I’m watching the below interview of Trump on Charlie Rose back in 1992 and I’m stunned by how much brighter he seemed back then. His vocabulary is much more varied, his facts are much more detailed and precise, his sentences more complex and less repetitive, his thoughts much more interesting, and he speaks much more quickly and fluently.
He was clearly in the top 5% of his age group back then (IQ 125+), possibly the top 1% (IQ 135+), but sadly, I doubt he’s above the top 50% of his now much older age group (IQ 100+) unless he’s feigning stupidity for political or legal reasons.
This begs the question: What correlates most with lifetime success? IQ in childhood, IQ in young adulthood, or IQ in old age?
Advertisements
So half of 72yo are smarter than he is now?
That’s my guess for now.
I guess I agree 😉
where’s my comment about iliza schlezinger?
anyway…
the decline in “cognitive ability” with age is an average.
what’s the latest age at which one might be his sharpest?
or his sharpest at any one factor?
55?
iliza shlesinger vs arthur schlesinger? related?
anyway…
there is one PHYSICAL ability which supposedly peaks at age 55.
the heldentenor.
like pavaratti, gigli, caruso, etc..
nessun dorma is the GOLD STANDARD…even caruso couldn’t sing it as written.
how old was gigli when he sang this?
it used to be thought that sprinting speed peaked at age 20. that’s been advanced.
An Introduction to Falun Gong (English)
Hater!!!
blessings
Thank you
xoxo
Take this flower
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/saintseya/images/f/fb/Afrodite_lan%C3%A7ando_suas_rosas_negras.gif/revision/latest?cb=20171204160829&path-prefix=pt
IQ if it meant “IQ” in the sense peepee uses it.
trump is an example of a guy who is very smart but doesn’t act like canadians expect a smart person to act.
he acts in the exact opposite way.
i’m sure that unlike his aides are supposed to say, i would be very impressed by him in person. much more than by his aides.
trump is a rich prole or a prole rich guy whichever.
trump’s aides are AIDS.
I think you’re waaay off. It’s clearly a strategy of his to seem more personable. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump is 125+.
If it were a strategy to seem more personable we’d hear stories about how trump’s a completely different person behind the scenes, but instead we hear that he has the comprehension of a 6th grader behind the scenes. I realize the media is biased, but if even half the stories are true, he’s losing his mind. It seems like all the most influential conservative leaders of our time lose their mind in old age: Thatcher, Reagan, and perhaps Trump.
Yes, we hear stories from people with a clear bias against him; and the narrative is clear, so much so that they give reason for why they use it. The point is to drive the idea that Trump is impulsive and childish, partly because he is mentally afflicted, therefore requiring the 25th to be invoked.
I don’t disagree that Trump has some problems, but whatever perceived impulsiveness or uncertainty is likely due to his naivety brought from inexperience. Heck, there might be a bit more “winging it” going around, but all of this will get exaggerated by Fire and or Fury, or Fear. To say that Trump is losing his mind is literally what the media wants people to believe – and again, he’s supposed to be this buffoon who managed to bumble and stumble his way to being a Billionaire President, and competent enough to stagger China. Come on….
He had a very high IQ through most of his life, and that combined with a gazillionaire dad explains how he became a billionaire, and the fame & skills he acquired when he was smart helped him become president. Maybe i’m wrong about him losing his mind, but it happened to his dad so there’s a genetic history.
He’s not losing his mind. What IS happening is that the media and the deep state have declared all out war on Trump. Now imagine if some of the most powerful and dangerous people in the world wanted you gone, if you are receiving death threats on a daily basis, if people are maligning you in the worst imaginable way daily, wouldn’t that impact you? Most people I guarantee you would be in the looney bin by now. The fact that he is even functional at this point is a miracle.
I’ve given my analysis of what I think his IQ was(140 Composite, 155 M/L, 145 VS, 120 V) while I think due to old age he has lost about 10 points most of which likely impacting his Verbal ability. His recall is good, he remembers most facts and events fairly well so it looks like his long term memory is fine. His working memory IMO took a hit as it seems he struggles at times to find appropriate words. This is likely also stress related so in a sense it is partially reversible while it is perfectly obvious he is also dumbing himself down for the public. I also think that he is very much a strong right brain person(the home of visuo spatial ability, complex math, facial recognition, reading body language and social cues, contextualizing, holistic thinking). This can come at the expense of linguistic ability(a left brain function) in the long run.
Also keep in mind that he is conducting the biggest trolling campaign in the history of man king, he loves getting a rise out of the left. He knows what he is doing, he is otherwise extremely surefooted he just pretends not to be in order to get the Dems to come at him with their B game all the while triggering them like it’s an Olympic sport.
Based on his inability to multiply 17 by 6, I suspect his working memory IQ is no higher than 94, but was probably much higher when he was younger. On the other hand he’s intellectually lazy so probably wasn’t trying.
He might have had a composite IQ of 140 when he was younger, though I suspect you’re overestimating his peak age math & spatial, while underestimating his peak age peak age verbal. Also a M/L of 155, a VS of 145 and a V of 120, would probably equate to a composite IQ of 150+. The reason is that averaging in the top 0.38% (140) in three diverse abilities is much harder than being in the top 0.38% in one area, so the actual rarity of that combination of sub-scores would probably be something like top 0.04%. So you could actually reduce both Trump’s M/L IQ and VS IQ by over 10 points while keeping his verbal at 120 and he’d still be 140+ overall.
Fight between two beasts deep state and Trump and it’s tards.
“The reason is that averaging in the top 0.38% (140) in three diverse abilities is much harder than being in the top 0.38% in one area, so the actual rarity of that combination of sub-scores would probably be something like top 0.04%.”
