I found a very educational documentary about Ayn Rand who was arguably the most influential woman in the World before she died. Although I’m not a fan, I find influential women fascinating, and her impact is all the more interesting because she never held political office, didn’t have great wealth or fame, and did not ride the coattails of a prominent husband or father. She was entirely self-made, and unlike many women who use their beauty to get ahead, Rand looked like a witch. Hers was the power of ideas, so it’s fitting that the documentary aired on Ideas on CBC radio.
You can listen to part one here and part two here.
But sadly I suspect she was a neocon, or at least would have become one had she lived another 20 years.
Pumpkin Person 
that’s an oxymoron unless it portrayed rand as a low IQ sociopath.
Low IQ? I highly doubt it. Low social IQ? Perhaps.
no! have you ever read anything she’s written or listened to her speak. she was DUMB.
[redacted by pp, nov 24, 2018]
Hate to say it but mugabe is right. Anyone who has ever read her shit knows how dumb she is. Couldn’t even get basic philosophy.
mugabe is right about everything.
Couldn’t even get basic philosophy.
I’m not even sure if mugabe knows basic philosophy. Unless he has a very obscure version of idealism
I don’t think she has a low social IQ. She seems to me to be extremely disagreeable, a very independent thinker who isn’t at all interested with the infatuations and romanticizations of the collectivists(ones on the left and paradoxically ones on the right too). In fact I think that her social IQ is probably incredibly high but in an abstract objective way not a one-to-one interpersonal way. She’s trying to divorce emotionality from human affairs and though an absolute divorce is not possible or even a healthy thing to do I think that her stance was more of a reactionary one to the irrationality driven by hyper sensationalization of the 20th century. She is very much an individualist and for that I commend her but I have to admit that I do not agree with everything she says nor do I consider myself a fan per se. I do find her interesting though.
”I don’t think she has a low social IQ. She seems to me to be extremely disagreeable, a very independent thinker who isn’t at all interested with the infatuations and romanticizations of the collectivists(ones on the left and paradoxically ones on the right too)”
So [redacted by pp, nov 24, 2018]…
people who are extremely disagreeable exploit some tolerance more open-minded society provide for them.
She was an individualist because individuality or individualism
Well she called her form of philosophy Objectivism and even though a lot of libertarians like to claim her among their ranks she was in fact quite a bit anti libertarian.
Personally I don’t like playing semantic games particularly with individualist/individualism. To me one is the idealized formal philosophy while the other is a person who subscribes to that ideology or exhibits traits that are reminiscent of that ideology. They are for all intents and purposes the same thing. One thing’s for sure though, she was definitely anti collectivist.
As for disagreeable people, it is important to note that disagreeableness is only one dimension of the big 5 personality traits. Open mindedness is another, meaning one can be disagreeable and open minded at the same time, in other words they are not mutually exclusive. So being disagreeable does not necessarily mean that you are a bad person while it usually means that you are less likely to be exploited. My sense is that some people have some form of disagreeableness to them, it’s just that they choose to draw the line in different ways. An overtly disagreeable person who isn’t antisocial usually tends to be quite strong minded opinionated and somewhat averse to convention and following the crowd. I think disagreeableness along with high intelligence and a good dose of empathy and open mindedness makes for a formidable intellect. A healthy dose of conscientiousness is also important for a responsible member of society. I actually think that you are extremely disagreeable, most people on this forum are. Now, I’m not sure if that is a good or a bad thing lol 😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
I would say that whether one is likely to exploit someone else is probably predicted by sociopathy/psychopathy which is not part of the big 5 and is usually considered a mental disorder.
I agree about disagreeableness because there are current social or cultural context and morally universal context.
If you had lived in Mayan society and was against ”certain” ”cultural” practices as human sacrifice you would be disagreeable, particularly about it, but this don’t mean you would be less empathetic because this, OTHERWISE.
The problem is to be generally disagreeable and not by moral issues, just by lack of empathy, specially affective, when you simply don’t care about other feelings [even, secretly, you care about your own]. Here, in this blog, we have so many people that don’t care about others that i simply adapted to this condition even i have a sadistic feeling about one here, probably because i find him very naive among wolves, maybe protective, a way to help him to survive here.
I’m emotionally adaptable in direct ways. If someone treat me bad i will try my best to treat it at twice-bad. It’s a implicit rule of balance among inter-contextual relationships if all of us are self-contexts anyways. The ideal and implicit human criteria of morality is the individual because self-awareness and even when we fail to recognize the totality of another individual, at priori, respecting it, we still act based on inter-individual correspondence, ”individual/human or not, that’s the question”.
I’m not extremely disagreeable and sometimes, don’t care about another feelings, not here, because i have on my mind the ideal way to deal with main human psycho-ideological spectrum, where there are correct points from the extreme to another, but because most people follows their personality traits and social-economic contexts..
My supposed lack of empathy is indeed a otherwise where i try to show for people the best for them at least about things i believe it’s essentially understood by me.
Contrary to popular belief, sociopathy/psychopathy is not a mental disorder or even a personality disorder (which is a term used in the DSM). Rather, it’s a multi-dimensional trait (or maybe a set of correlated personality traits), which includes low empathy, emotional shallowness, greed, thrill-seeking, need for dominance, disloyalty and dishonesty to non-family members and those they consider to be members of an out-group, and a sense of superiority over others. Sometimes people who are high on sociopathic/psychopathic traits are highly successful in life, particularly if they are high-IQ and have at least decent impulse control…Their personal relationships tend to be shallow or even non-existent, but they’re good at ascending up hierarchies, whether they be in the corporate world, the military, politics, or street gangs.
The Big 5 did not include psychopathy/sociopathy in its personality inventory, but a number of factor analytical studies indicated that there existed a trait that overlapped somewhat with low Agreeableness, and aspects of low Neuroticism, but was otherwise a separate trait. This trait was even found in a number of cross-cultural studies; in fact, it is one of the most universally distinct personality traits. So another group of researchers reconfigured the Big 5 personality inventory and added psychopathy, except they instead called it (inverse) Honesty-Humility. This new test was called HEXACO (you can find more info on Wikipedia, it’s pretty fascinating…)
It’s possible to be low Agreeableness but fairly high Honesty-Humility (the inverse of psychopathy). I think this is what American culture and individualism are, more or less. Ayn Rand was obviously low Agreeableness, but it’s harder to say as far as her Honesty-Humility–she lied about her personal integrity and cheated on her husband, so it might suggest low Honesty-Humility (aka high psychopathy).
Santoculto could cut down his verbiage by 90% and still say the same thing.
Sad!
GondwanaMan
Thanks for the information. Was not aware of the HEXACO but first on sociopathy/psychopathy. Psychopathy is generally considered a personality disorder. They(including sociopathy) are represented in the DSM by “antisocial personality disorder” and “dissocial personality disorder” respectively. So I disagree with your assertion that it is not a mental disorder. I think what might be the discrepancy here is that there are varying degrees of sociopathy/psychopathy where at low enough levels may not constitute a serious enough problem to be considered a mental disorder.
