “superiority” over me, and I’d rather not supply my enemies with ammo.
“Then you should know that they are not biased.”
They are biased. ‘If you know about construction then you should know they are not biased. You know about construction. Therefore they are not biased.” Doesn’t work like that.
“I dont know. I’ve never taken an IQ test. I have taken tests similar, and my highest subscores were pattern recognition and verbal comprehension in the context of linguistic semanticism.”
this shows that you’re ‘fit’ for construction work? what if you scored lower or your pattern rec. and verbal comp were lower; would that mean you’re not ‘cut out’ for construction work?
“Which is contradictory because IQ tests do have real-world carry-over.”
due to test construction. they are different versions of the same test; they both test learned skills and knowledge. then think that IQ doesn’t predict job performance etc etc. there is no ‘carry-over’, they’re constructed to mirror the current class stratification. they dont test ‘intelligence’.
“I’d love to, but I am far too busy to hit the gym anymore.”
‘far too busy’ to give 90 minutes of your time a week to lifting heavy things? no one is ‘too busy’. I know people busier than you are who i have time to train. there is always time to train; it’s an excuse to say that youre ‘too busy’.
Test construction is not biased, because all tests(not just psychological) are constructed.
“this shows that you’re ‘fit’ for construction work?”
You do realize that your line of questioning has no bearing on our argument? You’re not going to be able to prove anything no mater how I answer these questions.
“‘far too busy’ to give 90 minutes of your time a week to lifting heavy things?”
Yeah, i’d rather do kinesthetics.
The excision of items due to it not fitting their schema is biased. There is no cognitive theory to guide item analysis.
Strength training is superior to kinesthetics.
It’s not agression with a cause, i already have a long and wasteful experience in debates with this self-parody guy.
“There is no cognitive theory to guide item analysis.”
That’s not true, The questions are designed to test abstract rule extrapolation, processing speed, visuospatial connectivity, and linguistic ability, all apart of general intelligence.
“Strength training is superior to kinesthetics.”
In gaining strength, yes., besides just feeling good about yourself, no, but that’s just my own personal opinion.
Which cognitive theory guides item analysis/selection?
“Which cognitive theory guides item analysis/selection?”
It doesn’t need a theory, but it does need an empirical reality that it corresponds to, which I have provided multiple times.
Why doesn’t it “need a theory” and which “empirical reality” do they correspond to? How do you know these items test ‘intelligence’ in the absence of a cognitive theory for the basis of item selection and analysis?
“which “empirical reality” do they correspond to?”
“which I have provided multiple times.”
Do not feign ignorance. Address the data I presented, you can find them in this post and many more.
“Why doesn’t it “need a theory””
Because validation relative. I don’t need a “theory” But I do need consistently and experimentally true observations to rest it upon.
But that’s not a cognitive theory of item selection and analysis. You may say you’ve ‘provided them multiple times’, but nothing you’ve ever shown me shows anything about item selection and analysis being guided by a cognitive theory.
“But that’s not a cognitive theory of item selection and analysis.”
I already addressed this. Don’t repeat yourself again.
My hungarian buddy is voting in the hungarian gen elect. He told me he despises the nationalist party. I had to gravely nod and keep my mouth shut once again about my political views. The effort of explaining that his leader is one of the few sabe leaders of europe not controlled by jews and doesnt want to replace him like merkel did to the germans is too much.
One of the ways magic negro syndome is especially annoying to me is that it shows brainwashing can be very effective. People instinctively have a negative view of blacks across all races of man, but the jews turned the most civilised nations into barbarian worship.
It would be like converting medieval chinese to mongol worship and getting them tk tear down the great wall.
Honestly isuspect white people are even easier to manipulate than aspergery east asians in many ways.
Asians (Orientals at least) are manipulated by outright domination, or through control by an authority.
Whites (actually only West Euros) are anti-authoritarian, and usually resent/mistrust authorities. But their innate tendency towards guilt causes them to pity those whom they perceive as weaker and/or oppressed, which allows psychopathic groups who portray themselves as victims to dominate whites.
Germanics don’t have an innate tendency towards guilt. They have a tendency to virtue signal. This is because Germanics believe morals are objectively real [not illusionary]. When they have enemies [of their society] they dehumanize them, so their subsequent actions become ‘morally justified’.
High IQ sociopathic groups [sociopathic in the sense that they don’t believe morals are objectively real in the way Germanics do] control them easily. By defining what is moral and what is not [in society], these groups can exercise absolute control over their societies.
I think Germanics have a tendency towards guilt precisely because they feel moral values are real. Although you have to keep in mind there’s A LOT of variation in Germany. They weren’t even a unified nation until a little over a hundred years ago.
Most of the Nazis came from Bavaria or Austria. Very few from West Germany.
However even guilt-tripping west Germanics can get a little resentful when they feel an high-IQ, powerful group has established authority over them…
Virtue signalling is basically the final outcome of overly-comfortable, decadent, post-modern Germanics indicating their allegiance to their decadent culture. It’s status-mongering by way of the handicap principal. But at the same time it’s easy because it doesn’t require any real sacrifice.
Its weird how we all live in twilight zone episode where everything is contorted and sinister and upside down. I walked out of the train station and saw a giant fashion poster with a black model. The black population is about 0.2% here.
Im in a doctors waiting room and the people on the radio are admonishing each other for not being noce enough to foreign predators using weird jewish psych op terms.
Its sad im the only person in my town that can see it. Kind of cool in a film noir way maybe. Who would think the son of a retard and crazy cat woman sees through the matrix. Hahaha.
you and j d rockefeller are proof that eugenics only works at the extremes, if at all.
but the more i think about my dad the more i think he just wasn’t very smart. i say “was” because now he’s like der bomber, clinically senile. harvard grad, first in his class at law school. even though he was the president of his hs class he was socially retarded in so many ways. proves my point that at a certain point social IQ is a negative for social “success”.
my dad would’ve scored higher on an IQ test, but my mom was smarter in the ways that actually count.
my dad would’ve scored higher on an IQ test, but my mom was smarter in the ways that actually count.
my mom knows everything about keeping track of what we need to go to the doctor and what we need for school and get money to send us to bible camp but.
she is a potato is social engagement. she tells me she is not a talkative person. I can not talk to her about anything, is why I had my mental breakdown in 2007, I had no one to talk to. Never learned to talk to anyone. You cannot trust people.
Dad hit my head till it was purple in the car the police were called when we reached the hotel. He ran away. When I cried he blew in my noise ten minutes. He was in the navy. 4 years younger than my mom when I was born him at 26 years old. Held me under a bean bag at my uncle’s house when I was 5, I panicked. Lived in a dirty trailer. My mom said he said he was smarter than she was all the time.
Mom was tested at the Naramore Institute in Arizona
Here’s a blast from the past:
https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes
Have at it.
I realized recently that is everything is a twilight zone episode
You should honor your parents
Open thread week April 8 to April 14
Black national merit finalist GondwanaMan mentioned…
Blacks, Italians & interracial dating
Black national merit finalist GondwanaMan writes:
Whats the problem? That he keeps using my comments for blog posts? Or he keeps citing that im black and a national merit finalist? Or something about me?
Stop with the passive-aggressive stuff and be a MAN, bro.
He just finds it cringy and racist of me to constantly make such a big deal out of a black being a national merit finalist. He also doesn’t like that you’re a black HBDer.
He just finds it cringy and racist of me to constantly make such a big deal out of a black being a national merit finalist.
This.
He also doesn’t like that you’re a black HBDer.
Right. In fact, if there was any justice in this world, sellouts like him would be raped to death.
“He just finds it cringy and racist of me to constantly make such a big deal out of a black being a national merit finalist.”
It’s like he’s a Pokémon.
It feels good being a Pokemon🤗
This is basically Chris Langan’s CTMU but with less math and self-configuration. Langan never put his idea into an A.I. either.
I can explain the more advanced form but the principle is feedback. The rest is using that feedback to model and manipulate. (executive functioning and perception)
This needs to be real time, not just 5,000 trial and error runs with deep leaning simulations. And constant feedback from human to machine. More focus on executive functioning and perception built beside and underneath it.
It is all a balance system. Even perception.
Learning is simply a new equilibrium with the environment.
General intelligence is creating new loop systems for balance in all directions.
Balance in all directions and this creates internal balance.
Internal balance is an internal model of self that can mentally manipulate the world.
Create loops in all directions and internal looks inside, internal models.
Why ”people” never talk about ”deviation from the mean” and not just ”regression to the mean”*
i want afro to give me an example of a heterogeneous country that works well today or which worked well in the past. the roman empire lasted 2,000 years but it was a cruel military dictatorship.
i agree with mlk. if following objective criteria makes more blacks redundant then they should be pensioned off. but such dole pensioners should be forbidden to have children. no need for this to be eugenics. it’s just in the interest of the children that their parents have enough money to give them a reasonable chance of achieving their potential.
people love to form cliques. in a homogeneous “free market” country people will divide themselves by their economic role or rank. in heterogeneous countries by ethnicity. this is why the only workable sovereign state is small, homogeneous, and social democratic, like iceland. this is the lesson of history.
the repeal of capital controls and the increase in international trade is inherently anti-democratic and erodes popular sovereignty. so that the world becomes ultimately governed by unelected globalist bourgeois.
racism, sexism, homophobia etc are “shiny keys” used to distract the people from this truly horrible reality.
to put it another way, if blacks, single women, and gays did not fear poverty, because there was a very strong safety net, then they would not care much about discrimination.
some people will dislike you. no one is liked by all. disliking someone for his race, gender, or sexual orientation is no more ridiculous than disliking someone for his accent, diction, IQ, class background, etc.
get over it people.
but the difference is people are far more loyal to their race/ethnicity than to their accent, IQ or class background, so you get entire industries being monopolized by just one ethnic group. but wouldn’t be a problem if we didn’t have such strong monopolies in general. ayn rand blamed government for monopolies. don’t know what her reasoning was, but at the very least government gives monopolies huge contracts in return for campaign contribution.
Rushton argued racial diversity was partly why the roman empire fell. bill o’reilly and I guess conservatives in general always argue that socialism can only work in small countries cause they have fewer people to cover. Can’t work in u.s. cause have more people to cover. yes. but you also have more tax payers, I would yell back at the tv.
All empires are diverse by their very nature so I don’t understand what he’s getting at.
I’m wrong, he says the failure of the upper class to have kids helped cause the fall of rome.
I think Peter Turchin argues something similar. Also the upper classes/elite start competing more amongst themselves and behaving more decadently, causing growing tension in society at large.
Cycles in elite disharmony can be approximated by the number of people going to school for law degrees.
Rushton was clueless on world history too, along with biology. I know that paper you’re talking about. That’s how white nationalists think Rome fell.
It all depends on what you call diversity and what you call working well.
Switzerland, Canada, Israel and Belgium are examples of countries that have a high cultural diversity and offer excellent good standards of living.
If by diversity you only mean racial diversity, there are two types of countries.
-Those that are racially diverse but don’t actually think much about it: Madagascar, parts of South Asia and the Middle East.
-Those that are racially diverse and organized their class structure on the basis of race because of colonization and slavery: most of the Americas.
Many of those countries have issues, but not more than underdeveloped homogeneous countries and many of their issues have nothing to do with race.