Right, well that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for pointing this out for me though I was aware of this concept and understood it intuitively I didn’t know the formula required to make the adjustment so I opted for the simple average of the three. I think there was a time when they did use the simple average. In any case I stand firm on the 120 V, and feel that his composite couldn’t have been much higher than 140. An interesting analysis online based on his University degree puts him at 145: https://www.quora.com/What-was-Trumps-SAT-ACT-score
In any case I doubt he is greater than 150, so somewhere between 140-150 sounds about right. So lets say 145 M/L and 140 VS….?
As for simple arithmetic ability I wouldn’t draw broad conclusions from anecdotal singular instances. I will agree that he is intellectually lazy but I have a slightly different theory. He spent the last 3 decades trying to create a public persona and eminent TV personality. Like I’ve mentioned already this requires tremendous focus and energy on interpersonal skills(reading body language, mood, intent, motives, social norms/trends) and being readily able to adapt and respond to any situation in a way that is consistent with your aspirations and persona. His business acumen also factors into this although in a slightly different way. This is a right brain skill, and though it also requires a relatively good left brain command of language, beyond a certain level it could actually work against you(make you sound elitist, detached from the average person). Now I’m sure you might have noticed this with yourself but I can attest to the fact that I need a different mindset to say, solve physics problems vs interacting with people, in fact those two mindsets are so different that it’s like they are two different people. It’s hard to reconcile one side of you(the social side) with the other side(academic) unless you are with like minded people and even then they will think you are odd if you don’t switch on your social side in a social setting. Some people can switch from one to the other easily while others need more time. My sense is that as these require different parts of the brain it may require some time to get those neurons fired up.
So what am I getting at, well math is also located in the left side of the brain but only with simple arithmetic computations. For more advanced mathematics the right brain is far more important, it thinks holistically, metaphorically and is the part of the brain that deals with the unknown while the left brain thinks literally linearly and methodically and expertly navigates what is known. This may in fact further reinforce my idea that he is a strong right brain person, and may have reached that age where he is losing the ability to readily and fluidly utilize his left brain. So with simple arithmetic calculations he might get it wrong but is probably deep in thought trying to work out the best way to deal with any particular interaction in order to further his long term goals. If he is working overtime in that particular part of the brain all of a sudden it’s hard to switch to something requiring the use of a different part of the brain.
It is no surprise then that 5 out of the last 8 presidents were left handed(albeit obviously more linguistically proficient than Trump). This does not make them superior to right handers, it just means that they can more readily tap into to those brain regions that give them that edge over others in a presidential race. Trump of course is right handed but one can be a right brained person without being left handed and vice versa.
Also note that the right side of the brain is responsible for gross motor action while the left side of the brain is responsible for fine motor action. This may explain his awkwardness at times, particularly that jerky hand shake of his. This may in fact be why extreme right brain people tend to appear weird to most people(predominant left brain right handers) and why a more conventional genius likely makes optimal use of both hemispheres regardless of hand preference.
An interesting analysis online based on his University degree puts him at 145
No university degree puts one at 145. That’s Nobel Prize in physics level. Harvard is the most prestigious university in the World and the average IQ of their students on tests that were not used to select them is around 125. JFK and GW Bush both attended better schools than Trump and also became President, and their test scores equated to IQs of 119 and 125 respectively. Nixon had a tested IQ of 143, but he not only became president and had an elite degree, but unlike Trump, GW Bush and JFK, Nixon graduated near the top of his class and was a truly self-made man (no rich or powerful daddy). So I doubt Trump was ever 145; even 140 seems generous.
Jordan Peterson gives a good analysis of the two hemispheres here:
An interesting discussion with Ian McGilchrist:
“No university degree puts one at 145”
I believe he used SAT/ACT minimum entry scores to estimate his IQ. A crude way of course but in the absence of an actual test it could be a good proxy. Admittedly I haven’t looked into the average IQ’s of ivy league students. However I do find it hard to believe for example that MIT Physics students don’t have an IQ of at least 140. Also I think we underestimate how much mental energy we put into interpersonal competence. In fact IMO that accounts for 90% of the cognitive bandwidth of the average person which IQ tests do not test for. A president is probably heavily reliant on that aspect of their intellect. Also consider the fact that he is 72 years old, that’s getting up there. At this point he should be well into retirement instead of racing across the country(and the world) taking on anyone and everyone who so much as hints at a criticism towards him(quite entertaining).
Now I don’t know if the figures you’ve provided for Bush and JFK were from actual IQ tests but surely it takes a lot more than grit and contacts to make it to the highest office in the land. In any case I’m not going to argue with you, I think we are more aligned than it seems. I am after all claiming that his current IQ is around 130(peak of around 140-150).
Also I think we all make the mistake of judging and scrutinizing people on some silly mistake during a lapse in concentration or judgement after what looks like continuous all day observation. IQ tests only last about a couple of hours and people psych themselves up for them and prepare to give it their best for those 2 hours. In other words I doubt that everyone is operating at that level 24/7.
Also did a quick search and this guy seems to contradict what you are saying: https://www.iqmindware.com/blog/the-bell-curve-cognitive-elites/
Average elite school IQ of 142(top 12 schools).
I believe he used SAT/ACT minimum entry scores to estimate his IQ.
If his SATs were really high I’d expect such a rich kid him to have gone straight to an elite school, instead of coming later as a transfer student from Fordham, which has MUCH lower SAT scores:
Gwenda Blair, in her 2001 book “The Trumps,” said that Trump’s grades at Fordham were just “respectable” and that he got into Wharton mainly because he had an interview with an admissions officer who had been a high school classmate of his older brother. And Wharton’s admissions team surely knew that Trump was from one of New York’s wealthiest families.
Admittedly I haven’t looked into the average IQ’s of ivy league students.
The best data on the subject was obtained by Harvard scholar Shelley H Carson and Jordan Perterson of all people, who had an abbreviated version of the WAIS-R given to 86 “Harvard undergraduates (33 men, 53 women), with a mean age of 20.7 years (SD 3.3)… All were recruited from sign-up sheets posted on campus. Participants were paid an hourly rate…The mean IQ of the sample was 128.1 points (SD 10.3), with a range of 97 to 148 points.”