I can see how inverse honesty-humility could be a strong predictor of psychopathy/sociopathy but I don’t think that they are one and the same. I think there is a point where the sum of traits that predict psychopathy stop being simply personality traits and become a mental disorder. I think you hit it on the nose however with the multiple factors that predict psychopathy/sociopathy one of them might partially be low agreeableness and low neuroticism. However I would be willing to guess that extreme levels on either end of any of the big 5 correlate somewhat with sociopathy/psychopathy. Just think about it, can you envision someone who is so neurotic that it glitches their brain from time to time that they behave in an anti-social way? What about someone that is so open minded that they are willing to try anything that tickles their fancy, say pederasty? In fact in my view the absolute extremes on any one of the big 5 or HEXACO(I agree with the inclusion of honesty-humility btw) say over the 99th percentile might be a mental disorder of sorts. The ancient Greeks used to say “pan metron ariston” or “all in the right measure”, words to live by!
So when I advocate for low agreeableness keep in mind that I am not saying that the lower the better. I am talking about a healthy amount of disagreeableness might actually be a good thing that in conjunction with the right amount of other traits sums up to a person that could be of great value to society. As opposed to the worst combination of these traits that could create a person with negative value which in some iterations I would say that disagreeableness might be a factor. Also note that I don’t think that being disagreeable equates to selfishness, I really don’t think the two are remotely the same thing(perhaps a slight overlap of two distinct personality traits).
In fact I think today’s society is one that is hell bent on creating conformity by purging disagreeable people. To the degree that it decreases violence and unjust mindless social disorder I’m all for it but I think they are taking things too far and often misdiagnosing the problem. At the end of the day I think that each one of the personality traits has basically infinite variability such that it would be possible to come up with a set of iterations that are truly bad. Obviously I am not in support of too much disagreeableness across the board in all interactions, that would make for quite a repulsive human being and for a very unhappy life. So to simplify I often just say the good kind of disagreeableness.
As for Ayn Rand I am not championing her at all, I just think that there are some things she says that I like and I detect a good amount of disagreeableness in her. Whether that verges on too much(or of the wrong kind) I am not sure, I would have to delve into deep research on her life and personality and while i find her interesting I don’t find her that interesting. As for her cheating/integrity I think it’s probably not a good idea to judge her on partial information. Of course I do not agree with cheating(I think it’s a terrible thing to do to someone) however do we know that her husband wasn’t also cheating on her or that he wasn’t treating her terribly in some other way?
What I see in Ayn Rand is a rejection of this attempt to pacify people and create a sheep mentality where the highest honor would be to die at the altar of the “greater social good”. What if society at large does not deserve your sacrifice, say in soviet Russia or Maoist China where tens of millions were killed for the “greater good”? What about a corrupt capitalist society, should you slave day and night to live up to their ideals? This is how I interpreted her words particularly since she escaped soviet Russia and their abhorrent practices. It seems to me that this is what she was getting at, alerting the people that they should think for themselves and not turn into the sacrificial lamb just because that is what society wants of you. I think in the right doses at the right time being disagreeable could be the difference between life and death, being a victim or a person who values and defends their dignity, a corrupt authoritarian dystopian society or a free progressive and healthy one.
GondwanaMan
Also keep in mind that when certain personality traits that are associated with psychopathy or sociopathy are at low enough levels, that is no longer psychopathy nor is it a mental disorder, typically it is considered a personality quirk and everybody has those. I think there is a threshold above which one could be considered a psychopath. These days people throw around those labels as often as they throw around the word asshole. Typically psychopaths show no remorse and there is a distinct pattern and repetition to their behavior. I don’t like this idea that is floating around that people that make it to the top as CEOs or what not are necessarily psychopaths. There might be a greater preponderance of psychopaths at the top but just because you’ve made it to the top does not mean you have some kind of mental disorder. I think that is preposterous and it is promoted by envious people that don’t have the work ethic or intelligence to make it.
Each case needs to be addressed individually and put into the greater context, something people with an agenda often purposely avoid. By some people’s reasoning competitiveness is psychopathic, high IQ might even be psychopathic too, they would say ‘why do you want to be better than others, smarter than them even, is it to make them feel bad about themselves or take advantage of them’? Well we all know that is nonsense but unfortunately it’s out there and it serves no purpose other than to induce regression to the mean, stifle the talented the worthy and hinder them from being the best they can be which after all benefits everyone unless you are trying to be the best volcano lair resident/super villain. Which gets me back to my favorite axiom “Pan Metron Ariston”.
Pumpkinhead, good comment–I’m not going to respond to you point-by-point, because I think aspects of this topic are beyond my pay grade. Regardless, I don’t believe psychopathy/sociopathy are disorders or liabilities at all, at least not usually, provided that they’re paired with high IQ and some amount of self-control.
Referring back to the DSM, there’s a whole family of personality “disorders” related to low empathy and impulsivity. They are narcissistic, anti-social, borderline and histrionic personality disorder. The first two in particular are associated with low empathy. Narcissistic PD, anti-social PD and histrionic PD are all associated with greater than average sexual success. Narcissism is also over-represented in leaders as mentioned in my previous comment. Anti-social PD is mostly a liability because it’s low empathy combined with impulsivity and low IQ–thus it’s commonly found in criminals and prison inmates. Borderline PD, also know as emotional instability disorder, is associated with rapid emotional fluctuations, manipulativeness, and suicidal tendencies. Of this family of personality disorders, only borderline PD is consistently correlated with poor life outcomes across all environments.
I agree 100% that low agreeableness and selfishness are not the same. That’s why I brought up HEXACO–it shows us you can have high psychopathy (low Honesty-Humility) and still be agreeable, and vice versa. A lot of Chinese are highly agreeable psychopaths.
I also agree 100% that extremely low agreeableness is bad, which can be compounded in a conformist society. I think even Gregory Cochran argued that too low/too high on any personality trait, like 3.5 SD, could constitute a disorder. The problem is that the current diagnostic criteria are so loosely defined that people who aren’t even that far from the norm–like maybe 2 SD–are frequently considered “disordered”…2 SD above average on psychopathy doesn’t make you disordered, it just makes you a good politician/salesman!😂
Oops, I missed your second response to me–i don’t have time to respond in full, other than to say that psychopathy is thrown around way too loosely, most definitely. Psychopathy is a spectrum, not a categorical variable, and there’s many aspects to psychopathy. With that said, I think there’s certain questions you could ask someone–like a 10 minute, 10 question quiz–which could allow you to quickly determine of someone is, say, above the 2 SD in psychopathy (similar to how a 10 question Wordsum in quiz could help you determine in 10 minutes if person likely has above a 130 IQ).
1. Have you ever cheated on a marriage partner?
2. Is it acceptable to cheat on one’s taxes?
3. Is revenge a good thing?
4. Is money/income the thing women value most in a man?
5. Do you trust most people?
Etc. Of course you have to assume that the individual will answer honestly….which psycho/sociopaths tend not to do…DAMN
There’s a self-help guru/motivational speaker in the 5th season of the show Dexter that reminds of some Rand acolytes I’ve known. He represents the psychopathic aspect of Randian ideology and libertarianism in general. Funny…
Winfrey
“I agree about disagreeableness because there are current social or cultural context and morally universal context.
If you had lived in Mayan society and was against ”certain” ”cultural” practices as human sacrifice you would be disagreeable, particularly about it, but this don’t mean you would be less empathetic because this, OTHERWISE.”