Diversity is a fact of nature, people will always find things to form rival factions. Which isn’t a problem as long as identities are fluid and not inescapable. It’s only when there is American-style racial essentialism or very strong religious loyalty that diversity is a potential source of trouble.
and the quebecois and walloons want to leave. don’t they?
iirc quebec is poorer than anglophone canada and the walonia is poorer than flemish belgium.
No, they don’t want to secede, some separatists want to, they are not the majority. It’s even more complex In the case of Wallonia because there are those would like to join France instead of becoming independent if Flanders separated from Belgium.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/menghublog.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/a-growth-in-inequality-together-with-growth-in-financial-market-activities-probably-not-a-mere-coincidence/amp/
Ayo Mugabe what do you think of this article?
i admit i’m more a social democrat than a democratic socialist.
the private ownership of the means of production and fantastic rewards for entrepreneurship can be good things for everyone.
I feel some pitty for this guy ! At the same times, he has aphantasia and Asperger. He is horribly negative about Asperger – worse than philo ! – and completely blind about normal people having mental imagery.
125-145 is the best . Being more than 7 feet tall is good only if you joint the NBA ! Else it’s a cross. At the same time, I wouldn’t sell any IQ points at any price even if I could . I don’t know why because IQ isolate so much ….
Like I said most women want 8.5, 10 is probably too much. A little under 3 sds is usually the sweet spot.
It helps intimidate male rivals too.
one test of the theory that western europeans are dumber than they used to be is…
dumber relative to china people…
are the very smartest western europeans as smart or smarter than the very smartest china people?
in VIQ the answer is yes.
in organic chemistry the answer is yes.
the theory of dysgenics following industrialization predicts that japanese, koreans, taiwanese, HKers, and SGers will decline in IQ in the next 50 years.
The LSAT is the only tests where whites beat Asians.
This may be very good, though. The LSAT is all about syllogisms and logic and stuff, which the article below suggests is most closely approximated on the Wechsler by the Similarities test:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=481
And there’s a feedback loop between the abstract thinking aspect of Similarities and societal modernization, such that improvement on one seem to correlate with improvements on the other.
Europeans seem to be Flynn-effecting themselves to higher and higher Similarities scores, leaving the Orientals behind.
Thus the white man will continue to rule the world, QED.
the irish travellers, the highland scottish travellers, and the “yenish” are all non-romani gypsies.
the first two are a genuine group. is the much larger last a group too? or is it just what continental people call the poorest?
this is interesting: an ethnic group defined by class…
how else would y’all describe it?
tyson fury is NOT dumb.
African Americans are an ethnic group defined by class
Indeed so are Ashkenazi Jews & Indian Americans. You can think of class as the taxonomic level below ethnicity which is below race which is below species which is below genus etc
no they aren’t dumb ass. all those groups are genetically distinct.
the travellers and yennish are not. irish travellers are irish, for example.
Irish travellers are genetically distinct:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/travellers-as-genetically-different-from-settled-irish-as-spanish-1.2969515
You don’t truly have a class system until the classes diverge genetically
irish travellers are NOT genetically distinct anymore than people from yorkshire are genetically distinct.
fucking fucktarded fucktard.
Irish travelers not distinct from irish but unmixed african americans are distinct from west Africans?
Alcohol & brain cells don’t mix
one racialist question i haven’t seen addressed is why whites (and whites by brazilian standards) dominate MMA.
i can think of some reasons.
but maybe the reason is just that blacks are “taken up” by other sports.
i for one can’t see how any woman wouldn’t esteem totti the peak of man sexiness.
1. professional athlete
2. very good professional athlete
3. looks like the romans who ruled “the world” for 2,000 years.
but whatever…
most straight women prefer footballers (like beckham) to american football-ers (like lyle alzado). if you know what i mean.
rr doesn’t. sad!
soccer players are the sexiest athletes…for most women…even in the US, canada, ANZ,…
except, of course, for water polo players.
women want a body that DOES something other than lift weights.
Alazado was a straight-up ‘roid head. As many women like that as the number who like foot-long cocks.
yeah. maybe women lie.
like arnold, alzado’s wife was RICH!
so if one pretended that looks were absolute/objective…the best looking people of both genders have…
shape :
1. roman
color:
1. light blue eyes
2. tanned
…
when i lived in la…i’d heard about some miracle nose pore cleaner…it was bullshit…but i made an appointment with a dermatologist, specialist md…
maybe he was a homo. he told me…
1. the tan is NOT only a class marker of those who can afford to vacation in hawaii…
it destroys contrast…
that is, tanned white people AND tanned black people do look better OBJECTIVELY.
and YES, blacks tan too.
2. he claimed that male fashion models were no longer required to be dark, but the women were. (gays choose the models.)
sad!
As Tennessee Williams said about money, you can be young without a tan but you can not be old without one 🙂
I absolutely can’t stand Afrosapiens. Completely intolerable personality. I don’t think I’m the only one.
Jimmy is (was) one commenter who absolutely can’t stand Afrosapiens.
I think he’s swell.
100% agree. Thats why I keep saying pumpkin banned the wrong person!
I banned them both. But to quote Stephen King:
Besides being totally biased when talking about Arabs/Berbers and his need to always explain the failure and barbarian acts of his people by some kind of jewish conspiracy I think he is probably one of the smartest people commenting here along with Fenoopy (I actually think Jimmy = Fenoopy but since you guys don’t want to hear about this I will refer to them as 2 separate individuals).
And to be fair to Fenoopy, he is the only one here to have shown at least some kind of evidences of high intelligence (Raven/HumanBenchmark)
I’ve shown my 2012 GRE scores. I think my SAT too.
The idea that jimmy is fenoopy is the dumbest conspiracy theory ive ever read here.
You have to at least be 2 for a conspiracy to happen except if you are schizo.
“I’ve shown my 2012 GRE scores. I think my SAT too.”
Assuming he (Fenoopy) is not spending his time doing raven matrices over the Internet and training himself on humanbenchmark.com (which is plausible given is general lack of honesty and his constant need to show off), then the few he has shown indicate IQ higher than 130.
The GRE and SAT are not intelligence tests. Your IQ is 120 and there is a bunch of commenters of this blog above 120 (imo).
Thank you. The opposite would be embarrassing.
I don’t dislike you, though. I just have very little consideration for you and people of your type, because you are losers. So I sympathize or I make fun, depending on the day.
afro is good in bed.
you’re just jealous.
Afro is cool, he’s just intellectually lazy because of inherent biases.
Are you not biased?
Not in the way he is. I’m just stubborn and I’m usually not completely wrong about any claim I make, hence why I meet people in the middle usually. An example being Pumpkin and I’s discussion on sociality vs resource allocation.
Afro has an inferiority complex towards white males, hence why he posts cuck porn, Sources that supposedly imply non African “inferiority”, and tries to bully strangers on the internet. He basically called G man a race traitor that should be “raped to death”, because G man’s race matters more to Afro than G mans opinions and logic do. This obviously isn’t for “fun” Wealthy people don’t have fun on the internet.
There you go with your armchair psychology.
I certainly don’t have an inferiority complex towards whites or any other people. I’m very proud of who I am and I would trade it for nothing else.
I like to trigger alt-righters because it works so well and they don’t even have the decency to conceal their feelings.
Gman’s opinions and (lack of) logic matter more, and the fact that he’s black makes his lack of skepticism and critical analysis even more despicable.
See, he’s just seeking revenge for his history of not fitting in with his fellow black folks. He doesn’t really have thoughts of his own, all he’s saying is “Jayman said”, “HBD chick thinks”… A parrot basically. And that’s when he’s not merely making up stuff. So indeed, someone who’s brainlessly celebrating stupid propaganda against his own kind deserves to get raped to death, or at least, be the first to feel the first consequences of the ideology that he supports.
In fairness G-man does show skepticism & critical thinking whenever Jews are negatively stereotyped :-).
Afro who annoys you more: G-man or JayMan?
No language in the world has enough derogatory words to express accurately what I think about JayMan.
I think GondwanaMan must be a good guy (though not the type that I would hang out with IRL) but it’s very disturbing that his idol is such a sad character as JayMan.
Hey man I don’t wanna get raped. I want my butthole to stay intact.
Yet you’re begging for it. You should serve as Dylan Roof’s nigger bitch to keep him warm till his execution.
How do you feel when a lunatic like this shoots black people in a church motivated by the same ideology as yours?
“I certainly don’t have an inferiority complex towards whites”
It’s obvious to everyone here that you have an enormous inferiority complex.
“I like to trigger alt-righters because it works so well”
Translation: “I don’t have a life”
“See, he’s just seeking revenge for his history of not fitting in with his fellow black folks.”
Blacks are not one homogeneous group, that is incredibly ignorant of you to even suggest such nonsense.
“celebrating stupid propaganda against his own kind deserves to get raped to death”
My point exactly, You don’t care about the logic:
1) You’ve already made a strawman on Gman’s position, so you don’t care what his true opinions are. I highly doubt Gman is a white nationalist of any kind.
2) Only someone incredibly insecure would associate HBD(I mean true HBD not white nationalist bullshit) with “blackz iz inferior derp derp derp”
“A parrot basically. ”
Name one idea that you have independently created that was not already stated by me or an expert in a particular field. There are none.
You’re just as despicable and fallacious as an Alt reicher.
It’s obvious to everyone here that you have an enormous inferiority complex.
“everyone here”, that’s the hell of a sample. That’s right, little meLo knows better, obviously.
Translation: “I don’t have a life”
It means what mean, don’t try to read between the lines, that’s not for you.
Blacks are not one homogeneous group, that is incredibly ignorant of you to even suggest such nonsense.
They definitely are in our friend GondwanaMan’s words. I can only agree with your objection since I don’t recognize myself nor the Black people I’ve met in Europe, the Caribbean and Africa in his generalizations. But I suggest that you explore the subject of how blacks aren’t one homogeneous group directly with him and see what he thinks about it and how he’d moderate the absurd general statements he frequently graces us with.
My point exactly, You don’t care about the logic:
Oh really, it’s funny because I’ve heard from a trusted source that logic wasn’t very important, something abstract, some weird semantics meant distract from meLo’s enlightening revelations.
I care about logic, I’ll tell you a few things about semantics at the end of this common.
1) You’ve already made a strawman on Gman’s position, so you don’t care what his true opinions are. I highly doubt Gman is a white nationalist of any kind.
Haha, and you’re talking about making strawmen? I’ve never said nor even thought Gman is some kind of white nationalist. That he’s a self-hating black selflessly serving the white nationalist cause is a thing, That he understands the consequences of his self-hating is another thing.
I know what his true opinions are since I know what his favorite bloggers write and then I see him quoting them with endearing contentment.
2) Only someone incredibly insecure would associate HBD(I mean true HBD not white nationalist bullshit) with “blackz iz inferior derp derp derp”
Alright, let’s get serious here. There is only one field that truly and professionally studies human biological diversity. It’s called medicine. It requires reasoning skills and knowledge that you probably won’t acquire in this lifetime. Skills that make both my law degree and your multi-billion-dollar construction company look small.
This is legit human biological diversity. The rest is bullshit, whether it’s white nationalism, black supremacism, left-wing hereditarianism, or what other-ism there is to cite. Just amateurs making up confirmatory just-so stories of the kind that gratify your modern Galileo complex.
Name one idea that you have independently created that was not already stated by me or an expert in a particular field. There are none.
I don’t make up stuff.