It should be noted however that the WAIS-R was normed from 1976 to 1980. Carson’s study was published in 2003, so presumably the test norms were 25 years old. If you believe James Flynn, U.S. IQ norms become inflated by 0.3 points per year which means the true IQ of the Harvard students may be as much as 25 years(0.3 IQ points) = 7.5 points lower than the study reports.
There was another study where seniors from the extremely prestigious Dartmouth (the 12th most selective university in America) had a full-scale IQ of 127.88 on the original WAIS back in the early 1970s, and once again, the score was likely inflated because the original WAIS was normned in the 1950s.
However I do find it hard to believe for example that MIT Physics students don’t have an IQ of at least 140.
You might be overestimating the correlation between IQ and academic achievements. Even Nobel prize winners in physics often lack 140+ IQ. According to Jensen:
There are two famous scientific geniuses, bothNobelists in physics, whose childhood IQs are very wellauthenticated to have been in the mid-130s. They are onrecord and were tested by none other than Lewis Termanhimself, in his search for subjects in his well-known study ofgifted children with IQs of 140 or above on the Stanford-Binetintelligence test. Although these two boys were brought toTerman’s attention because they were mathematicalprodigies, they failed by a few IQ points to meet the one andonly criterion (IQ>139) for inclusion in Terman’s study.Although Terman was impressed by them, as a good scientisthe had to exclude them from his sample of high-IQ kids. Yetnone of the 1,500+ subjects in the study ever won a NobelPrize or has a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica asthese two fellows did.
Also I think we underestimate how much mental energy we put into interpersonal competence. In fact IMO that accounts for 90% of the cognitive bandwidth of the average person which IQ tests do not test for. A president is probably heavily reliant on that aspect of their intellect.
No test can possibly measure all of intelligence, the range of cognitive abilities is just too vast. The idea of an IQ test is to take a sample.
Now I don’t know if the figures you’ve provided for Bush and JFK were from actual IQ tests but surely it takes a lot more than grit and contacts to make it to the highest office in the land.
JFK and Nixon took actual IQ tests. Bush’s score was derived from his SAT. I agree that it takes more than grit and contacts to become president, which is why presidents appear to average 30 IQ points above the general white population. The analogy I’ve made is IQ is to real power as height is to physical power. Just as men with the most physical power (boxing champs) are two standard deviations above average in height, the men with the most real power (presidents) are two standard deviations above average in IQ:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/01/09/boxing-ability-height-correlation/
Average elite school IQ of 142(top 12 schools).
If you convert their SAT scores into IQ equivalents, you get an average IQ of 142 (or at least you did in the past). The problem is (as Bruno was saying), they were largely selected based on SAT scores and since SAT scores correlate far from perfectly with official IQ tests, they regress precipitously to the mean on tests like the WAIS (as mentioned above). Anytime you judge a group’s IQ by the very test used to select them, you get a selection bias effect.
That doesn’t prove you’re wrong about Trump’s IQ, but I’d caution against assuming too much from just his degree.
Nixon was self made to a large extent. Then allen dulles mentored him.
How Trump can have a 155 IQ in math/logic and 145 in spatial ? Where do you get these figures from ?
TK I have since revised my estimation to 145 M/L and 140 VS. I based those figures on what I could estimate with a certain degree of certainty ie a verbal IQ of 120. Using that as a starting point I worked out what would the likely scores of M/L and VS to produce a composite of about 140. Essentially that is the IQ i estimated for him at his peak(do check out some of his interviews when he was younger, stark difference). I give him a current IQ of 130. Keep in mind this is speculation, I just happen to be one of those that doesn’t buy into the media narrative about Trump. Obviously he’s not the genius he thinks he is(most of that is tongue in cheek though) but I think there is something of note there, it’s just very hard to pinpoint.
These scores are very high, did he shown any evidences of high logical and spatial abilities ?
I don’t think he has any evidence. But his intuition tells him Trump’s overall IQ is 140, but since he’s not impressed with Trumnp’s verbal IQ, he had to make the math and spatial IQ really high to justify Trump’s overall IQ being so high.
TK, pumpkinperson, Well I have admitted that this is speculation several times. So if we are going to have a discussion on that level we have to admit that just as I do not have definitive evidence for an IQ of 140 you do not have evidence for an IQ of 110. In fact there is more evidence in support of my position than yours, we are after all talking about a man that won the presidency of the United States, surely that’s worth something. Coming at me from the “where’s your evidence” angle is a little hypocritical, don’t you think?
In any case in the name of having a productive discussion I will lay out my reasoning while I hope you have already read my comments above. They will complement what I say here.
1. SAT scores correlate highly with IQ, I believe the correlation is around 0.86. There are SAT to IQ conversion charts online. So using that as a metric we can work out his IQ based on the Wharton school minimum SAT requirements. It is not clear what his score is or whether he even has any but he did gain entry(albeit as a transfer student) which is one more piece of “evidence” in his favor.
2. According to this, https://www.iqmindware.com/blog/the-bell-curve-cognitive-elites/
the average IQ of the top 12 universities in the country is around 142.
3. He is a billionaire, albeit with a good head start but he has basically multiplied his bankroll/inheritance 100x over in his lifetime. That is nothing to scoff at especially since a lot of people squander their entire inheritance in their lifetime.
4. He comes from the cutthroat business/real estate world AND he managed to become a successful entertainment personality. In retrospect it all may have played into his long term plan to win the presidency. This may be more a testament to his grit and social status/contacts but if by some happenstance it is easy to get in(entertainment & business worlds), i’m pretty sure it is exceedingly hard to stay in, a certain level of intelligence is a must. Any way you slice it though, that is no small feat.
5. Interviews from when he was younger reveal a much more linguistically and cognitively adept individual. His fluid intelligence has taken a hit with age but that is to be expected. IMO certain aspects of his working memory took the biggest hit.