Exactly the point I am trying to make! Culture is subjective(as opposed to the objective truth) to some degree, not entirely but enough that it takes disagreeable people to come along and say, “know what, I disagree with this practice, it doesn’t make sense for this and this and that reason”. Of course there is the extreme of this trait which is being disagreeable for the purpose of being disagreeable. Obviously that’s wrong, which is why I think a high IQ is a must if one is disagreeable. Low IQ and being highly disagreeable is a bad combination almost all the time. A good analogy for what might constitute a paradoxically optimal personality configuration is the F-16 which was the first fighter aircraft that was purposely designed to be partially aerodynamically unstable to improve maneuverability. But it required substantive computing power to keep it in the air which is analogous to a high IQ required to temper that disagreeableness into something formidable and optimal perhaps even with the ultimate morality.
“The problem is to be generally disagreeable and not by moral issues, just by lack of empathy, specially affective, when you simply don’t care about other feelings [even, secretly, you care about your own]. Here, in this blog, we have so many people that don’t care about others that i simply adapted to this condition even i have a sadistic feeling about one here, probably because i find him very naive among wolves, maybe protective, a way to help him to survive here.”
OK not sure who you are referring to but I understand your point. Being disagreeable to the point of being un-empathetic and sadistic is obviously wrong. Which is why I like to differentiate these qualities, low empathy is not the same as low agreeableness, it cannot be otherwise we all turn into mindless sheep for fear of becoming monsters. Sheep are super nice, kind and harmless(except for those damn rams, plowing into anything they see lol) but are they intelligent or socially sophisticated?
“I’m emotionally adaptable in direct ways. If someone treat me bad i will try my best to treat it at twice-bad.”
Ahaa but now the question is whether twice as bad is too much. I mean I understand the idea of hitting back harder as payback for what they did to you, the fact that they would even consider doing it AND as a way of deterring them from doing it again. However there is such a thing as going too far which may itself trigger a vicious cycle of negative reciprocity. Which is why I think for most cases an eye for an eye seems just about right, with some exceptions where hitting extra hard might be warranted or perhaps even in some circumstances turning the other cheek might be the order of the day.
“I’m not extremely disagreeable and sometimes, don’t care about another feelings, not here, because i have on my mind the ideal way to deal with main human psycho-ideological spectrum, where there are correct points from the extreme to another, but because most people follows their personality traits and social-economic contexts..”
Yes I understand your point I too sometimes shut off my empathy when I realize that it will inevitable have me end up being incredibly short changed by someone who is going to be ungrateful or worse taking me for a ride. Which is why i hate this blanket campaign that pushes for “empathy” and “equity”. Aren’t you just priming for exploitation? Interestingly, this is getting back to Ayn Rand’s perspective. There is a time to be empathetic and a time to call foul when that is undeniably the case otherwise we start verging on to concepts of self flagellation, senseless martyrdom and stockholm syndrome.
GondwanaMan
Well it seems that you are quite knowledgeable on the subject, probably more than I am(psychologist?). Having said that, you seem to insist that psychopathy is equivalent to low honesty-humility. Correct me if i’m wrong but isn’t there a much higher correlation of psychopathy with low empathy? In fact on DNA tests they find that people lowest on a combination of about 11(so far) alleles were most likely to be sociopaths ie low on empathy(closely related to oxytocin). Thankfully I’m high on 9 of the 11 so no psychopath here lol
In any case I still don’t think that low honesty-humility are equivalent to psychopathy(just merely highly correlated) while I really don’t like this general insistence of using the concept of psychopath as a spectrum. I rather think it lies on the extreme of a combination of traits on a spectrum of those traits. Meaning that below a certain point it is no longer psychopathy(Conceptually I prefer psychopath, borderline psychopath, and not a psychopath). In other words to me saying that someone is low on psychopathy is problematic because that means they have some amount of psychopathy. Kind of like saying that you only have a little bit of a serial killer in you. Of course my example is hyperbolic but the point I am making is that the word psychopath has negative connotations any way you slice it. The etymology of the word itself denotes a psychological problem(from the Greek root for soul and suffering). Well, low psychopathy is not a psychological problem, in fact the average person probably has a fair amount of the traits that point to psychopathy. Are they psychopaths, even a little bit? Of course not they are normal people, so why use that word? I’ve noticed this playing loosey goosey with definitions and concepts all across the discipline of psychology. I think it does more harm than good to people, it’s confusing and might make them feel inherently flawed. A ploy by mental health professionals to fear monger people into their offices to rid them of their inherent flaws? Hmmm maybe too conspiratorial, but something tells me I should not dismiss this idea just yet.
“There’s a self-help guru/motivational speaker in the 5th season of the show Dexter that reminds of some Rand acolytes I’ve known. He represents the psychopathic aspect of Randian ideology and libertarianism in general. Funny…”
Yes well I’m sure there are plenty of psychopaths that litter the entire ideological spectrum, from left to right. But you may well be right, about Randians, I’m only new to her(last 5 years) while I’ve only ever read a little online about her and watched some of her interviews. Haven’t read the books(saw part of the movie). There’s stuff in there that I like, some that I don’t. You make them sound like low empathy disagreeable nutcases…?
As for the Chinese, it’s funny you mentioned that, I’ve noticed this phenomenon too. Not sure what it is, low empathy or giving the impression of low empathy or is it cold and calculating, can’t quite figure it out. It may just be a coping mechanism for the hardships they endured that only ended a generation ago.
In any case I think society is far too obsessed with psychopathy, empathy and giving the impression that one is a “good person”. These things are easily faked and anyway it’s better to not make a big deal about it and allow the true psychopaths to reveal themselves instead of forcing them to go underground. To me it looks like the equivalent of walking around and patting people down for weapons before you engage in conversation with them. It’s excessive and makes for a very unpleasant world.
Also, I think that a lot of the DSM is garbage anyway!
Check out the following:
Click to access 023361efc9eaa246ca4af557241fe1ee24c8.pdf
See the abstract. High correlation between several sub-factors of psychopathy and inverse Honesty-Humility. In other words, low HH usually goes together with low empathy.
As far as the DSM, a lot of it’s bullshit, some of it is not. Within 100 years, it’ll be considered almost on the same level as astrology.
p-head and g-man = peepee.
peepee has serious “issues”.
If you honestly think I’m either of those people, your social IQ is even lower than your IQ.
Hello there, Mr.Pearson, I am an avid reader of your blog and have taken a great interest in IQ tests. This fascination led me to discover the Queendom IQ test, an IQ test that seems to have at the very least some validity, here are some key points below:
Number of subjects tested: 15,884
Correlation with the WAIS-R:(.72)
But there may be some potential issues with the test( keep in mind that these are just speculations on my part ), like say the fact that it’s an internet-based test, so only people with a certain IQ level would have the necessary skills to be able to access the site, or that it’s a rather esoteric website that deals with a rather niche interest ( IQ ), so it’s unlikely that people with IQs of <80 would use the site.