I have written theses in law and economics to get my degrees, but don’t even get to believe that your psychobabble comes anywhere close to the rigorous work of inquiry and logic that just made me a lawyer.
Now let’s come to the point: epistemology.
That’s a complicated word you probably haven’t heard much in your short life. Mastering epistemology gives you the key to separate justified knowledge from belief/opinion/faith. People like you usually call it “semantics”, because nothing beats common sense you know.
But in my rational world, we judge statements and hypotheses by their testability, their falsifiability and their general adherence to the scientific method.
Reporting findings from other people doesn’t make me a parrot because I can defend my beliefs on epistemological grounds. You can’t, you can only go on childish rants when someone’s asking you to be specific and wants you to clarify the logical basis of your assertions. GondwanaMan can’t either. When he comes here and says “Jayman said”, it’s true because JayMan said so. Not because GondwanaMan has critically analyzed the claims, it’s true because it sounded good to GondwanaMan and JayMan would never lie to GondwanaMan, because JayMan is… well… JayMan.
You’re just as despicable and fallacious as an Alt reicher.
Yeah, if you like. Meanwhile, I’m not the one who has issues withe the academia and who has to invoke horrible conspiracies to explain why my “science” is confined to some obscure corners of the internet.
the lady doth protest too much methinks.
Melo to Afro: “You don’t care about the logic”
Also Melo: “Syllogisms in general are stupid. Logic is imaginary, ”
Hmmm…
“That’s right, little meLo knows better, obviously.”
Well now that you’ve finally admitted my mental superiority, we can start to rebuild.
“don’t try to read between the lines, that’s not for you.”
Just saying, it’s really strange that a wealthy black lawyer finds enjoyment, in bullying people on the internet..
“Oh really, it’s funny because I’ve heard from a trusted source that logic wasn’t very important. That’s a complicated word you probably haven’t heard much in your short life. Mastering epistemology gives you the key to separate justified knowledge from belief/opinion/faith.”
Logic is imaginary. That is an absolute fact. You know whats also logically a fact? That my pet dragon exists, you just cant detect to him in any sensory way. 🙂 I’ve used that word multiple times on this blog, and you’re more than welcome to debate me about any philosophical subject, if you even have the balls. RR took a logic class and still doesn’t know jack shit about philosophy, so I’m not really concerned with whatever quazi- intellectualism you have to patronize me with. I’m not taking a jab at epistemology, I’m throwing it at pure rationalism, like the kind RR tries to engage in every now and then. You can literally rationalize any bullshit you want to, hence why the scientific method also incorporates skepticism, empiricism, falsification etc.
“Haha, and you’re talking about making strawmen?”
Yes, you’ve made a strawman, you implied he is a white nationalist and race traitor(or at least serves the agenda), which is physically impossible, he could technically be pro nationalism, and also anti-semetic but that’s besides the point because I’m not defending his logic, my point is you are just as tribal as the alt reicher with the rebel flag and it’s embarrassingly sad that you exhibit this stereotypical behavior especially seeing as how you claim to be more objective than bias.
“There is only one field that truly and professionally studies human biological diversity.”
No, there are many fields, HBD is a concept not a scientific field. It doesn’t require the existence of Races or even the validity of IQ to be an interesting worthwhile subject to invest in. I’m definitely interested in individual differences, of all parameters, not just specifically biochemistry like in medicine or Intelligence, like in psychometrics or Neuroscience.
“”I have written theses in law and economics to get my degrees, but don’t even get to believe that your psychobabble comes anywhere close to the rigorous work of inquiry and logic that just made me a lawyer.”
I highly doubt it. Concepts discussed here daily fly over your head, and honestly if I had decided to take a similar route, I’d probably be even better at it than you 🙂
“You can’t,”
I can and I have. Try again.
“Meanwhile, I’m not the one who has issues withe the academia and who has to invoke horrible conspiracies to explain why my “science” is confined to some obscure corners of the internet.”
Meanwhile Afro mistakes me for someone else, and continues to look like an ass.
Can’t we all just get along? And I’m not some creepy Jayman-obsessed stan, I read a lot of diverse points of view from people in the biological sciences, from Robert Trivers to Jared Diamond to Stephen Pinker to Mark Changizi to Yuval Harari. And I was reading and critically analyzingHBD stuff before I came across Jayman so stop trying box me in like I only have some narrow set of views, all of which involve just repeating a handful of other people. I don’t have time to express my full range of views on this blog because I have a life (including jobs and friends and family) I have other hobbies and even read/comment on other blogs (not all HBD related, btw).
“Logic is imaginary. That is an absolute fact. You know whats also logically a fact? That my pet dragon exists, you just cant detect to him in any sensory way. 🙂 I’ve used that word multiple times on this blog, and you’re more than welcome to debate me about any philosophical subject, if you even have the balls. RR took a logic class and still doesn’t know jack shit about philosophy, so I’m not really concerned with whatever quazi- intellectualism you have to patronize me with. I’m not taking a jab at epistemology, I’m throwing it at pure rationalism, like the kind RR tries to engage in every now and then.”
How is it ‘logically a fact’ that your pet dragon exists? You’ve provided no argument.
“You can literally rationalize any bullshit you want to”
Says who?
“hence why the scientific method also incorporates skepticism, empiricism, falsification etc.”
Which is the basis of philosophy of science.
You’re the one that said “syllogisms are stupid” and “logic is imaginary”. That doesn’t even make any sense at all.
And in fact, if black culture wasn’t so dysfunctional–not even completely functional, just half the violence and out-of-wedlock birthrates it has now–I would probably much prefer to hang around blacks vs. whites. I’m more comfortable in middle-class black culture (I mostly listen to black music, some Led Zeppelin and classical music notwithstanding, went to black churches, have mostly black family members, love black food). But since even many middle-class blacks have one foot in the ghetto, a lot of issues come up being around black people all the time. Like dating a black girl whose parents are on drugs and stealing money from her and she tries to constantly borrow money from you…that kind of bullshit.
Well now that you’ve finally admitted my mental superiority, we can start to rebuild.
Seems like you have trouble with sarcasm.
Just saying, it’s really strange that a wealthy black lawyer finds enjoyment, in bullying people on the internet..
How so?
Logic is imaginary. That is an absolute fact.
Logic is an abstract concept with concrete ramifications. Abstraction is the foundation of higher thought, which seemingly is a foreign concept to you.
You know whats also logically a fact? That my pet dragon exists, you just cant detect to him in any sensory way.
Now you’re just awkward.
Logic refers to what one can infer from the interaction of at least two premises. So you stating that you have a pet dragon that nobody can detect is not a logical argument.
I’ve used that word multiple times on this blog, and you’re more than welcome to debate me about any philosophical subject, if you even have the balls.
You should rather use words that you understand.
I’m not taking a jab at epistemology, I’m throwing it at pure rationalism, like the kind RR tries to engage in every now and then.
LMAO! Epistemology literally is the philosophy of rational knowledge. Are you trolling?
You can literally rationalize any bullshit you want to, hence why the scientific method also incorporates skepticism, empiricism, falsification etc.
Say it again.
No, there are many fields, HBD is a concept not a scientific field.
HBD is an euphemism for scientific racism.
The study of human biological diversity is a scientific field called medicine in its applied ramification and anatomy and physiology in its theoretical one.
Yes, you’ve made a strawman, you implied he is a white nationalist and race traitor(or at least serves the agenda), which is physically impossible, he could technically be pro nationalism, and also anti-semetic but that’s besides the point because I’m not defending his logic, my point is you are just as tribal as the alt reicher with the rebel flag and it’s embarrassingly sad that you exhibit this stereotypical behavior especially seeing as how you claim to be more objective than bias.)
I didn’t imply he’s a white nationalist, you’ve made this strawman all to yourself. He’s a race traitor, though he’s not fully aware of it.
The issue is not really that he’s a race traitor, it’s more that an educated black guy should know better and meet scientific racism with extra-skepticism. So it’s the foolishness, more than the betrayal that is disturbing. And since the foolishness has consequence, karma should make sure that fools like this are the first to feel the consequences of such foolishness.
I highly doubt it. Concepts discussed here daily fly over your head, and honestly if I had decided to take a similar route, I’d probably be even better at it than you 🙂
You’re one of these people whose ego relies on a lot of “if”. Stick to imaginary dragons.
I can and I have. Try again.
Not only you haven’t, but you also said that epistemology is irrelevant.
Meanwhile Afro mistakes me for someone else, and continues to look like an ass.
Haha, very entertaining exchange, meLo.
Can’t we all just get along?
No.
And I’m not some creepy Jayman-obsessed stan
Yes.
I don’t have time to express my full range of views on this blog because I have a life (including jobs and friends and family) I have other hobbies and even read/comment on other blogs (not all HBD related, btw).
So it’s even weirder that the time that you allocate to this blog consists of parroting basic HBD bullshit.
And in fact, if black culture wasn’t so dysfunctional–not even completely functional, just half the violence and out-of-wedlock birthrates it has now
Listen to our friend meLo: Blacks are not one homogeneous group, that is incredibly ignorant of you to even suggest such nonsense.
Blacks used to have much lower rates of crime and illegitimacy in the past and still don’t have so many of these problems in most of the world. That never prevented the insane racism that you subscribe to.
Listen to our friend meLo again: You can literally rationalize any bullshit you want to, hence why the scientific method also incorporates skepticism, empiricism, falsification etc.
“Seems like you have trouble with sarcasm.”
Seems like you have trouble with being trolled.
“How so?”
Usually I’d consider wealthy people to not find joy in such a simplistic and immature activity. But I’m probably overestimating you.
“Logic is an abstract concept with concrete ramifications.”
How is it concrete? I can deductively provide two contradictory but sound syllogisms, so how would you know which is correct? Empiricism…duh.
“Say it again.”
???
“You should rather use words that you understand.”
You are the dumbass who think rationalism is the same thing as epistemology
“Are you trolling?”
Are you this stupid? Rationalism and empiricism are separate schools of thought within epistemology. `My only point is that rationalism is useless by itself, as is empiricism.
“HBD is an euphemism for scientific racism.”
To you, yes. To rational individuals, no.
“you’ve made this strawman all to yourself. ”
No you did. You literally just stated that he is adhering to an HBD agenda, and the classical HBDer is a white nationalist.
“karma should make sure that fools like this are the first to feel the consequences of such foolishness.”
Morality is subjective
“The issue is not really that he’s a race traitor,”
Either way you’re tribalistic and it proves you’re bias.
“You’re one of these people whose ego relies on a lot of “if””
Wrong again, my ego rests upon a observable fact, that simple concepts go over your head. The if was in reference to if I had an interest in law. We have similar interests on here and it’s pretty obvious that I outclass you in this knowledge.
“Haha, very entertaining exchange, meLo.”
Indeed.
”Morality is subjective”
NO.
Only when morality is used to exploit and deceive people, in complex societies.
You’re seeing how ”excessive subjectivity” has been used by post modernists and replicants.
Or when knowledge AND empathy allied are not enough to provide a better response, for example: leave ”defective” babies to death. [Even in this case, only empathy tend to be enough to make people decide for correct choices].
Real morality is always objective and imoral/amoral people know that, they ”just” like to use it to themselves but keep in secrets about their real compassion for themselves.
Empathy is per si put in the another ”shoes”.
”I would like someone to do the same with me**”
Based on this simple question most of ”polemic moral stuff” would be easily discredited.