6. He won the presidency as a complete outsider, going up against the media, corporate, and deep state favorite during a time of “first black”, “first female”(what’s next, first gay?) national infatuation(very un-meritocratic but i’m glad logic prevailed). In my view that is unheard of in the last 100 years, or maybe ever in US politics.
7. The reason I give him a high math/visual IQ is because he seems to be the sort of person that thinks in pictures. People that think in images formulate their thoughts in that way and then try to put words to those images. If their verbal is not too high and old age has impacted their working memory even further, they struggle to find the words while the conceptualizing may be stellar. They then try to make up for this and convey their competence(of which they are internally sure of) in a braggadocious way. Of course not all big ego types are of this sort, one has to look at all the evidence…which is found in the obvious competence it would take to gain a degree in business from Wharton, a degree that leans far more into math/logical and visual acuity than it does linguistic.
8. In any case I think that his greatest asset is his interpersonal intelligence a must for any business/real estate entrepreneur let alone a president of the US. This won’t be measured by any IQ test but given the high correlation between respective facets of intelligence it is not much of a stretch to think that the underlying cognitive foundation that allows one to excel in one area can lend itself to facilitating excellence in other areas too(though admittedly this is not a strict rule).
So using all the above I would say there is enough evidence to safely say that he is more likely >125 than he is <125. I've settled at 140(a far cry from the reported 156) and while I admit I may be wrong, I doubt I am wrong by much. So peak 140, current 130.
On pumpkinpersons response above:
"You might be overestimating the correlation between IQ and academic achievements. Even Nobel prize winners in physics often lack 140+ IQ. According to Jensen:"
I think that is utter nonsense, with regard to physics at the highest level. The story you hear the most about this notion has to do with Richard Feynman where it was reported that his IQ was 125. First of all that was a school IQ test and it was probably just a verbal IQ test possibly even on a bad day. His math/logical and visual would likely have been off the charts, and I mean we would have had to tape strips of paper together in order to fit his math IQ on the chart.
https://www.quora.com/How-come-Richard-Feynmans-IQ-was-just-above-average
There is way too much emphasis on verbal IQ in today's society(Trump is underestimated because of this). Verbal IQ will leave you stranded on an island while math/visual will get you off that island on a rocket ship. On the more positive note you will be able to keep yourself entertained on that island with your likely literary/poetic talents. I hate these anecdotal tropes they use to give people false hope, as if one of the greatest minds of the 20th century would have a moderate IQ. I've noticed that the only people that seem to be relying heavily on verbal IQ are people who predominantly come from a non STEM fields (psychologists media people etc). It's no surprise that people that devise IQ tests are psychologists who are now pushing the idea that higher math is a form of language and that math is highly correlated with verbal. Utter nonsense, math is most decidedly NOT a language in the conventional sense(even though you hear it described as the language of the universe), it is so much more than that, it is a different animal entirely.
And since we are talking about things that annoy me, I truly hate it when people cite someone's IQ based on some test they took as a child(whether it's done to increase expectations or lower them). Childhood IQ is NOT the same as adult IQ and even though it is somewhat correlated we can get wildly different results on an individual basis.
I don't know about you but I can work out someone's strengths and weaknesses by talking to them for just 5 minutes. Visual people tend to have less eye contact, they are too busy putting words to their imagery. You can work out mathematical/logical people by the content, it's logical consistency and their methodicism. While verbal people are the easiest, a large vocabulary and the accuracy of it's use is very easy to discern(probably why people focus on this aspect the most). All too often people find it hard to separate confidence, which is facilitated by body language cues, from cognitive competence, often times overestimating or underestimating intelligence. If one ticks all the above boxes at exceptional levels, then we are talking about someone extremely special. I have yet to meet anyone that fits that bill.
Coming at me from the “where’s your evidence” angle is a little hypocritical, don’t you think?
Touché!
TK, pumpkinperson, Well I have admitted that this is speculation several times
Exactly! And i was just trying to paraphrase what you had already admitted to save you the trouble of having to repeat yourself. But i should have just let you answer TK yourself, and now you have! 🙂
pumpkinperson Thanks for clarifying. I know I tend to hypothesize a lot, it might be the “right brain” in me, but all of what I have said is backed by reliable research. I’m just connecting the dots so to speak but I am very careful not to come off as a definitive authority on something I’m not 100% certain of.
Since I’ve got your attention, do you know what the formula is for working out composite IQ. I’ve found something for working it out from two sub-tests but not for more.
https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cdfrac%7B%28130%2B130-2%2A100%29%7D%7B%5Csqrt%7B2%2B2%2A0.6%7D%7D%2B100%5Capprox+134&bg=ffffff&fg=000000&s=2&zoom=2
Where the two 130s are the two subtests and 0.6 is the correlation between them.
https://assessingpsyche.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/why-composite-scores-are-more-extreme-than-the-average-of-their-parts/
What would be the general formula for working the composite IQ from 3 or more sub-tests?
Good question! I’m off to see a cheesy horror film with a bunch of co-workers but will respond in detail when I get home.
I describe the formula here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/10/03/combining-iq-scores-composite-standard-deviations/
Thanks, I managed to find something online that pretty much looks like this:
(IQm +IQvs +IQv -3×100)/SQRT(sum of all correlation coeff, 9 in total) +100=IQcomp
https://assessingpsyche.wordpress.com/tag/composite-scores/
Very concise & elegant formula pumpkinhead, but one thing is bothering me about both your formula & the one i described.
What if the correlation between two tests is zero. Then that means scoring in the top 1% (IQ 135+) on both tests are independent events & in probability theory i thought independent probabilities were multiplied, so (1/100)(1/100) = 1 in 10,000 = IQ 156+ or so
And yet our formulas give a much lower composite IQ for two 135s when the correlation is zero.