So, Mr.Pearson, if you could please tell me either how to convert a score from this test to a WAIS-IV score, or how much of an idiot I am for asking this question, that'd be highly appreciated
Sincerely, a fan
The Test: https://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=3108#n
The Documentation of its Validity:https://www.queendom.com/tests/showpdf.php?name=classical_iq_lite/classical_iq_lite.pdf
Sorry I didn’t reply to your email but I don’t know anything about this test or how it’s normed. One reason the WAIS-IV is so respected is that the psychological corporation spends a ton of money getting a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population to take it, matched with census demographics, so if you score at the 98th percentile on the WAIS-IV, you know you scored better than 98% of Americans in your age group (at the time the WAIS-IV was normed)
But as you mention, people who take on-line tests are much more self-selected so the scores are hard to interpret.
One solution used by Ron Hoeflin to norm his tests is a technique called scored score pairing or equipercentile equating, where on-line (or mail-oder) test takers report their scores on well standardized tests so that an equivelancy between the two tests can be created, but I don’t know if queendom.com did this, or if they’re just assuming their test takers are representative of the general U.S. or white population.
Gondwanaman
Thanks for the link. It still seems inconclusive to me that low humility-honesty is for all intents and purposes the same as psychopathy. Just as I had guessed however they are strongly correlated as per this study. In any case I guess this might be a matter of the degree of resolution one looks at this with.
“As far as the DSM, a lot of it’s bullshit, some of it is not. Within 100 years, it’ll be considered almost on the same level as astrology.”
Well we could not be in more agreement on this topic, I think they have basically lost the plot entirely and this incessant flooding of the social conscience with all these “mental disorders” is only going to make things worse for the general population while increasing the likelihood that borderlines(in mental disorder predisposition) will be pushed over the line by a society that is so obsessed with these things. All the while concerned parents will waste many hours trying to put a label on what is wrong with their child. I honestly think that on some level this is thrown out there in order to add legitimacy to the mental health profession and increase the flow of people through their offices. We can only hope that some day this will be seen as astrology but given how some women are so hell bent on associating the “dark triad” with men(and everything negative under the sun) and the fact that mental health professionals are overwhelmingly women I fear that this will only get worse before it gets better(If we could only be so lucky).
Personally I think that typically what ails people is readily solvable once someone understands the human condition. We generally need 3 things for good health, sustenance, sleep, and positive human interaction. You will find most solutions embedded in one of these three things. Sometimes it gets complicated, for example people that have positive human interaction but they don’t see it that way or it doesn’t stimulate them, but that is a conceptual problem(reward mechanisms in the brain not functioning properly, nothing too hard to solve once you know what the issue is) usually related to trauma. Things get precipitously worse for people as depression and anxiety takes over their life and they shut down aspects to their life and personality to mitigate that depression and anxiety. This leads to people eventually breaking at their weakest point. So if someone has some predisposition to autism(ie possesses a few genes for autism but not enough for the full thing) then they might see symptoms of this at some point in their life. If this happens at an early age and they get diagnosed with aspergers(assuming they are of normal to high IQ) then they are stuck with this for life. Sometimes people later on in life suddenly “discover” they have aspergers but if you ask me most of this stuff is absolute nonsense. The real ailment is depression, once that is resolved along with the associated anxiety then poof no more “aspergers”. But then good luck shaking off that label.
In my experience women are overwhelmingly obsessed with trying to figure out what it is that is wrong with people and slapping a label on them. It is in fact their primary mode of dealing with social conflict(especially between themselves) as opposed to men using their fists. Lately asperger and autism seems to be number one on their radar. I’ve had two people I know targeted by “well meaning” women trying to fix them or figure out what is wrong with them and readily slapping the label on them. While I’ve witnessed countless women use all sorts of psychological labels to stigmatize people. If one is weak or going through a weak moment or as I have been saying all this time, not disagreeable enough, these labels tend to stick and can ruin people’s lives.
Like I said depression(usually related to social status, trauma, failures, rejection, lack of sleep, low fitness level, social withdrawal, bad nutrition) covers most of life’s problems and is the root of a lot of illnesses not just the mental sort. Not to say that there are no legitimate people with asperger or autism but I think society’s obsession with mental disorders has inflated the number of people with “problems” by at least 25% IMO.
” that’s an oxymoron ”
What is?
A kind of jellyfish.
I didnt ask what you are
”Ayn Rand who was arguably the most influential woman in the World before she died”
Influenced 2% of population composed by lost autists.
She’s influential not because she influenced a lot of people, but because she influenced very powerful people.
In bad way.
True. Influence (as you explained so well) usually comes about because a person they influences powerful people, not necessarily because they influence a lot ofthe hoi-polloi. But in Ayn Rand’s case she did both: according to one survey, the Fountainhead is the most influential book among Americans other than the Bible.
Rand ideas = ”freedom”.
anglo-zionist autistic pseudo-philosophers like kripke, wittgenstien, lewis, and whoever else are low IQ children.
to prove this to oneself all he need do is ask himself what he himself means when he uses the word “reality”.
model and modeled are rarely if ever the same thing. nominal distinctions are not real distinctions. but anal-ytic, scrabble dictionary jew-sophers and their mixed race epigones like meLo can’t tell the difference because low IQ.
Mug of Pee has never scored high on an actual IQ test.
Instead of being humble about this or simply taking an actual IQ test, he goes absolutely ballistic & insists the tests he took were IQ tests & hysterically accuses those who disagree of being unable to distinguish words from things.
Such behavior is very common when genetically low IQ combines with alcohol induced dementia.
yeah accept the ACTUAL WISC and the ACTUAL TAG test.
[redacted by pp, nov 25, 2018]
You only got (at most) one 19 on the WISC. The only tests you’ve scored high on were college admission which do not qualify as IQ tests under law.
Try again grasshopper.
ACTUALLY i admire david k lewis for his modal realism.
this is part of what i mean by “ask yourself what you mean by ‘reality’.”
ultimately i don’t believe in reality.
not even in the tegmark sense.
for those, like me, who don’t believe in reality, kurt franz was a great comedian.
Kripke and wittgenstein had the same point as you: words aren’t things.
You’re an illiterate retard
no!
that’s what they said, but it’s clear from reading them that they still couldn’t distinguish.