But specially when we are talking about extreme stuff because ”in the middle” of moral spectrum this facility will becoming more and more subtle or complex to be easily solved.
Seems like you have trouble with being trolled.
No, I find skilled trolls like mug of pee genuinely funny.
Usually I’d consider wealthy people to not find joy in such a simplistic and immature activity. But I’m probably overestimating you.
Said the self-confessed troll.
How is it concrete? I can deductively provide two contradictory but sound syllogisms, so how would you know which is correct? Empiricism…duh.
All applied science rests on logically sound theoretical models.
You are the dumbass who think rationalism is the same thing as epistemology
No, I said epistemology is the study of rational knowledge, not that rationalism and epistemology are the same thing.
Are you this stupid? Rationalism and empiricism are separate schools of thought within epistemology. `My only point is that rationalism is useless by itself, as is empiricism.
Lol, stick to your imaginary pet dragons.
To you, yes. To rational individuals, no.
Now you care about rationality? Hahaha!
No professional biologist or research institution endorses the term HBD as anything else but an euphemism for scientific racism.
No you did. You literally just stated that he is adhering to an HBD agenda, and the classical HBDer is a white nationalist.
No, I said nothing about white nationalism. Just said he adheres to an ideology fueled by hatred against his own people. If you read Dylan Roof’s manifesto, you’ll clearly see that his chapter on black people contains nothing the GondwanaMan would disagree with.
Morality is subjective
Yes, just like logic according to you.
Either way you’re tribalistic and it proves you’re bias.
Look what’s really funny:
1) Criticizing me for supposedly not disagreeing with GondwanaMan’s opinions for their logical merits.
2) Saying that logic is imaginary and irrelevant.
3) Concluding that I’m tribalistic and biased because I’m supposedly not disagreeing with him on logical grounds, which would be an irrelevant cause of disagreement anyway.
Wrong again, my ego rests upon a observable fact, that simple concepts go over your head. The if was in reference to if I had an interest in law. We have similar interests on here and it’s pretty obvious that I outclass you in this knowledge.
Your stupidity is a gift that keeps on giving.
“I find skilled trolls like mug of pee genuinely funny.”
“mug of pee”
“peepee”
“skilled trolls”
LMAO
“Said the self-confessed troll.”
I only troll incredibly gullible people, such as yourself.
“All applied science rests on logically sound theoretical models.”
Which are then empirically verified.
“not that rationalism and epistemology are the same thing.”
You were responding to this:
“I’m not taking a jab at epistemology, I’m throwing it at pure rationalism, like the kind RR tries to engage in every now and then.”
So obviously you thought they were the same, nice try though.
‘Lol, stick to your imaginary pet dragons.”
My imaginary dragon, is as ‘real” as your god 🙂
“Yes, just like logic according to you.”
Logic has subjective premises but objective conclusions,
“Look what’s really funny:”
It is funny, because all 3 points are true, and you have yet to demonstrate the opposite.
Yale Neuroscientists Can Now Determine Human Intelligence Through Brain Scans
http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/yale-neuroscientists-can-now-determine-human-intelligence-through-brain-scans
there was some sexiest man ever contest.
the finalists were newman and brando.
although neither had any italian ancestry…
both looked like roman emperors.
am i wrong?
ingrid looks more roman than swedish. her daughter isabella was half italian and at one time was a KO.
like newman, some half ashenazi girls are kos.
amanda peete and jenniifer connelly.
a great plot point of Little Children was how the wife was a KO.
the women who reached inside me, pulled my heart out, and pickled it…
they were all the nw euro cross roman type in facial phenotype.
Pimp is obsessed with celebrity world which gravitates hxs goddess…
And you are obsessed with good looking male celebrities…
a stereotype,
you need hakuho inside you.
You need a big aryan penis in your virgin and rose ass…
it’s what you want autist
https://i.redditmedia.com/Q_HAAhkhZTlz2cLs6W1cOnRITbMWiA773_xnDCTv3Hc.jpg?w=1024&s=2598b69ee22cf573f5ad27121a09fd8d
lmao santo’s aggression must be uniquely brazilian
Fenuck
or you’re kidding or you definitively don’t understand what the word average mean.
Fenuck and his big brain are thinking ALL brazilians are prone to commit crimes…
if the answer is correct so…
bt the cruel standards of reality…
the young james earl ray was sexy…
much sexier than his victim.
LOL what the hell does that even have to do with anything??
most white men wish they were as good looking.
Come out of the closet already!
such a dyke.
sad!
peepee’s theory is that serge lost to arnold because the judges were racist gay white men.
my experience is men/women are VERY BAD at judging the attractiveness of owomen/men.
james earl ray looks like the guy on the left of that picture.
he’s a pretty boy.
tell me he couldn;t sell clothes!
you can’t.
dude is pretty!
“owomen” = “men”
“men” = “women”
this guy looks like fresh meat in every prison in America. If he ever got put in gen pop black dudes would bend him over and commence to applying M&M coloring to his lips and Vaseline to his hole.
chris langan (part 1)
Chris Langan Part2
Chris Langan part3
langan is an alt-right theist…
peepee!
alt-right is just another word for alt-left. You said yourself fucker Carlson is the most left-wing person on TV.
Chris Langan: I would see what can he could hold in his head at once and all their relations. I wouldn’t necessarily give them an IQ test?
items = (IQ-100)*1.8
162 = (190-100)*1.8
Chris Langan: 162
Chris Lagan is sub-human and retarded. Prove me wrong.
Langan is a super genius, as measured by the mega test, the SAT and head size. show some respect
Either I’m retarded or he’s retarded. I will research him properly when I get home.
Even that I have doubts about. I need to research the authenticity of his IQ.
That and past 145, IQ loses all meaning.
Fenoopy, you have an extremely high logic IQ, but like most young people you have very bad judgement. I’m not qualified to judge Langan’s theories, & if I’m not qualified, you’re not qualified to even be not qualified. But watch Langan on youtube. He’s smart as fuck.
go team retard. wooh
omg so gullible, PP falling for this con artist
His entire act depends on people presuming they’re not qualified to judge his ‘theories’.
He did score extremely high on the Mega Test. That’s independent confirmation of extremely high IQ.
Question: [test item redacted by pp, April 9, 2018]
The Mega Test is an absolute joke and it makes me laugh.
“The Mega Test is an untimed, unsupervised, “take-home” IQ “power test”. It isn’t accepted by psychometrists as a valid IQ test, for two reasons.
First, among psychometrists, problem-solving speed is considered to play a pivotal role in intelligence and in IQ measurements, and is the reason that conventional IQ tests have tight time limits. Since no time constraints are applied to solving problems on the Mega Test, psychometrists consider its “IQ” measurements to be denatured, since they depend upon persistence as well as speed.
Second, the fact that it is unsupervised opens the garden gate to collusion and cheating.”
He’s a con. That’s what he does.
How people don’t see that I don’t know.
Germanics are the most gullible people on this planet.
Not saying the mega test is as accurate as a professional IQ test but it’s one of the best tests for measuring the extreme high end. Inventing calculus was also untimed & unsupervised but no one doubts Newton’s intellect.
You think billionaires are motivated by Marxism so you’re the last person to be calling others gullible.
I looked at the Mega Test questions, they’re literally a joke. The Mega Test isn’t an IQ test at all, half the questions are trivia. All over the internet you can see Langan get outright dissected by critics. Let’s sit Langan down and have him do Ravens.
I don’t believe billionaires are motivated by Marxism, I believe anyone over a certain IQ is divorced from their instincts and realizes tribalism is stupidity. Even approaching 140, people become less and less driven by their instincts and can rationally break down their motives.
There is a selfish argument for altruism in a positive sum world.
Anyone can dissect anyone’s theory on the Internet. Langan doesn’t have time to personally respond to everyone who attacks him nor would he want to give them attention. And he did do Raven type items as part of his WAIS-III assessment for 20/20 though i suppose that could have been gamed if he knew ahead of time.
As an atheist i’m no fan of his theory either but listening to him talk in interviews, he comes across as super smart.
You think western elites support open borders because they’re just such enlitened people, they’ve moved beyond their tribal instincts? That’s the definition of naive.
There are a number of reasons: the primary reason is George Soros funding Merkel’s campaign. To stay in power, she has to open borders [for George Soros] and ‘for Germany’s demographics’. George Soros has outlined his political beliefs clearly in his 12 hour lecture series.
“Netanyahu says George Soros funding campaign against Israeli plan to deport asylum seekers … Netanyahu knows full well that Soros is the Eternal Jew of anti-Semites”
He wants open borders for Israel too.
I know this is a battle between Globalists and Zionists, but don’t know what the Globalist’s motives are.
I can’t tell if Obama is an important Globalist player, or just a puppet.
He wants open borders for Israel too.
You’re being played.
Yes, and this is why I said Fenoopy says a lot of nonsense. If anything people over that level should realise that we live in a zero sum world where evolution is designed to promote tribalism. If you have no tribalism you have no evolution.
But at the same time people above that level realize genetic interests can conflict with personal interests, and the latter are what matter. Fenoopy is right that high IQ people are less tribal on average, but the ruling class is much more tribal & power hungry than most high IQ people. That’s how they got where they are.
“genetic interests can conflict with personal interests”
These things are the same thing. Why do you think you care for your own child more than another persons child if they were in a life and death situation?
They evolve to be the same thing, but there are always exceptions. Many people genuinely don’t even want kids, even though they know kids behoove their genes. Part of the reason is cultural evolution outpaces genetic evolution. We evolved to want sex so we could reproduce because it worked that way for millions of years, but things changed when birth control was invented. now people smart enough to use comdoms are less genetically fit
You can believe that Bill Gates is either stupid, or smart enough to care more about all of humanity than just his own, personal and tribal interests. Philosopher believes Bill Gates is a retard, I believe he’s just smart enough he can think about more than just himself. Humanity has no future under tribal government.
“the ruling class is much more tribal & power hungry than most high IQ people”
Yes they are, but the ruling classes are typically in the 125-135 IQ range, they aren’t truly smart people like scientists and philosophers.
This in my opinion is the optimal range for accumulation of power or wealth, IQ over this tends to lead to becoming a minimalist hermit or starving artist near 100% of the time as people over this range no longer care about instincts or material things but instead are driven by curiosity and self-actualization.
Yes, but you think the Jewish liberal elite in Western countries are motivated by Marxism which is extremely naïve.
”These things are the same thing. Why do you think you care for your own child more than another persons child if they were in a life and death situation?”
Pheel is that thunker who don’t think…
Yes, so a couple who decide to have a one child instead more have a genetic interest to limitates their family size … because a better life standards…
Genetic interest is basically the same to personal or individual in less self-aware species.. period.
The first genetic interest of all is its own well being, reproductive value is in the ”second”.
I believe it’s a possibility, I don’t believe it [as a personal opinion]. I don’t have enough information at the moment but probably will do in the next 5 years.
That said, I hate vague terms like ‘elites’, I like names of people, dates, names of organizations, statistics, facts.
George Soros is not a Zionist, no matter which way you put it. Neither is Obama.
didn’t say he was a Zionist, but he is motivated by ethnic genetic interests. He saw what happened in Nazi Germany when whites form an ethno-state so he’s flooding white countries with immigrants to avoid that ever happening again.
Well yes, the ethnic genetic interests of mixed race people [like Obama and myself] make us direct enemies of ethno-state whites.