Never mind, the formula make sense to me now. The number of people averaging in the top 1% on both tests includes far more people than just the number of people scoring in the top 1% on both tests, so multiplying probabilities when the correlation is 0 makes high composite scores seem more rare than they really are.
so opera singers are fat for a reason.
like sumos and like super-heavy-weight olympic weight lifters there are yuge diminishing returns.
that is, after a point the only way to gain strength is to put on fat TOO.
at the apex of strength the body becomes less and less efficient at putting on only muscle.
cue rr denying this and claiming i’m a moron.
iirc, gilgi was over 60 when he hit it out of the park.
so it happens…
but in general people decline in every way past the age of 35-40.
btw…
nessun dorma is basically the dream every straight man has in his sleep from time to time.
1. tall. 6’3″.
2. rich.
3. powerful.
this proves women are too easily brainwashed by the jews to have ever been granted the vote.
Nope.
Women are more existentialist than men because they are less competitive in the significant sense and more careful about relationships and this also can be observed by their higher levels of anxiety and depression than males [even the most existentialist human beings tend to be males because extreme general male nature]. But because women on avg are not infallible so they also have weaknesses which made them more likely for example to be deceived by… males.
Another possible reason against the idea that women are basically more brainswashable is that they don’t understand properly the avg male psyche so it’s appear to be they are more vulnerable to this outcome but it’s not ONLY brainwashing if this is really a case of brainwashing, For those who believe in genetic primary determinism no have such thing brainwashing but ignorance and or ”to be mostly correct about interactive moral but not about factuality OR factual morality”.
Because someone ho have a total control about its sensitive mental system resulting in depressed heuristics [by good intentions] it’s doesn’t mean they are more brainwashed.
Another thing is
Like it or not most of leftist/jewish narrative against white historical moral issues are CORRECT, ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, but
it’s not just a white thing but a human thing.
It’s would be correct if they apply this in every human pop in the world, but not.
So leftism is absolutely correct but because it’s look like a transcendence so it’s based on denial of conservatist logical reasons, and it’s don’t work at all because leftism deny humans are and always will be more or less on the food chain, every morally correct piece leftists attack and it’s a conservative one is a ”food chain logic” for example the positivity about fat woman.
A transcendence is when we reach given pass but forgeting the path we walked. Leftism believe is possible understand human psyche without conservatism. It’s impossible. It’s possible surpass conservative dominance first of all understand it.
It’s not brainwashing it’s a inadaptation or lack of cognitive flexibility against a world that is antagonist to your nature, someone who believe everyone is good and equal but in the true it’s likely to be partly the opposite.
chomsky has observed that those countries which were shitholes during colonial times but were never colonized have fared much better than those which were colonized.
korea, japan, the prc. the prc was colonized only a very little by the british, germans, and pork and cheese.
taiwan was colonized and has fared well.
maybe it’s that those countries which would have done well anyway were less likely to be colonized.
persia may also have avoided european colonization.
but everywhere else was a european colony at one time or another. including mongolia under the USSR.
Its all about military power. Thats why the cold war was good, becuase the soviets gave NATO an incentive to strenghen atleast some third world nations. The more the USSR would expand, the richer the third world would get, out of nescescity.
ALL nations are colonized somehow, atleast in the manner of not being able to exert soveriegnity withouht getting stomped.
Venezuella, Iran, Somalia, China and maybe Japan are the only independent nations, on shaky grounds of course.
The few nations that werent colonised either were irrelevant or eventually served good intrests for the western or soviet elite, becuase of the traits that made them independent to begin with.
There are many exceptions to that rule possited by chomsky, like Etheopia or northern Nigeria, its not even an rule.
I said this 1 year ago. Watch the interviews from the 80s with Larry King and that. Its obvious most of his political persona is a put on. Unless he really has become dumber interacting with manhatten jews.
Pumpkin, can you scrutinize this little brainfart I came up with.
1) Most human variation lies within africa.
2) therefore little exists within non-africans.
3) Both Japanese and Aboriginals are non-africans.
4) Much of the genetic variance between them code for non-IQ traits in an controled environment.
5) There are therefore non-rare variants that cause large disparancies in IQ expression within an controlled environment.
6) These non-rare variants should be found in non-african populations becuase of 2) and 3).
7) Which is against the common notion that iq differences between individuals or groups stem from variants of low effect in an controlled environment.
???
I noted the japanese and abos as the japs have some abo in them.
your argument isn’t precise enough to evaluate: “little variation” is relative. rare or non-rare is relative.
Thats what i thought. But you find no such thing in africa (or subsets of africa like western africa), where there is more genetic diversity but less variation in non-IQ traits.
By little variation i mean little variation in the whole genome, as IQ is highly polygenic. That would mean that only an really small fraction of genes that are associated to IQ are the ones causing the gap, or that its interaction causing the gap.
Having interaction cause the gap could explain why more selected africans dont regress to the mean, as selected groups have an higher chance of having an similar type of interaction as that is what makes them uniform, assuming hereditarainism and genetic kinship.
Trump is the living prove of ” why white guilt is not an excesse or false”.
the preference people show sexually for people who are their own distant relatives is adaptive in that it increases the likelihood one’s own genes will be passed on without making one’s progeny unfit.
if i moved to nigeria and shacked up with a nigerian woman my genes would be erased by dilution?
That wouldnt explain the commonality of bisexuality and other faggy stuff. I think sexuality is highly plastic fo most people which is why so many blacks want to racemix in britain.
BTW id definately clone myself.
Ive even thought about that before. As an hypothetical of course.
so the desire to maintain racial and national interbreeding groups is SELFISH.
But the self is partially defined by others. Which in this case means that if your others are of an certain race those are the ones you are going to care about as they also share other traits that form your personality. I think most human instincs came before the races. Xenophobia existed before races, racism is just one form of xenophobia, only that the social construct of race is more pertinent cuase its so linked with looks. Looks make it pertinent since its immutable and that people are visual.
i wonder if anyone’s done a study of racism in nature. there are other species with wide distribution and geographically isolated interbreeding groups. some birds.
are birds racist? that is, do they show a marked preference for their own bird nationality/subspecies and hostility toward foreign birds?
what about chimps and bonobos?