[redacted by pp, nov 25, 2018]
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/04/the-most-important-western-philosophers-of-all-time.html
1. Aristotle (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Plato loses to Aristotle by 458–455
3. Kant loses to Aristotle by 678–256, loses to Plato by 623–312
4. Hume loses to Aristotle by 721–203, loses to Kant by 606–273
5. Descartes loses to Aristotle by 801–105, loses to Hume by 463–365
6. Socrates loses to Aristotle by 720–146, loses to Descartes by 417–332
7. Locke loses to Aristotle by 855–45, loses to Socrates by 420–237
8. Wittgenstein loses to Aristotle by 826–94, loses to Locke by 366–313 little baby jew girl
9. Aquinas loses to Aristotle by 848–33, loses to Wittgenstein by 380–322
10. Leibniz loses to Aristotle by 853–43, loses to Aquinas by 337–304
11. Hobbes loses to Aristotle by 853–37, loses to Leibniz by 332–257
12. Marx loses to Aristotle by 837–72, loses to Hobbes by 318–302
13. J.S. Mill loses to Aristotle by 854–47, loses to Marx by 322–283
14. Spinoza loses to Aristotle by 846–53, loses to J.S. Mill by 300–274 little baby jew girl
15. Augustine loses to Aristotle by 841–41, loses to Spinoza by 296–276
16. Frege loses to Aristotle by 848–48, loses to Augustine by 307–281 little baby sperg lord girl
17. Hegel loses to Aristotle by 839–55, loses to Frege by 362–277
18. Nietzsche loses to Aristotle by 851–77, loses to Hegel by 344–303
19. B. Russell loses to Aristotle by 850–54, loses to Nietzsche by 358–334 little baby girl
20. Kierkegaard loses to Aristotle by 836–54, loses to B. Russell by 294–289
21. Berkeley loses to Aristotle by 844–35, loses to Kierkegaard by 284–258
22. Quine loses to Aristotle by 855–48, loses to Berkeley by 304–226 little baby girl
23. Epicurus loses to Aristotle by 825–33, loses to Quine by 236–224
24. Rousseau loses to Aristotle by 842–31, loses to Epicurus by 204–194
25. Kripke loses to Aristotle by 848–37, loses to Rousseau by 215–199 little baby jew sperg lord girl
26. Rawls loses to Aristotle by 859–27, loses to Kripke by 209–202
27. Carnap loses to Aristotle by 841–36, loses to Rawls by 241–213 little baby girl
28. Bacon loses to Aristotle by 828–21, loses to Carnap by 188–176
29. Bentham loses to Aristotle by 842–19, loses to Bacon by 172–164
30. D.K. Lewis loses to Aristotle by 835–39, loses to Bentham by 201–181 little baby jew girl
31. Democritus loses to Aristotle by 818–27, loses to D.K. Lewis by 175–174
32. Heraclitus loses to Aristotle by 821–29, loses to Democritus by 155–141
Unfortunately, I’ve read the vast majority of these philosopher’s works.
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/so-who-is-the-most-important-philosopher-of-the-past-200-years.html
1. Ludwig Wittgenstein (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
gay autistic low IQ jew
2. Gottlob Frege loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 261–160 gay autistic low IQ kraut
3. Bertrand Russell loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 280–137, loses to Gottlob Frege by 218–156 gay autistic low IQ limey bastard
4. John Stuart Mill loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 280–135, loses to Bertrand Russell by 204–178
5. W.V.O. Quine loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 291–150, loses to John Stuart Mill by 214–198 gay autistic low IQ douchebag american cunt
6. G.W.F. Hegel loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 290–130, loses to W.V.O. Quine by 214–210
7. Saul Kripke loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 314–138, loses to G.W.F. Hegel by 224–213 super autistic jew
8. Friedrich Nietzsche loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 290–117, loses to Saul Kripke by 209–207
9. Karl Marx loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 359–95, loses to Friedrich Nietzsche by 254–138
10. Soren Kierkegaard loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 358–124, loses to Karl Marx by 230–213
11. Rudolf Carnap loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 345–90, loses to Soren Kierkegaard by 245–194 gay autistic low IQ kraut
12. John Rawls loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 379–80, loses to Rudolf Carnap by 212–175
13. David K. Lewis loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 352–92, loses to John Rawls by 211–166 gay autistic low IQ jew
14. G.E. Moore loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 362–59, loses to David K. Lewis by 188–152 gay autistic low IQ limey bastard
15. Donald Davidson loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 342–50, loses to G.E. Moore by 171–158 gay autistic low IQ american cunt
16. Martin Heidegger loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 351–63, loses to Donald Davidson by 188–161 the hakuho sho of philosophy
17. Edmund Husserl loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 336–51, loses to Martin Heidegger by 169–140 gay autistic low IQ jew
18. Hilary Putnam loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 338–51, loses to Edmund Husserl by 148–138 gay autistic low IQ jew
19. William James loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 347–42, loses to Hilary Putnam by 151–146
20. Charles Sanders Peirce loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 333–40, loses to William James by 145–109
21. Alfred Tarski loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 323–55, loses to Charles Sanders Peirce by 132–109 gay autistic low IQ jew
22. J.L. Austin loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 346–29, loses to Alfred Tarski by 131–126 gay autistic low IQ limey bastard
23. P.F. Strawson loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 339–42, loses to J.L. Austin by 137–127 pseudophilospher
24. Karl Popper loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 344–47, loses to P.F. Strawson by 135–127
25. G.E.M. Anscombe loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 326–35, loses to Karl Popper by 137–128 pseudophilospher
26. Jean-Paul Sartre loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 355–54, loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 145–139 pseudophilospher
27. John Dewey loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 344–28, loses to Jean-Paul Sartre by 138–134
28. Wilfrid Sellars loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 348–29, loses to John Dewey by 123–116 pseudophilospher
29. Arthur Schopenhauer loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 352–30, loses to Wilfrid Sellars by 129–117
30. Henry Sidgwick loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 302–29, loses to Arthur Schopenhauer by 108–105
31. Alfred North Whitehead loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 333–24, loses to Henry Sidgwick by 108–86
32. Michel Foucault loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 357–31, loses to Alfred North Whitehead by 123–121 gay pseudophilospher
33. Bernard Williams loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 337–29, loses to Michel Foucault by 128–127
34. Gilbert Ryle loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 347–23, loses to Bernard Williams by 113–110 pseudophilospher
35. Maurice Merleau-Ponty loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 329–32, loses to Gilbert Ryle by 112–107 pseudophilospher
36. Franz Brentano loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 326–26, loses to Maurice Merleau-Ponty by 111–100
37. Michael Dummett loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 343–26, loses to Franz Brentano by 106–92 pseudophilospher
38. Jurgen Habermas loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 340–22, loses to Michael Dummett by 115–97
39. Hannah Arendt loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 336–29, loses to Jurgen Habermas by 107–98 pseudophilospher
40. Simone de Beauvoir loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 336–30, loses to Hannah Arendt by 110–100 pseudophilospher
But ”heidegger” was a truly philosopher even you don’t know what he mean… nobody knows what he mean… and it’s absolutely likely that simply mean nothing relevant in the world.
——-just because he was a hitlerist———
You’re a closeted bitch who is becoming more and more boring and stupid throught all these years in this blog.
Why is Hannah Arendt listed as a philosopher. Isn’t she someone that wrote a book about her experience in the holocaust. I’ve not read it, but surely you can’t become a philosopher by writing an autobiography.
For what it’s worth, I read a book by her in my intro college philosophy class called On Revolution. And she’s also known for the phrase “the banality of evil”. That’s the full extent of my knowledge of her. I think she’s more of a political scientist or political scientist than philosopher.
“or political commentator”…
heidegger banger her.
you can look it up. because the WISC is used for admissions to some schools or educational programs there are study guides parents buy to prep their chillens.
Yeah, it’s called cheating
Table 3: Percentage of respondents within each “penis size” category who identified within each of the three categories of sexual roles
Below Average Average Above Average
Top 29.2% 30.7% 41.6%
Versatile 31.9% 40.5% 37.8%
Bottom 38.9% 28.8% 20.6%
Total 100% 100% 100%
you gay, closet, but gay
it explains why milo is married to a black guy. he has a tiny penis.
Puppy how can you admire ayn rand and also admire bill gates? Aren’t those 2 people completely the opposite. Ayn Rand championed independent thought but Bill Gates champions whatever CNN says. I don’t understand.