Who cares if the terms are vague? You’ve already caught the gist.
The whole benefit of being smart is that you can infer and we don’t have to waste our time explaining things to each other.
Also Chris Langan is a boring artifact of worshipping the IQ test as a definitive test of abilitiy. Is he a smart guy? Sure, but his social Philosophy is nothing but uninspired banality. He’s not a patch on Enoch Powell, who in turn pales in comparison to Caesar and Napoleon and what I’m getting at by that is that he is orders of magnitudes removed from minds actually worthy of study, emulation, and adulation.
Gypsyman by all accounts would admit Lagan can see reality for what it is. But he does not do anything with it, it seems. A harsh time where academia sticks and he works at a bar. Keeps most ideas to himself.
Working memory probably is 190.
But being a calculator is not the same as being creative, not that he isn’t creative.
He likes to compact things, be efficient not really proliferate.
He conserves his intellect so it is in structure the minimum of a conceptual framework.
With others, there is a thesis and antithesis. Trying to protect against deconstructions of what the main propositions being laid out are. But with Langan this is sidestepped and only a core claim is deductively laid out. And because he is conservative no much is left to the imagination. Inductive Thesis antithesis works build up world examples of which Gypsyman brings up his great people that use evidence to accomplish in the real world. The deductive approach Langan has is nothing in his eyes because it leads to zero accomplishment. No concrete fruits.
The difference in Gypsyman’s examples and Langan is Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Thinking. Langan the Introverted Deductive Thinker.
”(((Reich’s))) work as a leader of prehistoric population studies includes the discovery that all people of non-African descent carry small amounts of Neanderthal DNA, showing that Homo sapiens – at one stage – must have interbred with this long-dead species of ancient humans.”
Totally speculative of course, if virtually ALL people of non-subsaharian descent carry small amounts of neander genes, so it’s may due before the separation of humans in three macro-races** indian, caucasian and east asian*
Australoids also have neanderthal dna**
Why when we have A LOT OF jewish scientists working in certain area, i feel they will lie for us** Maybe i prejewdice**
maybe i make sense no* even in pork and cheese.
an han
I dont think he is han.
based on his comment history.
He have a short penis
kitty?
is* who an han? hihihihihi
I’m you. We are the same person mister Fry!!
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/07/ever-evolving-story-humanity-david-reich-interview-neanderthals-denisovans-genome
japanese english language ability…
the worst.
why do they even consent to be interviewed?
they overestimate their proficiency?
why is this?
it’s fucking ridiculous!
”So yes, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals had a common ancestor, about 500,000 years ago, before the former evolved as a separate species – in Africa – and the latter as a different species in Europe.”
So, Are there these ”common ancestor” genes which would be found in all humans**
Chem weapons attack – is this CIA/Israel false flag again?
Animekitty, can you drive a car ? Are you a virgin ?
no, yes.
Are all of you in high school? Or is it middle school?
why do you assume we’re children here?
Meant as a response to Lyrion’s comment above. Sorry for the broad brush treatment. I assume that you, RaceRealist, are not a child. It’s simply that I find it hard to take the extreme level of inanity from so many people who apparently credit themselves with great intelligence. It’s just a little ironic.
archie is sub120 iq mouth breathing retard
Fenoopy has a serious complex about his intelligence. And he’s wrong on top of it. Not to mention inane. But I’ve encountered that kind of thing before.
Here’s a little test for you, Feloopy: identify and correct all the non sequiturs in your original “rodents” comments (I responded to a couple of them, if you recall) — and then post the results in a comment. If you claim that there aren’t any, that makes you the “sub120 iq mouth breathing retard.” And your results on the Raven’s matrices would be shown not to reflect any great abstract reasoning or fluid intelligence — unless of course the score was quite low.
Then, Fele-loopy, if you manage to accomplish that task — which is actually not terribly challenging — you might like to move on to something more interesting: explain what the Monty Hall problem is, why Marilyn vos Savant provided a solution that hardly any experts agreed with, and what the arguments were on both sides. Try not to google the last two parts unless you feel prompted just to provide a book report.
Then, for extra credit, you can explain why the question involving the definite integral of 2x from 10 to 13 is considered a joke. (That’s easy to find on “the Internets,” I’m sure. However, I’m asking you to tell me based on your surely vast knowledge and super-120 iq.)
Finally, if you’re really insatiable for interesting intellectual questions, you can explain the etymology of the word “eureka,” the grammatical form it originally represents, and the typical use of that grammatical form.
Or you could explain the foundation of Kant’s philosophy. Or you could discuss the analytic philosophers, the differences among them, and the question whether they matter for anyone today.
Or you could explain the origin of the word “diegetic,” as well as any distinction Aristotle makes between something that is “diegetic” and another major category cited in the Poetics — if there actually is any distinction.
Or since you’re an expert on rodents, you could discuss the arguments for and against the proposition that animal communication is a form of language — without relying on Chomsky, unless you want to explain why Chomsky’s position is a natural conclusion from his theories of language and what those theories are.
Or you could discuss the Riemann Hypothesis and explain the progress made on this question at this point.
And by “explaining,” I’m not talking about tossing off one-liners in your usual fashion.
Of course, if you don’t want to do any of this, I’ll understand. But I’ll also be having a good laugh every time I read your comments on anyone’s intelligence.
After all, as far as I know, you never answered my questions about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But that’s all water under the bridge.
Feloopy thinks a cartesian product is something typically advertised on TV.
Feloopy thinks a float is something to play with in the bathtub.
Feloopy thinks C++ is just a grade better than a C+ and worse than a B-.
Feloopy thinks that the races discussed on this blog include the Indy 500.
Feloopy thinks that calling a woman a thespian is impolite.
Feloopy thinks the London Underground is a political movement (even though he lives in London). [This last one stolen from A Fish Called Wanda, of course.]
Feloopy thinks that tags are just something you find on clothes in department stores.
Feloopy thinks that completing the square means drawing the fourth side.
Feloopy thinks that a cube root is an oddly shaped carrot.
Feloopy thinks an object complement is a nice thing to say about the knick-knacks in someone’s home.
Feloopy thinks a cookie is just something the English would typically call a biscuit.
Feloopy is puzzled on Boxing Day because he doesn’t see anyone fighting.
And many other incorrect things …
I am literate in 9 languages and have read the holy books of several Eastern religions
what 9 languages?
lmao
YEEEEOOOWWWSAAAAAA.
”and have read the holy books of several Eastern religions”
Are you unemployed**
Do you want teach him about intelligence or cognitive elitism*
i’ve come out of the closet so many times i can’t remember.
the last time…
afro was looking at all his yuge polo pony shirts, trying to decide which he would wear to go riding with his (((fiancee))) on the beach.
then i came out all over his face.
he said, “thank you white man.”
i said, “you’re welcome!”
To answer to Fenoopy about my IQ, I don’t know it. I was one year ahead during elementary school so I guess it’s high but eventually had to repeat a grade. I was never diligent on schoolwork at least after elementary school and I find IQ test items very boring to do. I never bothered doing seriously an online test, when I don’t find the answer in the next seconds I usually skip.
I don’t get RR and Afrosapiens thing on IQ being irrelevant and uniquely based on social class, what about people from lower class outperforming higher class ones ? May be that’s a dumb question, enlighten me.
what about people from lower class outperforming higher class ones ?
Because social class is a very complex measure.
A plumber or a truck driver can be much richer than a teacher, but his household’s culture would still be more prole than that of single mom teacher working part time and coming off as working-poor, welfare user on census data.
Rich blacks live in poorer neighborhoods, served by poorer schools than poor whites. So even if census data tells you they’re making a six figure income, their social environment and the culture they live is in fact more distant from the test’s culture than that of working class whites.
Then there is always some individual variation, a child can come from a semi-literate household and for some reasons be drawn to very intellectual things, that would place him higher than Donald Trump types of old money rich folks.
Donald Trump is smart though. I don’t see how you can seriously argue against that. Once again, certain commenter confuses the commentary he reads in ebony boys magazine with actual evidence.
Trump is extremely dumb, very vulgar and has a pathological inferiority complex regarding his blatant ignorance.
please explain why credit agricole’s regional constituent banks sell at less than 40% of their book value. or explain why that figure is false or misleading.
if peepee doesn’t post this i will know that you are peepee.
Lol! Do you think I have an opinion about this?
I agree Trump may be very dumb but not that he have lower self esteem.
Indeed, very higher self esteem is often a symptom of… intrinsic stupidity, when even a higher IQ can save people to be self-fool.
you graduated from france’s top business school. of course you can explain it to me.
or maybe you didn’t graduate from france’s top business school. sad!
I have no idea what the financial markets currently think about CA’s regional branches. Selling stocks under book value is very common when market confidence is low, I don’t know why there would be anything special about CA, French stock markets aren’t doing great as a whole.
rr and his brainwashers claim that IQ tests test proximity to the middle class.
so it follows that the children of the very rich should be just as stupid as the children of the very poor.
unless by “middle class” rr and his boyfriends mean “bourgeoisie”.
“so it follows that the children of the very rich should be just as stupid as the children of the very poor.”
Nope. Think about it for a second.
unless by “middle class” rr and his boyfriends mean “bourgeoisie”.
No, the mean of 100 is supposed to represent the middle class but the level of difficulty represents the class gradient.
The most g-loaded items are the vocabulary-related ones. People scoring around 100 are those from background using the middle class sociolect at home and whose vocabulary reflects the words used in middle level professions. Those scoring above tend to use more complex and technical language at their job and are more familiar with complex words in their daily lives. On the contrary, those who score below average are those who tend to use dialect/slang and have a basic, sometimes approximative use of the language.
Put simply, IQ tests measure the size of your home library and the scores can be intuitively guessed by the complexity of one’s vocabulary.
”rr and his brainwashers claim that IQ tests test proximity to the middle class.”
It’s not totally wrong at all. But social class ”also”/obviously express genetic or biological combinations…
”IQ is a social construct TOO’
yes, but because all social construct are forcely genetic construct so…
anything biological things do have a biological origin in inevitable /and variable combination with the environment.
IQ express the secondary cognitive skills of inhabitant of human civilizations.
Remember the feedback:
When civilization increases its complexity people tend to be selected to be capable to sustain, reinforce or advance its complexity, otherwise civilization will not continue subsequently in the next generations, aka, dysgenics.
Indeed if you analyse avg IQ by social class you will have a huge correlation between higher social class and higher IQ, in nearly perfect match.
And when we change our perspective view and start to look FIRSTLY for highly IQscored people and social class this match will not be nearly perfect as when we analyse firstly social class as a group and IQ.
IQ basically measured our semantic memory capacity [chrystallized] and our superficial and non-contextual capacity to use it [fluid].
It was firstly introduced in Britain, France and Germany.
It’s relatively similar with the Greennwich line versus Equator line. If the avg is more in the west or more in the east, seems quite relative. But because civilization inevitably mean higher intelligence [even it’s quite perverted to serve dominant and evil political economic classes, aka, domestication] so i find important draw a avg line based on the most ”succesful’ societies.
IQ is more like Greenwich in the way it’s not exactly the perfect avg between the highest avg and lower avg of human groups, basically the humanity avg IQ, but the highest avg [too much ”to the west”]
Nope. Think about it for a second.
my IQ isn’t low enough to understand. please explain it to me.