Your long-term memory is slipping.
As I’ve discussed many times, rushton has studied racism in the animal kingdom & even found plants are racist!
Living beings are self interested but not absolutely racist as humans can be. Racism happen when we have a conflict between two different racial groups. Self interested at priori don’t translate directly in racism or any other type of tribalism. Assexual species for example are fundamentally self interested but not tribalist, seems to be like that.
Tribalism often happen when we have a higher degree of similarity among individuals of given species resulting in higher collective coordination or synchronized inter-individual behaviors and lack of cognitive empathy, the capacity to understand the other which is not yourself, of course, something’s become considerable only with us because self-awareness of the direct expansion of consciousness [or fundamental understanding of given reality].
Because nonhuman living beings has less control over their environments so they are considerably more passive to the environmental or adaptive demands, their moral principles gravitates completely towards environmental circumstances while human beings, as a second force or influence of terrestrial nature, created their own moral principles, for sure, strongly derived from nonhuman living beings moral principles. And we have the universal moral ones…
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/575352051/least-desirable-how-racial-discrimination-plays-out-in-online-dating
Well, thats in america.
You have to be indoctrinated into liking an race hardcore.
One example of the strengh of the environment is those tribal people with disks betwixt their lips.
women in general are less open to inter-racial than men. but that’s just sex. in terms of marriage it may be different.
https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-attraction-2009-2014-107dcbb4f060
unfortunately “asian women” may include south asian women and south asians are yuge racists but south asian women are more attractive to european men than china women in general.
racism is evil.
south asian women are therefore evil
1. Donald Trump is unfit to be president
2. Everyone who watches CNN knows this.
3. Therefore Trump should be impeached.
4. I like CNN.
Saving africa is good.
Good is saving africa.
Therefore africa is good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Zucker
Very trustworthy
so a yuge part of th eincel, red pill, men’s rights thing is mean realizing that they are judged too.
it’s not all that, just a yuge part.
so a lot of these guys are just physically unattractive.
If Kurt was born a millenial instead of gen x, he’d be an alt right guy.
Sad that pearl jam are the only major grunge band without a dead singer.
Is radiohead grunge?
I thought their early stuff was. It was similar themes anyway.
They were WAAAY better as grunge.
basic gender equality works in iceland because it’s so small and isolated and nationalistic.
in larger countries 100% of the women are chasing 20% of the men.
it’s a disaster.
Evidence?
Japan seems pretty equal to me.
Also, gender equality is why 20% of the men gt 80% of the wimmins.
Bee keeper suits.
https://mobile.twitter.com/whyvert/status/1045862371498045446
This is an alt right/MRA song if it was made in the past 3 years..
It was made in 1994.
These guys started it in the 80s. Legendary.
Lots of music critics make OK Computer one of the the top 3 albums of all time. Its very groundbreaking even if you disagree. Very unique.
My theory about how the world works is this:
People in civilised societies are programmed in the same way people join and continue cults long after the originator dies. There are some of the senior priests who know its a scam but play along. Over time and centuries, some of these elder priests really may be true believers, even fanatics.
Whats really weird is how people not in a cult can see the stupidity of it. So we laugh at hindus worshipping cows or mormons believing john smith. (and I laugh at PC/'”social justice” morality).
The specific cult is irrelevant. All thats important is to know human being for some reason are mentally predisposed to being conned by John Smith. In a weird way, John Smith or L Ron Hubbard’s treachery is a necessary part of having a civilisation.
You even see the most primordial human societies having witchdoctors and shamen. Some of these shamen and witchdoctors know they are a complete hoax and keep doing it.
That guy pretending to be the reincarnation of jesus, Michael, in the doc, is a lesson in how people even with non primitive IQs if anything are more liable to believe in fairy stories once its couched in some sort of message revolving around ‘universal love’.
Neithsche didnt explicitly say that. He said that cults adopt either Master says and Slave says ideas. Universal Love is definitely a slave says idea. Jim Jones message is exactly the same as most christians and PC. Jim Jones was PC before PC was a thing.
I know you talk a lot about the Jews. But what are your thoughts on other master mafia conspiracies? I normally wouldnt recomend this, as they are very long (11 h), but since you seem to be extremely passionate about conspiracy theories, il share this with you:
There are many things questionable in these videos, such as his borderline Ancap beliefs, his lack of mention about HBD (outside of being clear about jewish overepresentation in certain parts of the videos), his 9/11 inside job speil.
The first one is an introduction, the other one goes into more detail.
One of the most pertinent statement in this video was arguing that the jewish mafia is very easy to learn about with just an internet search, and that the true mafia conglomeration is more secretive and can regenerate by sacrificing their own to make the goyim think that they are fighting corruption, as well as their origin.
An synopsys about this video series is that it talks about collusion amongst the global elites of almost all governments and powerfull insitutions. It talks much about western European nobles, a bit about Zionism, about the Free masons, about the sassoon family, the middle eastern elite, the italian mafia, chinas relationship to the british crown and jesuits, havard and other universities, the vatican/jesuits and some other stuff i dont recall. It mentions a lot of individuals, they are ofcourse thefocus of the videos.
you can watch like 30 mins every day and then say what you think about it, i guess there must be something you can gain from this.
I used to read Rense.com habitually. I know about all this stuff already. I would bet they mention Cecil Rhodes at some point.
Lets just say some of it really is nonsense. Some of it has a grain of truth (((elites))) meeting and being globalist in outlook and some of it is worse than they say (especially the paedo stuff).
But use your reason to figure which fits where.
Yeah but there might be some things you dont know about, and he has cool images in the background.