How did Ayn Rand promote independent thought? She was a neocon cult leader.
like all lolbertarians she didn’t grok that freedom from government is only one aspect of freedom, that government can increase freedom.
In addition to psychopaths and autists, a lot of paranoid types tend to be attracted to libertarianism.
Honestly, Im not a big fan of aristotle either. I haven’t read all his stuff. But I’ve read a lot and its not impressive.
yeah. i’d say plato, marx, and heidegger are the greats in comparison to which all others are less than great. aquinas is still great among romans. thomism is a living tradition, because there are so many catholic schools.
IS CBC kind of like NPR? I mean in terms of the heft of presenters and the types of topics discussed. In NPR it sounds like they get these really good students of humanities courses in college and get them to embarass themselves by talking in public.
Is economics a humanities subject? Most of what I studied seemed like ghost stories. I did 3 semesters of sociology for my undergrad. I kept falling asleep in the lectures. Some of the lectures were good though. When they talked about Weber vs Durkheim vs Marx.
the supply curve isn’t even upward sloping most of the time. econ is a pseudoscience. it’s just ideology marketed as science in order to give chicago boys authoritay.
milton friedman says, “respect my authoritay!”
great chapter on trickle down bullshit in:
Bruno said on the other thread hes smarter than Steven Pinker. Hahahahaha. Bruno name one person who is smarter than you.
Terry Tao.
For mugabe:
Click to access bergvall2006.pdf
we are losing ground sitting here with intellectual banter. We need to come up with an organized plan to reproduce heirs to continue our legacies. We are too intelligent not to have sons ( currently i have a daughter) the fertility rate in the USA is 1 child per couple Either we think of a strategy to get multiple women pregnant or 1 woman pregnant about 4-5 times enough to likely produce at least one boy.
bullshit. if you can’t clone yourself, then your kids are very likely to disappoint you.
and even if you can clone yourself your children are very likely to disappoint you…because HBD is bullshit.
sounds like you disjointed your parents. Im very sorry if that happened to you but the cycle doesnt have to keep repeating.
Im thinking we could practice our dance moves everyday for a few hours a day and show them off at a nightclub every friday night. We would impress a lot of ladies that way and stay in shape. On a daily basis we could dress in nice suits and just chat up girls at the local starbucks. Ok so meeting women we can do that but discerning the women on birth control vs the ones that are not would be much harder. Maybe older women that are still attractive wouldnt be on birth control because they dont get as many pursuers as they used to. Come on guys we need ideas ( i need ideas)
donate your sperm
cant where im from already looked into it, you have to have a 4 year college degree or be in college. Also id have to dye my beard and possibly try to pass for 100% white (they flat out dont allow red head applicants because of no demand) We could create our own sperm donation clinic/ advertisements i have seen documentaries on ugly guys doing that. He was a virgin with like 20 kids. I guess that must be the best option. Still other ideas in the meantime.
Get an online degree. I thought you had an 100+ IQ? Major in psychology, it’ll be fun and easy.
Then donate that sperm.
Dont they give blacks the ‘african american studies’ degree if they want to go college? I bet 100% most of the leading ‘thinkers’ in that field are jews.
thats actually a good idea i never thought of an online degree! Same to you, you should do it too!! Im looking into that right now
you can’t just donate your sperm fucktards.
you have to pass a very fine screen.
thanks to professor shoe, i now have lots of china babies.
Good ideas! I would suggest everyone on this blog donate their sperm. Barring those who are currently institutionalized (looking at the Philosopher)….
Why dont you pay women to be surrogate mothers? You can do that in some countries.
what girlfriend is going to be ok with you impregnating another woman and then raising the other girls kid? Obviously not a woman with very good genes. Thats also something we need to think about (and i have thought about ) im thinking good genes are going to be about health and athleticism combined with youth. i think the women in this video should qualify as hi quality. If our kids have shitty genes and then dont have their own kids then we fucked up and it was all for naught. Anyway we all know sperm donation is the best option but considering none of us have done it. It must not be realistic. Also we dont need to have hundreds, of children like some medieval king. Just 5 children would be 5 times the national average. which in statistics would be a fucking huge difference
Also i made a facebook advertisement for sperm donation. a few months ago. I got a few inboxes from girls that thought it was attractive but nothing really stook. I guess i should keep making adds , only way to grow.
What do you guys think would be hi quality in today’s environment? Remember these days the worldwide fertility is so low its not realy about who can have the most children but who is likely to even have children in the first place.
You’re completely retard… i already saw a completely idiotic video you did… your sarcasm mode is on all the time or your stupidity is for real*
you my good sir, are a fuckin loser. smh. whenever females are brought up on this blog the pot gets stirred for some reason. Someone always has to have an issue with it. Also you just proved yourself to be Philosopher because you werent commenting under these names when i posted my video. cats out the bag Pill.
Its obviously santoculto mike
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1939032/rise-chinas-millionaire-research-scientists
Chinese communism is the way. Aka state capitalism with an elite that has national performance in line with their incentives.
I would say chinese communism lasted (and will last) more than in Russia because it wasn’t a foreign ethnic minority controlling it. An EXACT analogy was China under the Mongol Yuan dynasty where there was constant friction between the rulers and ruled.
Puppy person
Would Qing china disprove your analogy?
i talked to a few women looking for a sperm donor they all got cold feet about having a baby in the current economic situation.
Complacency is the breeding ground of regression. Only the government has the logistical capacity to incentivize higher fertility rates. Society is far too fractionated to agree on anything while people(particularly women) have it way too good to sacrifice the criminally high social advantages they currently enjoy. Only war, some kind of catastrophe or some sophisticated government plan could get women to care about replacement rate fertility. Which is probably part of the reason why governments have decided to open the flood gates to migrants to make up the difference since war/catastrophe is obviously out of the question. Personally I’m not xenophobic or racist, nothing wrong with immigration as long as it’s the right sort of immigration(merit based sans criminals irrespective of race) but think that what is being allowed to happen in the west is tantamount to cultural and ethnic suicide. Naivety of the highest order.
One might even take note of the surprising correlation between the rise of feminism in the west, greater number of women in power(politically and in academics) and the rise of regressive suicidal leftist policies of the west. But alas correlation is not causation…or is it?
Pumpkinhead you are 100% correct on every point. The only thing that has ever led to women increasing their fertility is war. Producing more osns for the war effort. Nothing else has worked to incentive women, no government program nothing.
wrong. having more sons was more of a defensive measure, along with the fact to compensate for male infants getting more health problems. Wars are often unpredictable. its hard to predict decades in advance when a war will come most of the time.
name you clearly dont even understand the conversation nor are you educated on this topic.
How so?
For most of 2018 the economy was actually improving, though….
Mikey normally I don’t allow videos when they’re not accompanied by a comment. Next time please add a comment about the video, otherwise it feels like video spam.
i didnt know alright
interesting data on voter participation by race, age, and educational attainment.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
blacks love to vote.
the up, down, up, down pattern proves how important the media is.
participation is much greater in presidential election years.
Thats surpising. I would have thought someone from the ghetto would be LEAST likely to want to vote.
I remember when 95% of blacks voted obama, (((people))) didnt say anything but when white men rationally voted for an alternative to a psychopath lesbian who was a tool for open borders (((people))) called that racist, even though plenty of them had already voted for Dr Carson.