Santo,
“But social class ”also”/obviously express genetic or biological combinations…”
There are obviously genetic differences between classes but they’re irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment.
Mugabe,
Higher class people have more of what middle class people have and way more than what lower class people have.
…
so it’s not a test of how middle class one is. it’s a test of socio-economic class.
but this is meaningless because one can simply define class to fit the test scores. one can define the children of professors as higher class than the children of car dealership owners and voila their IQs match their class even though the car dealership owners make way more money. this is in fact how gregory clark showed that class is just as heritable in sweden as in the uk, even though income is far less heritable.
rr and afro dress in women’s clothing.
if one has the IQ scores and must decide he’d be a fool not to consider them in his decision.
IQ scores have john holmes level construct validity. this is not in doubt. but rr has his “own meaning” of construct validity.
the question is only can IQ scores be predicted from the genome over time and place, society and culture.
the meaning is the use.
and IQ tests can be useful.
the genetic explanation of native american et al’s alcoholism is not proven. no genes have been discovered. and twin studies demonstrate that alcoholism is not heritable in the general population.
Nobody born alcoholic, maybe just you. Alcoholism is a conjugation of bad outcomes which correlates one each other. To catch alcoholism genes you [may] need: anxiety/low self esteem genes; taste for alcohol; lower self control; less dense blood.
If you’re more prone to be anxious or have a lower self esteem + love drink a alcoholic beverage + have less capacity to filter it in your blood + have a lower self control + a permissive environment + your live hasn’t been great at all [based on certain criteria], voi la.
Or not exactly like that.
But there are people who can become drunk in short term, in one or another party but never obsessive at long term with alcoholic beverage.
”There are obviously genetic differences between classes but they’re irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment.”
why*
So what is relevant*
I can’t really oppose you any arguments. I get what you are saying but all of this is pretty much unverifiable and the burden of proof is on you.
You get it backwards. The burden of proof is on these who claim IQ is a fact of nature.
It’s indisputable that IQ tests are man-made, designed within a particular cultural context and that practice inflates scores.
So the default assumption must be that variation is due to how culturally close to the test designers test takers are and how much they have practiced tasks similar to those found in the tests.
Nurture is nature. The burden of proof still lies with you as well as with hereditarians.
So you think the fact that you don’t speak Yoruba is both nurture and nature? That your non-Yoruba nature would make it harder for you to speak Yoruba if you were raised in a Yoruba family?
It’s probably because of your non-Inuit nature that you can’t hunt seals in the Arctic.
Don’t even bother replying, I know you too well. You just resort to ad hominem attacks when you run out of non-sequiturs.
Peace.
How is ‘Nurture . . . nature’?
Afro
“So you think the fact that you don’t speak Yoruba is both nurture and nature? ”
Of course, I’m not genetically nor phenotypically Yoruban, and because of that there is a much higher chance that I am not culturally Yoruban.
“That your non-Yoruba nature would make it harder for you to speak Yoruba if you were raised in a Yoruba family?”
Yes and no. For example east asians have a more pictographic and mathematical writing system, and the way you learn your language heavily influences your math abilities. Experience dependency would make it more likely that these culturally induced structures are inherited. Some studies I’ve seen on the phenomena do claim the split is present in adoptees, but they suffer from small n’s and sampling bias/error.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-language-for-math-1410304008
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181074
“It’s probably because of your non-Inuit nature that you can’t hunt seals in the Arctic.”
I’m sure their larger visual cortex helps them hunt seals. So kind of, yeah.
“I know you too well.”
Obviously you don’t know as much as you think.
RR,
“How is ‘Nurture . . . nature’?”
Mutations and Epigenetics mediated by selection pressures, which are always environmentally induced. Human culture is a form of niche construction.
‘Mutations and Epigenetics mediated by selection pressures, which are always environmentally induced. Human culture is a form of niche construction.’
I don’t disagree but that doesn’t mean that ‘nature . . . is nurture’. I’d also add thst human culture is Lamarckian as well.
That doesn’t mean that ‘nurture’ doesn’t exist and that the only thing that does is ‘nature’.
(By the way mutations aren’t always random.)
“that ‘nature . . . is nurture”
Vice versa.
Of course, I’m not genetically nor phenotypically Yoruban, and because of that there is a much higher chance that I am not culturally Yoruban.
None of this is the reason why you aren’t culturally Yoruba. You are not Yoruba because you don’t have recent Yoruba ancestors and you haven’t spent time in Yoruba communities. For these reasons, you are no more and no less likely to speak Yoruba than a black American who is barely phenotypically distinguishable from Yorubas in Nigeria and Benin and genetically clusters closer to West Africans than to the English speakers who made English the US’s main language that most Americans speak natively whether they are black, half Filipino or descendants of Italians in New Jersey.
No gene nor phenotype would influence the causal probability that you speak Yoruba, although being a native Yoruba speaker would increase the probability that you carry certain genes. However, none of these genes causes the mastery of this specific language.
Yes and no. For example east asians have a more pictographic and mathematical writing system, and the way you learn your language heavily influences your math abilities. Experience dependency would make it more likely that these culturally induced structures are inherited. Some studies I’ve seen on the phenomena do claim the split is present in adoptees, but they suffer from small n’s and sampling bias/error.
Your links are not addressing the point, I’m not asking whether some culturally acquired abilities transfer to other seemingly independent skills. This is something I don’t doubt. I’m asking if cultural factors are influenced by genetic predispositions, which you have yet to demonstrate to justify your “nurture is nature” stance.
I’m sure their larger visual cortex helps them hunt seals. So kind of, yeah.
This is not the reason why you can’t hunt seals in the arctic. This isn’t the reason why you probably don’t master the traditional fishing techniques of the Philippines.
That the Inuits have adapted to their low light environment by reinforcing their visual capacities is a thing. That it would instinctively make them good hunters isn’t the same. Which is why many of them are now drinking their lives away instead of perpetuating the ways of their ancestors. Nurture is not nature.
Obviously you don’t know as much as you think.
What do I know?
Which is why many of them are now drinking their lives away instead of perpetuating the ways of their ancestors.
Let me concede one thing here. There is a part of nature in the fact that the natives of North America and the Arctic are so prone to alcoholism. Several genetic studies suggest that they did not evolve resistance to ethanol due to alcoholic beverages having been introduced very recently in their lifestyle.
Don’t get it twisted though, ethanol is not a cultural construct. It’s a chemical compound (C2H5OH) that interacts with the body’s chemistry. So it is a fact of nature, unlike IQ.
”For example east asians have a more pictographic and mathematical writing system, and the way you learn your language heavily influences your math abilities.”
I don’t know if it was proved. Well, east asian-descendents who never learn the language of their ancestors tend to be better on math in western countries.
this rr afro anti-IQ stuff is an example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
yes. IQ-tards like peepee outnumber people like me, but…
people DO differ in intelligence…however one defines it.
smart people and dumb people are a FACT of nature!
AND IQ tests are the single best conceivable operationalization of this REAL phenomenon.
the single best may still SUCK DONKEY BALLS but it’s still the best.
AND IQ tests are the single best conceivable operationalization of this REAL phenomenon.
the single best may still SUCK DONKEY BALLS but it’s still the best.
What the hell’s your point Mug of Pee? Not hard to be the best when they’re the only. Either defend IQ tests fully or shut the fuck up.
IQ tests suck but they’re better than other measures of intelligence, even though there are virtually no other measures of intelligence. People who believe in IQ tests are IQ tards, but people who don’t believe in IQ tests are brainwashed into cutting off their nose and for some mysterious reason I get to float above both categories.
#think like Mug of Pee
What is the ‘single best test’?
“You are not Yoruba because you don’t have recent Yoruba ancestors”
That is literally the same thing as me stating: “I’m not genetically nor phenotypically Yoruban”.
“Your links are not addressing the point,”
They did, but apparently you have reading comprehension disabilities as well, Ill explain more below.
“I’m not asking whether some culturally acquired abilities transfer to other seemingly independent skills. This is something I don’t doubt. I’m asking if cultural factors are influenced by genetic predispositions, which you have yet to demonstrate to justify your “nurture is nature” stance.”
1) Saying “nurture is nature” =/= “cultural factors are influenced by genetic predispositions”
I’m arguing feedback loops not any kind of dichotomy, because genomes evolve contemporary to the environment and culture is just another form of environment. The point of my links was to show that different languages do accompany neurological changes. And while the form of epigenetics that enacts on the brain is the most “lamarckian” compared tot he effects enacted on the body, it is still inherited, and I don’t expect dramatic changes to be made or erased in only one generation.
“That it would instinctively make them good hunters isn’t the same.”
It helps when looking for food to hunt especially in environments with low color contrast like the ones present in Arctic conditions.
“Several genetic studies suggest that they did not evolve resistance to ethanol due to alcoholic beverages having been introduced very recently in their lifestyle.”
Race is simply a combination of correlations from recent ancestry and geography, their alcoholism is a part of their race, but is not dependent on their race.
Nurture is nature.
Until iq tests show italians are smarter than canadians Im not convinced they prove anything.
As well all know, Roseanne Barr is famous because she had a good IQ test result.
That is literally the same thing as me stating: “I’m not genetically nor phenotypically Yoruban”.
No, reread.
They did, but apparently you have reading comprehension disabilities as well, Ill explain more below.
They say nothing about either genetic or epigenetic inheritance or feedback loops involving natural processes. So they aren’t addressing the point.
The point of my links was to show that different languages do accompany neurological changes. And while the form of epigenetics that enacts on the brain is the most “lamarckian” compared tot he effects enacted on the body, it is still inherited, and I don’t expect dramatic changes to be made or erased in only one generation.
I’m very enthusiastic about epigenetics, but your claims that the effects of regular brain plasticity are inter-generationally transmitted through epigenetic mechanisms is more Lamarckian than Lamarck himself and is unfounded.
It helps when looking for food to hunt especially in environments with low color contrast like the ones present in Arctic conditions.
It’s not low color contrast that does it, it’s low sunlight. Polar regions get less than 6 hours of daylight for six months of the year, 0 at the peak of the winter.
There are equally monochromous environments out of the arctic and they don’t require these adaptations.
Race is simply a combination of correlations from recent ancestry and geography, their alcoholism is a part of their race, but is not dependent on their race.
Nonsense. Their alcoholism is not part of their “race”, an inuit with genetic resistance to alcoholism is not vulnerable , it only makes a group level difference level because fewer Inuits have these adaptations. On the individual level, it’s individual genotype, not race that matters.
Basic.
Nurture is not nature.
”What the hell’s your point Mug of Pee? Not hard to be the best when they’re the only.”
Hbd’ears are promissing analyse the quality of intelligence since i begun to follow them…
”Either defend IQ tests fully or shut the fuck up.”
What**
Or we defend IQ tests ”fully” like a IQist or not**
IQ TEST is not intelligence. thousand times saying this.
IQ is a MEAN to the END = intelligence.
The best MEAN we have.
It’s not enough.
Higher IQ people seems often have heuristic problems as most people.
The MOST important, elementar aspect of any type of intelligence regardless the living being is
factual understanding based on given perceptual capacity.
or Heuristics.
Grasps some elementar facts is extremely important, it’s just like reality navigation.
A lot of higher IQ people have not just average level problems but huge problems with this fundamental aspect of intelligence.
Houston, we have a problem.