Anyways, do you think its 100% jews? thats so wierd and unprobable. To me it seemes like there are a lot of crypto-jews or non jewish jews and mainly just psychopaths with some people working along thanks to being blackmailed.
Can you please tell me how you made the bet about Cecil Rhodes? Its interessting that you got it right! The video mentioned him breifly, mainly talking about the south african minning corporation but also mentioning that Cecil wanted to create an british imperialist secret society.
The longer video doesnt have the squecky voice if thats your concern.
Phil, the second video got tons of info. I cant belive you know all of what he says in the second video. I higly recomend it.
Your videos are here mouse ^^
Pumpkin, what’s Jared Kushner’s IQ? Because apparently he’s the Jewish Messiah
This is a part of Trump I dislike: the confluence that is Javanka.
Very hard to say since we’ve never heard him speak. His SAT scores were reportedly not great.
So it follows that the primary ways to look at societies and how they develop is to see how cults compete with each other, how cults indoctrinate and socialise the young (what Weber writes about), and the type of human being that rises to the top or creates cults.
If you study Michael youll realise ideology and religion is as hollow as that man’s sense of right and wrong. Michael in a more candid environment would probably say those things don’t exist even though his parasitical lifestyle is about maintaining that these things exist.
There are some cults and ideologies actually in the interest of the people in them. e.g. free marketing clubs really do benefit the private equity and caymans types that are in them. To a certain extent, these people actually believe all the aphorisms.
But as it gets more organised, you have to train professionals in giving the sermons both to the people already in it and new cult members. This is what the economics department at most universities is for basically.
But some cults are rational too. E.g. Spartas warrior society or the stuff Mongols believed in really did help them be better warriors. And everyone knows 50% of the old testament is public health announcements.
I suppose you would say all cults have a lifecycle. No hoeax can last forever or never stays the same. In many western countries christianity has been replaced with PC.
But basically the idea you can’t fool all the people all the time is wrong. You can fool them. In fact it takes people with neurologically bizarre thinking patterns sometimes to not be brainwashed.
Or really primitive types of brain/physiology like blacks.
Put enough blacks together and the singing churches are replaced by Kinshasa/Kingston/Detroit. Thats because cults depend on surplus production and since blacks dont create much surplus, parasites can’t originate scams.
Most people nigerian email scammers scam are not nigerian.
If I wrote a book about this and fleshed it out more academically like RR would, but not in the extreme like he does it, I think it would be remembered as a small but significant step forward from niethsche.
I think marx is relevant only to the extent surplus must exist for parasitical strategies to be viable.
Of course a very clever parasite strategy is central banking and fiat money. But that is a lecture for another day children.
Once again Mel Gibson makes groundbreaking insights despite being an australian alcoholic actor with mental health issues.
In his movie apocylypto, everything is explained by the religious reason for everything. So you get drawn into their world.
And in the end you see the spanish conquistadores coming. I can’t remember. But if Mel had any christian religious symbols or paraphenalia in that scene, it would be symbolic of a new cult coming to compete with the older one. Not a new civilisation per se.
If you ask ‘sane’ high IQ member of a cult why they believe it, theyll give you a more sophisticated rationale on the original bullshit.
You know at the start what Joseph Smith or Michael say is pretty simple.
But over time, high IQ people like Aquinas or the people in the indoctrination function, will have to come up with clever explanations to cover for holes in the story. Because the story is totally stupid.
Right now the finest minds in North Korea and Iran are dedicated to finding explanations to cover for holes in the story. Just like some of the finest minds in the West are dedicated to pretending a certain view of reality is THE view and its evil to question it.
Wheres my nobel prize?
90% of modern humanities, economics and philosophy teaching is junk compared to the 5 or 6 paragraphs above.
actually the above is just piss poor Marxism, which is taught in “modern humanities, economics, and philosophy.”
Its a little more complex than you claim as some people momentarily leave the cult for personal gain. Especially when that personal gain is something intensily engaging like cokaine or promiscuity.
Otherwise its just common sense. Ever heard someone say “humans are an social animal”? or “some people are easily indoctrinable”? well thats just pretty much saying what you said. I even heard those things in school, but most people are too low IQ to extrapolate it further to the correct conclusions. Even that guy Feenopy used to say it implicitly. Everyone knows social sciences have a lot of flaws. Didnt nietche and Marx say how and why these processes happened also?
Also evil doesnt exist despite you fetishizing civilization. Civilization is not an moral good but was created out of derrangement and lust. Surpluss value corrupts one to hate other people, which is highly unatural in an world where animals are supposed to be the other. Surpluss value fucks the head so much that people start thinking that other humans are monsters. Jews are merely the ultimate form of master, the apex of civilization. Both islam and christianity was created by jews.
This is the result of Philos white utopia;
If it wasnt for the nuke, whites would keep fighting wars against eachoder while the jews build their supercomputers.
Europe and America arent run over by africans, its run over by mestizos and arabs. Africans are the scapegoats of the future that the other brown people and old white people will distracted with while the jews work on their supercomputers and automated industry/war machine.
No Marx talking about the mode of production. I think most of that is irrelevant to understanding the way the world works, who goes to war, why people invent technology etc.
Swank, many thanks for your jewish feedback.
Actually funnily enough I actually studied marxism in college at one point. But theyre not allowed to call it that. They call it ‘Critical Theory’.
That thing about WW1 and whites being savages doesn’t compare to cannibalism in Haiti or ritual sacrifices to the sun god.
“That thing about WW1 and whites being savages doesn’t compare to cannibalism in Haiti or ritual sacrifices to the sun god.”
ww1 is worse. 60 million europeans were mobalized in just one war. And Euope could regenerate quickly enough to fight again, and again. The population and technology grew during ww1.