Chomsky has convinced Mug of Pee that open borders are pushed to distract people from the wealth of the top 1%, not because it serves a specifically ethnic agenda.
and plenty of them voted for obama, like me.
the kochs are pro open borders.
the murdoch owned WSJ is pro open borders.
the jews are pro open borders, except when they’re not (and most ordinary jews are NOT), for the additional reason of fearing a white gentile establishment.
[redacted by pp, nov 26, 2018]
So you’re saying the PRIMARY motive for open borders is rich people just wanting distract the masses from wealth inequality? The alt-right is wrong to blame it on Jews per se, since WASP elites would have opened borders anyway?
bernie is against open borders.
[redacted by pp, nov 26, 2018]
Yes, though black voting tends not to be that high in midterms.
i’d also list diogenes and jesus as great philosophers, but they never actually wrote anything. both were Cynics.
natsci is a great example of how “theft” (what lolbertarians call taxes) can have yuge benefits.
almost all advances in pharmaceuticals, for example, begin in government funded labs.
basic research is simply NOT carried out in the private sector, because it’s too risky for any single firm to invest in.
government funded research may be viewed as a consortium of firms which is steals from people not employed by these firms…
but whatever…
rand and libertarianism and anglo-american/analytic/oxford philosophy is for children.
tucker has said he is ASHAMED that he ever identified as a libertarian and that libertarians are CHILDREN.
This is the website for the sperm bank in my area. the competition is stiff but i know i can be top tier if i get that online masters degree. OK lets do this
https://www.cryobio.com/
Also i any advice on how to set up the whole college thing. Paying enough loans to be able to finish and get the degree. Any useful info would help really.
it’s NOT as if atlas can’t shrug.
95% of US farmers are white males.
rural blighty is 98% white.
no food is the ultimate shrug.
when i was at u wisc some clever farm boy from minn suggested the food be shut off for the cities. that’ll teach ’em.
wittgenstein, anal-ytic/oxford/anglo-american “philosophy” =
reality is…watch to the end…
so it happens that black women can be strongly attracted to (some) white men…
but not (any) asian men.
because white men are viewed as stable and responsible.
asian men are viewed the same way, but…
asian men have the bodies of 12 year old girls.
I know many black women that are attracted to white men. A large part of it is because they socialise a lot with them in work and on weekends and get interested. Black women have less approach anxiety than most races of man except for black men and maybe north african men.
“A large part of it is because they socialise a lot with them in work and on weekends and get interested.”
You think being with people cause interest?
global warming/climate change is another distraction used by the 1%.
in addition to identity jive.
the ideal is bernie + trump’s CLAIMED immigration policies.
the biggest “geo-political” threat is black afirca’s incontinence.
and it’s not a race thing.
barbados is 90% black and has or recently had the lowest tfr in the western hemisphere.
They are doing progress on that front though. Look at botswanas livingstandards compared to the DRC or mali. Its not an big gap to close.
Every singe country in Africa except for Niger is progressing. Every country will end up like south korea its not a matter of if its a matter of when.
hegel is the konishiki of philosophers.
the dump truck.
a yuge problem with hegel is his translators have been incompetent. but he was NOT just an obscurantist or fraud/mountebank/conman/etc.
kant had autism.
marx is chiyonofuji.
plato is asashoryo.
bodybuilders envy chinyonofuji’s glutes. dude doesn’t look human.
https://goo.gl/images/RRU62w
RIP Oprahs mom.
IN REALITY…no one cares about anybody.
it’s NOT a tragedy. NOT!
because…
the ultimate boyfriend is always there…
…
get used to DYING ALONE
GOD is ALWAYS there.
THERE!
Ok so i have a strategy, a plan for our genes to survive this fertility crisis realistically. Sperm bank is good and number 1 priority however putting all our eggs in one basket would be terrible planning.
So South Korea will be the 1st country to go extinct in as little as a few hundred years. Out of the 200 or so countries on earth nearly all will eventually share the same fate. What we can do to survive this is basically become global nomads.
As long as our descendants move to a new country every few generations or so that has a birth rate of 3 to 4 children for the average woman. They will be able to enjoy most of the joys of modern living while still retaining enough purchasing power to have a family. Now the only question is where should we move too? ill get to work!
South koreans extinct https://www.businessinsider.com/south-koreans-could-be-extinct-by-2750-2015-6
open borders? that’s a koch brothers proposal.
[redacted by pp, nov 26, 2018]
Pumpkin and Gondwana man the sperm bank is a temporary solution. The global nomad strategy is much better for the long term. hmmm i think i need to do both. Deposit my sperm in multiple banks in different countries and i have to teach this to my male descendants. fuck i need to get some extremely hi iq women pregnant for this to plan to have even the slightest chance of success but damnit we cant just lay down and watch the end unfold without putting up a fight.
wow!
you have AIDS.
why do you think this is everyone else’s problem?
Maybe you know some little places to go to
Where they never close
RILEY!
RILEY!
ok so the real richest country in the world is an east asian island country named Macou. its 1 out of 8 countries in the world that dont have any debt to a central bank and make millions of profit every year, Here are some facts. Macau is the gambling capital of the world.[6][7][8] Its economy is heavily dependent on gambling and tourism, with the largest gambling revenue since 2006.[9] It has a very high Human Development Index and the fourth-highest life expectancy in the world.[10][11] Macau is among the world’s richest regions and its GDP per capita by purchasing power parity was higher than that of any country in the world.[12] In 2015, Macau was ranked as the No.1 of the Fastest Growing Metropolitan Areas in the world by Brookings Institution.[13]
Paradoxically despite being arguable the greatest place on earth to live it has 1 of the lowest fertility rates.
Now my theory is that all countries on earth are on 1 developmental track and Macou is simply at the front. What we are seeing is that the more developed a country becomes the more it becomes. I know this is going to sound a little crazy. the more it becomes “an adult amusement park” hear me out guys. Put the pitchforks down. Think about it. Look at the USA we need immigrants in order to keep the economy a float. Just like how an amusement park needs outside customers. Now the fertility is so low because imagine trying to raise a family with a bunch of distractions on every corner. Its not feasible. To really hammer the analogy home.
look at Macou the most profitable country on Earth its main export is entertainment. countries are corporations, corporations want as much profit as possible. Corporations are going to want to be like Macou. Macou is fun to go to but not suitable for kids, all countries will develop towards this model.
Now look at Niger the most fertile country on the planet and the only 1 with a stable population. Over 80% of their country are sustenance farmers. They are maintaining their numbers because for them life if still about survival and not about having as much fun as possible.
This just adds to my point pf Sperm banking being only a temporary solution for us
we still need to decide which country would be the best to immigrate too after our sperm has been donated. Im looking at Egypt right . More to come soon guys lets not give up!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger
Anytime ya try and do something positive somebody thats already doomed to failure has to come out the woodwork.
Also man just because you dont care doesnt mean its not your problem. In reality your not adaptive enough to solve it so you just accept it.
the jew reality is:
1. judaism and the culture of jews should be incorporated to american culuture.
2. the ashkenazim are NOT in fact genetically superior.
3. any minority with outsized power and wealth is…
BAD!