A lot of higher IQ people also have moral problems but they are clever enough to mask this, and obviously i’m talking about objective moral problems and not ”irreligious or ideological based ones”.
Houston, we have a problem.
I already told here the problematic points of IQ tests as well intelligence conceptualization and contextualization.
Intelligence IS NOT JUST cognition/perception.
Remember what i said: emotion is our way to judge things at least in subjective way.
We are not just workers or just robots who memorize, obey and execute orders.
Or we defend IQ tests ”fully” like a IQist or not**
The point is Mug of Pee condemns RR & Afro’s anti-IQism, yet doesn’t say where they’re wrong.
He agrees with them that IQ tests suck, but says they’re the best measure of intelligence we have, which is a dumb since they’re practically the only measure of intelligence we have. Maybe Mug of Pee’s point is IQ tests are better than education credentials, but RR & Afro are not arguing that education is a valid measure of intelligence, they’re arguing IQ tests largely measure education (including being raised in rich educated homes).
The real disagreement Mug of Pee has with RR & Afro is application. He feels IQ tests (or their proxies like the SAT) should be the primary way people get ahead in society and that universities and employers should depend primarily on test scores to recruit people.
”The real disagreement Mug of Pee has with RR & Afro is application. He feels IQ tests (or their proxies like the SAT) should be the primary way people get ahead in society and that universities and employers should depend primarily on test scores to recruit people.”
So he is a anti-iqist but iqist, interesting…
”He agrees with them that IQ tests suck, but says they’re the best measure of intelligence we have, which is a dumb since they’re practically the only measure of intelligence we have.”
And, what’s wrong to say this*
Seems he don’t said ” actually there are other intelligence tests beyond IQ” but ”right now IQ is the best we have, still imperfect, so we need a better test”.
”but RR & Afro are not arguing that education is a valid measure of intelligence, they’re arguing IQ tests largely measure education (including being raised in rich educated homes).”
How explain people who never had a formal education and still scores higher than most people who had*
Yes, all the time in this specific debate we have
people who don’t understand people, and worse, people who don’t understand themselves.
I always prefer to think firstly that most of this people are just painly dishonest about their ”point of views” but i have a experience with many useful ”idiots” and the problem seems more deep than ”just” lack of character. They truly have a bad time to understand the stuff they often like to engage.
the single best test is the one with the highest g loading for the population.
DUH!
they’re practically the only measure of intelligence we have.
FALSE. peepee doesn;t live in the real world. sad!
“No, reread.”
Not having a black yoruban ancestor is indeed one of the reasons i don’t speak yoruban.
“So they aren’t addressing the point. and is unfounded.”
RR, osted me evidence of epigenetic changes with stress levels, so i don’t think it’s far fetched to assume similar phenomena can happen to neurological changes created by language:
“Indeed, epigenetics epitomizes the development of the brain more than that of any other structure. The billions of neurons exponentially magnified for function by the trillions of synaptic interconnections mean that no two brains are alike. Even monozygotic (MZ) twins show differences in behavior and in psychiatric disorders that become more marked with age (20). There are, as reported in this Sackler Colloquium, reports of experience driven heritable changes in the brain’s epigenome, especially experiences involving maternal care (13) and stress (21). Neural systems are designed to respond to the environment because the strengths of their synaptic connections are activity-dependent. In humans the accumulation of brain knowledge across generations has played an integral role in shaping and ameliorating environments to optimize longevity and reproductive success.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6789
“It’s not low color contrast that does it, it’s low sunlight”
The reason the Visual cortex increases in size is for an adaption to dimmer light levels. Arctic conditions also have less bright colors(though that’s speculative), I think it’s incredibly foolish to believe that the brain region partly responsibly for visuospatial ability and awareness, would not contribute to hunting or tool creation. Do you want me to find citations?
“it only makes a group level difference level because fewer Inuits have these adaptations. On the individual level, it’s individual genotype, not race that matters.”
I know, that’s what I meant when i said that it is a part of their race, but not dependent on it, sorry if i didn’t word that properly.
Nurture could not possibly be separated from nature.at least in a functional sense.
Chronometric tests, brain-scan tests and genomic-based tests are the objective heroes we need but don’t deserve. Instead we’re stuck with Wechsler and SAT.
SAT should be replaced with a battery of achievement tests like the SAT IIs or AP exams.
The real disagreement Mug of Pee has with RR & Afro is application. He feels IQ tests (or their proxies like the SAT) should be the primary way people get ahead in society and that universities and employers should depend primarily on test scores to recruit people.
I don’t know if he’s really making this point. If he does, that’s really stupid of him. There are some many social and emotional skills that dwarf whatever concept of cognitive ability in the workplace and life in general.
Not having a black yoruban ancestor is indeed one of the reasons i don’t speak yoruban.
Which is not the same thing as saying “my genotype and my phenotype cause the fact that I don’t speak Yoruba”.
RR, osted me evidence of epigenetic changes with stress levels, so i don’t think it’s far fetched to assume similar phenomena can happen to neurological changes created by language:
It is, stress levels and emotional states involve neurochemical processes and directly alter DNA none of this is yet identified with language.
Arctic conditions also have less bright colors(though that’s speculative)
That’s not speculative, that’s wrong. Firstly, polar areas experience 24 hours of daylight at the peak of the summer. Secondly, even when the days are shorter, the weather is usually sunny and the reverberation of sun rays on a snowy cover cause UV radiation, that’s why even a black dude like me tans and wears shades when he goes skiing.
I think it’s incredibly foolish to believe that the brain region partly responsibly for visuospatial ability and awareness, would not contribute to hunting or tool creation. Do you want me to find citations?
Nope, spare me the quote mining. The point is not whether brain adaptations are useful or not, we’re talking about how much of this depends on genetics or epigenetics instead of experience.
Nurture could not possibly be separated from nature.at least in a functional sense.
I agree that nature and nurture is an irrelevant dichotomy, but this catchphrase “Nurture is nature”, when it implies that genes make the environments that alter phenotypes is equally dumb.
the only hard fact about IQ is that one can increase their test performance with practice and this causes no transfer to any other ability.
So it implies that IQ changes independently of any biological property and is not a causal factor to anything it correlates to.
“Which is not the same thing as saying”
It’s definitely one causal factor.
” none of this is yet identified with language.”
So? The brain is one Organ and is not modular, the rules that apply to Stress apply to language.
“Firstly, polar areas experience 24 hours of daylight at the peak of the summer.”
…so then how is an enlarged visual cortex an adaption to lower light levels if polar areas are infact brighter? Also:
“spare me the quote mining.”
I’ve never quote mined.
“we’re talking about how much of this depends on genetics or epigenetics instead of experience.”
No, that’s what you’re talking about.
“we’re talking about how much of this depends on genetics or epigenetics instead of experience.”
I’ve never said that.
It’s definitely one causal factor.
No, neither your genotype or your phenotype would cause you to speak any language.
So? The brain is one Organ and is not modular, the rules that apply to Stress apply to language.
You don’t get it. Stress and language aren’t comparable when it comes to chemical processes that alter cellular life.
…so then how is an enlarged visual cortex an adaption to lower light levels if polar areas are infact brighter?
They are not “brighter”, they just experience the two extremes of sun brightness. From almost complete night in the winter, to continual day in the summer. So evolution adapts to the most constraining extreme. Just like the climate of subsaharan Africa experiences both extreme moisture and extreme dryness, extreme moisture is physically more constraining (prevents the body from cooling down by perspiration) so the adaptations are primarily meant to cope with extreme moisture.
“neither your genotype or your phenotype would cause you to speak any language.”
The causation flows in both directions.
“Stress and language aren’t comparable when it comes to chemical processes that alter cellular life.”
Emotional states and language are simultaneously incorporated in our interpretations of the world. The dorsolateral coretx and brocas area are all apart of the same system.
I get it more than you: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261263/
“they just experience the two extremes of sun brightness. ”
Either way, color contrast is low in polar regions
Also my phenotype does predispose me to particular languages, I already proved that.
What are the evidences supporting the Khazar theory ? Anytime I saw people arguing on this issues over the Internet it was the seemingly smartest person that opposed the theory. I’m not sure if it belongs in the “low IQ” conspiracy theories.
Khazar theory is BS.
Agree.
the higher IQ of ashkenazim, to the extent it is genetic, rr explains as coming from the italian distaff side of the ashkenazim.
one problem with this is that the lebanese in latin america and west africa occupy a similar niche, and they aren’t half italian.
the Phoenicians (lebanese) were the Venetians of their day. rich merchants/traders.
lebanon and eretz israel are propinquitous.
i dont hold to that ‘explanation’ anymore.
Most of evidences are anthropological. Asheknazis don’t look like ”half italian”, indeed they tend to look very armenian or caucasian [from caucasus], where khazarian kingdom would have existed.
Indeed, it’s doesn’t mean italians and european jews are completely different in phenotype but this ashkenazi origin hypothesis look very simplistic and again the anthropology say another thing about it.
There is genomic evidence.
Common sense.
When will pumpkin let jimmy comment again? A lot of time has passed. I hope pumpkin can find it in his heart to welcome real diversity of opinion here.
I suspect when he can tell the difference between a race and a religion.
never
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9
Perhaps the Japanese lie like the Chinese do. Definitely, the Japanese aren’t very violent, but a homicide a third the rate of Germany’s isn’t believable.
it’s believable.
Germany has 30 guns per 100 inhabitants, Japan has 0.6.
Japan’s penal law is tough, it includes death penalty and the Japanese are huge snitches. Germany has a progressive legal order and people are much more individualistic.
yet japan has yuge organized crime.
I have a tendency to believe that organized crime keeps street crime in check (Italy has a lower crime rate than Germany too). It may also disguise some homicides as suicides or accidents or simply let them go unreported. But that would be nowhere close to the false statistics of the PRC.
Twilight of the Yakuza is interesting. according t one journalist eliminating the yakuza would be a bad idea because it would simply be replaced by foreign gangs. and this despite japan’s strict immigration laws.
I find it very believable. Germany unlike Japan have a bunch of agressive migrants from Turkey and MENA countries.
Of course it’s believable, Japan has strict immigration laws and a collective mind state. I’m sure there is a lot of business corruption but I haven’t researched that enough.
Native Germans still have a much higher homicide rate than Japan.
It’s unfair because the Algerians in Germany are asylum seekers when Algeria isn’t at war, meaning the only way they can get in is filing ‘prosecution by the government’ so basically 100% of those German-Algerians are criminals [out of the 16,388 population]. It isn’t surprising that the fraud rate is so high.
“The young men often have a criminal record when they arrive in Germany, after having been street thieves or drug dealers in cities like Casablanca and Algiers. “Many apparently did not go to school and some can’t even write their own names,” says Jörg Grethe, head of the Karlsruhe task force. Unlike Georgians, the North Africans are not usually members of gangs, he says, with most of the men having met in refugee shelters.”
Germany grants asylum to our criminals, and we don’t want them back.
If you’re going to protect the criminals of other states, you made your bed, sleep in it.
That said it isn’t the fault of the Germans but rather their corrupt government [who did so intentionally to destabilize Germany].
Hahaha, I knew you would comment on this.
So you’re just saying the Algerians responsible for these stats aren’t “superior fair skinned Berber Ubermenschen”, right?
what kind of strawman is this, im saying the immigrants aren’t representative of the general population which is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn’t a retard
Sure, your argument would be even more convincing if you posted one more Saint Zidane picture for us to behold.