Would you rather be in the video or get slashed up by some knives? Anyways the pain goes far worse than just war, its not psychologically healthy. Swank has talked about this a lot. I never said whites were savages, but easily fooled to become savages momentarily, enough time for the jews to get their fingers dirty.
fetishizing civilization comes from comparing civilizations addictive qualities. Sure more advanced societies are more sexy and safe, but its really an safe and addictive road to harvesting the proletariat.
Also haiti still has some surplus, so its stll criticized by me.The ideal would be an hunter gather society. The Hunter gatherer societies are perfectly allinged with the human brain.
Paul Krugman actually has a good phrase ‘zombie ideas’. Ideas the keep being spread and shared even though theyre empirically wrong. Most of Says Law was proven wrong 400 years ago, and you still have people today pushing it because of Master Says.
No university degree puts one at 145. That’s Nobel Prize in physics level. Harvard is the most prestigious university in the World and the average IQ of their students on tests that were not used to select them is around 125.
—-> to understand this latter point I have a simple example : imagine you select a group of 100 people Ith a Binet test, choosing high scorers, and they average 140. Then you are present with another group (who has been selected by any other mean except Binet), you give them Binet test and the average score is also 140. From this, I would think it’s more obvious that the socre of the people not selected by the test is more meaningful.
For Ivy, there is a caveat because they are also selected by means of GPA wich is independent of SAT and certainly correlates around 0.4 to 0.5 with g. So SAT is not the only criteria.
Philo-artist, about your theme, I just read that in 38 years, Ginsburg who was a member of SPLC, has hired only one African American (out of around 150 people ) . You see the extreme hypocrite discourse considering behaviour …
100% none of them believe it. Stephen Jay Gould is a compulsive liar. Krugman probably thinks the russia hacking stuff is nonsense as well.
Doesnt the Russia colluding have some merit, with the Nunes stuff?
The acid test of Marxist views and my view is the explanation for why colonialism ended.
If you think it ended because the colonies weren’t making enough surplus I would counter, most decolonisation happened around the same time gentile elites started dabbling in ‘civil rights’.
Governments werent that present in most of africa. Really, theres more colonialism today thanks to better transportation and extration methods, its just less racist. Just look at the middle east lol. both were by design.
No there isnt colonialism today like the early 20th and late 19th. Nothing today compares to that. Companies hiring coolies in Taiwan isnt ‘colonialism’.
Its not 100% identicall, but very similar in economic structure.
1) Western governments still controll non-western countries with influence over china and japan.
2) There is still slavery (congo, North korea which exports rare minerals, india, and many others). Slavery wasnt universal in Western european colonies, only in certain areas where it was profitable.
3) Coolies are treated as shit, its just like old factory and mining workers of europe.
4)extreme environmental degredation.
5)Colonial war adventures.
6)Some humanitarian aid, mainly to get the local population dependent on NATO rule.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/oct/01/sloane-stephens-anastasia-pavlyuchenkova-confrontation-tennis-china-open
HBD in action.
Question: why do i read the guardian
Answer: Because I am a social justice warrior.
Question: Why am i a social justice warrior.
Answer: Because social justice is good.
Question: What is social justice.
Answer: Social justice was invented in the 1960s. Before that everyone was evil, morally deformed, believed in superstition and the world was ruled by the KKK.
”Answer: Social justice was invented in the 1960s.”
Santo god…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_black_woman
The angry black woman stereotype is a trope in American society that portrays black women as sassy, ill-mannered, and ill-tempered by nature. Related concepts are the “sapphire” or “sassy black woman”.
The stereotype has not been studied to the same degree as the mammy and Jezebel archetypes.[citation needed] Some scholars, e.g. Dionne Bennett and Marcyliena Morgan, suggest that the stereotype is less studied because researchers accept it as true.
YA THINK?!
WW I was not what anyone thought it would be at any point. this is very important. the franco-prussian war had been short and not much blood.
what happened was at each moment the two sides expected things would be over quickly. as millions of bodies piled up it was the same. ideal would have been peace in 1915. why didn’t this happen? because neither side could negotiate from strength?
so germany annexes land which had been part of germany prior to WW I and britain and france declare war. but it was called “the phony war” until the germans invaded france. why did they do that? why did they invade the USSR? was it really just lebensraum? according to pat buchanan WW II could have been avoided. neville chamberlain WAS a hero.
It was for lebensraum as the nazis had prepared for the war in an long time. The nazis accumulated much debt and couldn’t survive with their deficit spending outside of the paradigm of slavery, lebensraum and forced demand from violence.
That documentary i linked made my double personality disorder appear again so ill give you two awnser to the preceding question.
Why lebensraum?
Becuase the elite wanted to make large changes to the world withought anyone criticising, just like in ww1. Therefore appropriate western investment in nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Or.
The nazis believed that gambelling Germany was nescessary for the survival of peace as non-aryans were too stupid to gain freedom (freedom defined by not having imperialism on them in the Marxist definition, which is where the leftist element of nazism comes from even though nazi Germany probably would collapse into an corporatist aristocracy in the future) and that Jewish pacifism in Western Europe (as well as an lack of coordination between Western European nations) would secure an victory, as well as underestimating the power and growth of soviet industry. The nazis also gained considerable confidence by trading raw resources with the Soviet Union and Scandinavia. People don’t generally know that Sweden was an vital part of ww2 even more important than Italy, as it was the source of like 47% of germanies steel. These trade routes were not exptected by the french.
Back to chamberlain. No he wasnt an hero. Every elite knows that property has to be controled, you cant just give freedom to people nilly willy, especially when its such an large segment of your infranstructure like Germany. The allies should have govern Germany and taking less debt, as Germany could afford it short term and created resentment (even though the allies were very reasonable behind closed doors). With that controll, they could wait until the Soviet Union was powerfully enough to make it an common threat to unify the Western Europeans. Bassically like the Americans did after ww2. So the allies had to not create an armistice with Germany in ww1, but grab it by the pussy by winning violently and pacify the Germans atleast temporarily. Chamberlain was too timid. An cuck.
Couldn’t afford it short term