Is the same true in France as well? has Algeria been outsourcing its correctional system to France for nearly 60 years? Or is there another reason that makes the indubitable superiority of your beloved Berbers so unnoticeable here?
I’m addressing German crime statistics.
see! even afro is racist against france’s north africans.
afro has yet to say why the expulsion of the pieds-noirs was cool but the expulsion of algerians from france is racist.
The Pieds-Noirs were not expelled from Algeria.
The French government organized the evacuation of the Europeans, the Jews and the Muslim Loyalists. Those who decided to stay were granted Algerian citizenship regardless of their ethnic background.
It’s true that this was more or less an expulsion because the safety of the Europeans would not have been guaranteed under Algerian rule and lots of expropriations ensued. But there’s no French or Algerian war that ordered the departure of the Europeans. I say Europeans because many were not French, there were large numbers of Spaniards, Germans, Maltese and Italians, who were the majority of the European population in some areas.
But there’s no French or Algerian war that ordered the departure of the Europeans.
But there’s no French or Algerian law that ordered the departure of the Europeans.
North african immigrants in France were mostly workers and the vast majority of the North Africans now living in France are their descendants. The migrants that are criminal fleeing their countries are clearly not the majority of the MENA living in Europe.
Australia for that matter was really colonized by criminals. How different are they now from english people living in England ? Australia have one of the highest HDI in the world.
Algerians in France aren’t even descendants of criminals but they still managed to turn some parts of France into the thirld world dump their ancestors came from (take a look at Marseille).
Of course this is also true of Blacks everywhere in the world. It’s even more noticeable with Blacks imo.
Japanese crime is probably more covert/sneaky and based on exploitation, so it’s mostly business/government corruption. German crime, while still not high, is probably more impulsive and violent (just speculating…)
I will tend to agree with you. Imo it has to do with Japanese being lower in empathy than Germans but also lower in T and higher in IQ.
Overall ethnic Germans are more trustworthy than Japanese, but also more impulsive and violent.
If the Japanese are low-empathy the French are outright sociopaths.
French people, with the exception of Germanics and Scandinavians, are the least sociopathic people on Earth.
It’s Berbers who are the most sociopathic along with other MENA (especially Arabs and Pakistanis), Gypsies, Jews and Horn Africans.
“If the Japanese are low-empathy the French are outright sociopaths.”
Never heard about Unit 731 ?
Berbers would have done worse than both Japanese and French if they were given a 3 digit IQ.
Joshua Glasgow reviewed Michael Hardimon’s book Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism, I’m going to write something on it and send it to you PP. (Full review on sci-hub.tw.)
https://academic.oup.com/mind/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mind/fzy007/4952158?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oh good. Sounds interesting.
RR is clearly anti-semite but 100% of this works he uses as counterevidence against ”hbd” were written/produced by jews or (((associates))) or derived from ”jewish ideas”.
kitty?
I’m you.
Double Dip Nazi P’ness said:
The Master Race is a failed policy.
Even if we could breed for 80 generations we could not beat Secretariat.
if by “socialism” o’reilly meant, central planning then he might be right. it could be that the difficulty of managing any organization (including an entire country) increases the larger it is, and the rate of increase in difficulty is itself increasing.
what i meant by “small” was small geographically and small in population. a large homogeneous country will develop regional differences. w va is very white and very poor, for example.
china is homogeneous but is not small. this may cause problems that iceland will never have.
also the larger the country in population the more distant are its elite. that is, iceland’s 1% is not like china’s 0.001%. iceland’s 0.001% is only 2 or 3 people. not enough to form a “group”.
the “alt-left” (aka “progressives”) in the US is NOT the “alt-right” in the US peepee. stop making up your meanings.
the alt-left is jimmy dore, noam chomsky, michael moore, democracy now, chirs hedges, cornel west, etc.
the alt-right and alt-left have the very important differences that the alt-right is anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQXYZ, anti-diversity.
”the alt-left is jimmy dore, noam chomsky, michael moore”
The alt left seems was invented by Rober Limbsey.
Michael Moore is anti-system!!!
and most of all the “alt-right” is explicitly anti-jew.
chris langan is not anti-jew
Mugabe or ian smith,
Some anti-jew are alt-right but i dont think all alt-right are anti-jew. And I think the people who are anti-jew are anti-jew because they wrongly see jewish people as part of the ‘establishment’. Establishment in the west is made of many white ethnicities.
Most if not all of the alt-right in the states are ‘anti-establishment’. They cant tolerate as easily ethnicities other than their very specific own to dominate the establishment. An irish american alt-righter finds an english or a scottish person running their establishment?….i dont think they can digest it easily. And also the reverse. And i would venture a guess that a lot of of the american alt-right is irish. Try having ‘ton’ or ‘smith’ or ‘Mc’ as part of your last name and run for the presidency of the U.S.
^^^ This comment above needs plastic surgery.
Here’s a good question. What does everyone think the limits of science are?
Is that a metaphysical question?
Science cannot tell you where you go when you die.
What the first moment of the big bang was/is.
What realities may or may not exist outside this dimension.
100% certainty.
a 100% certainty to describe Memory and qualia.
Is the average IQ of the blog readership still 129 pumpkin?
Gypsyman places people between 115 and 130 at being unable to understand reality.
One thining I am unable to do is to be creative by an internal feedback loop that is self-generating from within.
So I am an Extravert. Can’t go inside my own mind. Very frustrating when alone.
I think it has to do with latent inhibition, I cannot absorb stimulus like others can.
If I could I could use the energy to circulate a self-sustaining process.
Point: I cannot generate from within.
This is significant.
If the greatest predictor of fluid intelligence is the connection between the parietal lobe and the frontal lobe then the connections on each side of the brain matter because of coordination. One hemisphere could have a good connection front to back and the other side a bad connection front to back. And since these frontoparietal connections span the entire brain hemisphere into one area, a deficient on one side has consequences.
The integration of all areas of my brain with the frontoparietal area would tell me how well I do at tasks, any tasks because that is the main integration point. Both sides of the brain. It is circuitry. and may explain why I have trouble internally generating creatively from inside.
This was known in the 70’s as the perception-action cycle.
More complexity has been added but it’s about integrating processes.
If Anime and Bill Gates had a baby, would it even recognise other life forms?
haha, god bless
Race Racist says IQ doesn’t mean anything because of what science said about southern europeans. If science can prove beyond doubt that race is inferior to pumpkin, what else would we expect race to say? Its so transparent his motives for questioning our brilliant IQ tests.
afro made up the madagascar example. sad!
The Malagasy ethnic group forms over 90 percent of Madagascar’s population and is typically divided into eighteen ethnic subgroups.[14] Recent DNA research revealed that the genetic makeup of the average Malagasy person constitutes an approximately equal blend of Southeast Asian and East African genes,[154][155] although the genetics of some communities show a predominance of Southeast Asian or East African origins or some Arab, Indian or European ancestry.
Ethnic subdivisions in Madagascar have nothing to do with degrees of Malay and African ancestry.
you used madagascar as an example of a multi-racial society. it’s no more multi-racial than honduras. that is, it’s 90% mixed malay and black african. the people LOOK the same.
No, they don’t all look the same. It’s like the variation in India or even the difference between dark and light hair or eyes within Europe. The only difference is that apparence has no social relevance there. But at any time, someone can come up and say those who look African are a different race from those who look Malay, the French colonials tried that as a divide and rule strategy, favoring the lighter skinned populations of the central highlands. That didn’t work so well, because it’s simply not how the Malagasy culture is organized.
Pumpkin why is it that you promote the most violent commenters, and ban the most insightful and anti-high IQ psychopath commenters? I don’t know if you’v realised that youre aligning yourself with bad people pumpkin. There is a certain commenter on this thread that even called for black national merit finalist Gman to be “raped to death”. endquote.
[rest of comment redacted by pp, april 10, 2018]
lmao this is actually funny, also the raped to death thing
he copied it from me. afro has no sense of humor. all he can do is tell jokes he’s heard other people tell.
Very sad. I used to watch a lot of MSNBC when I was a liberal. So embarrassing looking at this now. Every single one of these hosts know they’re lying. This is worse than the Iraq WMD stuff to be honest.
Certain commenter is so [redacted by pp, april 10, 2018] he can’t see that he’s just a pawn being used by the high IQ psychopath people.
Last week I linked to a story where Netanyahu called african immigrants ‘worse than ISIS’.
But certain commenter will continue celebrating Macron and satanic globalism.
That’s just one theory, I don’t ever subscribe to theories that can’t be proven [unlike you] and neither theory can be proven as of yet.
and celebrating the nakba and israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1IfwlIW664
Being severly brainwashed and being mentally ill are almost the same thing. If you speak to any muslim, hindu or christian about their beliefs, most of those classify as delusions.
What people don’t understand is that even a mentally ill person who is not brainwashed is more sane than a mentally ‘healthy’ person who is. Even at my lowest point, I’m never as bad as these people.
indeed. the reason why ideological indoctrination is not a mental illness is because psychiatry is itself ideology and most psychiatrists are insane.
”indeed. the reason why ideological indoctrination is not a mental illness is because psychiatry is itself ideology and most psychiatrists are insane.”
wow
what a crap ”explanation”…
One thing don’t explain another that don’t explain another…
There is a individual ideological indoctrination, when people fool themselves alone…
maybe it’s their cases.
You’re bad in another way…
You’re consciously bad, i thought if is worse in certain instances.
The most important IQ test anyone will ever take is the question of what is good and bad. The basic thing of choosing the right side. Most people fail this test for lack of intelligence but also lack of integrity and character. The idea to stick to your own counsel and common sense in the face of peer pressure and authority figures. This is why women like rebels – because even a moronic rebel is more capable of choosing between good and evil than a high IQ servant to the globalists. In this sense I believe the designer made the correct call on weighing the two attributes for reproduction.
”morality is a illusion”
jeesus!!!
he doesn’t believe that (he’s a moral realist)
a test YOU failed because you’re a black guy who promotes HBD.
look at the other black guy who does that — jayman.
it is the ultimate representation of a human being being destroyed by “culture.”
perhaps most white people cannot understand blacks
maybe they think they’re stupid
monkey like!
but why is it that YOU care?
it’s because you have been CONVINCED of something
and you are trying to FIT IN
grow up!
there are many ways to be
unless…wait a minute….
The designer almost certainly has a ‘house view’ on things. Its fairly obvious by the way the designer makes things look to people. So that even the most infantile mind can navigate certain environments. I don’t think the designer is necessarily pro-civilisation however. We’ve saw the roman empire fall and dark ages for nearly 1000 years afterwards. But all things considered I believe the designer does believe in good and evil. This is why Mel Gibson was made beautiful and his opponents on the dark side were made ugly or sexually into children and weird fetishes.
There is a definite sense there. I also believe the designer does not know what will happen by the way. If it did, there would be no need for this simulation. He gave us free will to prove the concept works. That will be his greatest achievement.
I believe god believes in all of us to fulfil our roles. In every play there must be conflict. There must be tension. There must be a zero sum scenario in order for the fruit of victory to be sweet. The more we act in concert with our parts, the better we are rewarded. There are some roles none of us would have chosen before being created. I don’t think I would have chosen enlightenment at the cost of schizophrenic tendencies. But here I am. And here you are. And together we must prove that free will does allow good to triumph over evil.
I believe…