Please explain how the last 30 years would have been different if the U.S. elite had remained overwhelmingly WASP.
In this post you support the progressive model of evolution, which i also support however now that east asians and whites are going extinct what do you think the new hierarchy is?
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/05/15/which-race-is-most-beautiful/
No race is going extinct. Before 2025 we will have a global pandemic that will wipe out 99% of the worlds population. Only 80 million or so will be left.
that wont happen because it would halt economic development.
pandemics before halted economic development. And economies started again. 80 million people at that time will i think have enough money and resources for themselves and to start the halted economic development.
Can you go into detail?? Why so soon??
AIDS is the universal solvent of the last 100 years.
it explains EVERYTHING.
Pumpkin, could you tell me which and why of these four would you choose as the best option to estimate a person’s true intellectual potential: the Full Scale IQ, the General Ability Index, the strongest individual Index, or the highest subtest scores?
Many psychologists and psychiatrists i talked with, of whom at least a few have many years of experience think that, if there’s enough discrepancy between the individual scores (especially between people that have learning disorders or ASD), you might as well use the GAI or in some cases even the single best subtest scores as the better predictor of the person’s potential.
What do you think?
I define intelligence as the cognitive ability to adapt, and so I’m interested in how well you function in all environments and situations, including those that are compromised by learning disabilities, thus I would go with the full-scale IQ.
However if we’re wise and lucky enough to only enter environments we’re good at, then one’s highest subtest score might be the best measure of one’s potential achievements. But keep in mind that everyone will score high on some subtest if given enough.
Seriously pumpkin think about this. An IQ test that factors in the test takers fertility compared to the national birth rate. Person A that has 2 children in a 1.5 child birth rate society has to have a higher total intelligence than Person B that has 3 children in a 3 child birth rate society. thoughts?
Prehistorically you needed to be smart to have kids, because only smart people could survive long enough to have kids, and keep their kids alive.
Today any fool can have kids & keep them alive so it no longer correlates with IQ
Pumpkin that statement is not true. “Today any fool can have kids & keep them alive so it no longer correlates with IQ” your 30 something years old the fertility rate was higher when you were born. Its not the same as now, Keep up with the time. Why is fertility the one topic you refuse to do research on?
Generally if its a topic your unfamiliar with you pass, but when i try to bring current up to date information to light on a topic you covered in the past you dismiss it. I am seeing bias here man.The illusory truth bias, the tendency to believe information to be correct just because of repeated exposure and
The Semmelweis reflex or “Semmelweis effect” the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.
I remember a time when you were eager to learn new things and not be stuck in your ways.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/05/31/the-iq-of-precious/
* meant to say fertility rate* anyway. Another example would be that since your from Canada one of the least fertile places on Earth. At 1.6 children born per woman (1 in reality). at the ripe old age of 30 with fathers being also around 30. and you fitting that age range. you dont get a penalty and your normal IQ is accurate. Now if 40 comes along and you dont have a son or daughter we have to take points off. if you have 2 or more children then we raise points. i think thats a fair system basis.
Mikey i was thinking about your plan to take ovrr the world. It dawned on me that there are potentially millions of women available in warn torn or very poor countries to be mail order brides. If we could raise a few hundred thousand and move to saudia arabia where bigamy is legal we could achieve your goals and import hundreds of primarily black women. This would also be wildly praised in western media and might even make bill gates get in on the action!
I wonder if we could get donations from bill gates to do this.
The man, The Legend is back. and I like the idea it could be a real company. We would just have to start out small at 1st.
(((hospice)))
PP,
What are your thoughts on Mensa? shoulndt they be an intellectual powerhouse?
Berrill and Ware were both disappointed with the resulting society. Berrill had intended Mensa as “an aristocracy of the intellect”, and was unhappy that a majority of Mensans came from humble homes,[12] while Ware said: “I do get disappointed that so many members spend so much time solving puzzles.”[13]
Not really. They’re only the top 2% of U.S. IQ (maybe top 1% on average) which while extremely high, is not spectacular. It’s like if you had a club for people for anyone over 6’3″ (the top 2% of adult U.S. height), you wouldn’t expect them to be a basketball powerhouse. Add to that the fact that IQ tests are imperfectly correlated with intelligence and/or g and the fact that Mensa applicants can cherry-pick which IQ test or college admission test they want to use to gain entry, and they’re probably selecting from the top 5% (not top 2%) of U.S. intellect.
The top 5% is like an IQ of 123! Thats a lot PP. Is there no limit on which IQ test they can take? Mensa has 140 000 members and was expected to succeed..
But my suspicion was always that it selects for high IQ people with lower traits on other traits as other high IQ people have better things to do.
Mikey Blaze
Quality over quantity. Dont do spermbanks. The additive effect is so small that breeding with persons very different to you would only minimally increase the agregate IQ.
On the other hand…
I would love spermbanks to test facial proportions for admitions, that would be the coolest shit. Would it work? i would guess yes.
PP,
Can you do an post about Galtons views regarding the ancient Greeks intelligence?
Anthony Karlin did an rather nice post about it over at UNZ.
Personally, I believe Karlin’s estimates, but an even better resource for estimates would be Paul Cooijmans who estimated that historical civilizations averaged an IQ of 85, industrial societies averaged 90, and modern advanced societies average 100. I think that makes sense because despite the fact that many remarkable feats were accomplished by people in the past, they’re still quite trivial to the growth of modern day society. I’d like your two cents, though. maybe it’ll change my mind.
Karlin said that the Greeks were comparable in numbers to the Chinese and Latin aocieties, when it comes to the total population of 3sd outliers. So the Greek iq must be higher than chinas, irregardless of litterqcy. Also Archimedes existed, he must have been an 160+ iq guy. He also talked about Greeks having an exceptionally good diet and educational system, that would increase the iq of an large portion of the population. You don’t think an 5 point difference is that big, so it’s hard to argue either side.
If would guess I would guess that Greek citizens had an iq of ~95 while other members of the society lower, but that’s just an guess out of the fact that they could manage Greek politics.
Yeah, an average of 95 is respectable to produce a society that functions with cohesiveness and efficiency in terms of democracy. where would you put the Victorians? I think they were probably comparable to what you think the Greek IQ is, as their inventions and contributions to modern-day society were extensive.
Thoughts on the He CRISPR gene editing fiasco?
Ian smith used to talk about the wilson effect being limited to >4 year old kids in the past, but i never saw any evidence for that claim! PP, do you know what he is talking about??
ian smith NEVER talked about that.
thinkingmouse = peepee
^^^stupid^^^
Hahaha.
Sure it wasn’t Ian smith, but someone with the same patterned profile picture…
Let’s see if my pea-pea brain can fire enough neurons to remember…
Wait, it was actually his mere opposite, Robert Gabriel Obama.
PP,
Was his reasoning that the correlation between MZ and DZ twins was too big for kids, for there not being an high heratibility amongst kids? That the environmental variance doesnt matter as it doesn’t account for Andean living standards?
Who knows what his reasoning was. What’s the relevance?
if i was a black woman living in the US, Canada, or any other white country…
i’d become a carthusian nun.
it’s not like they have high admission standards…just SINCERITY.
Pumpkin, is this study a good study? https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f5c9/bfd761525b4ac2c790189b715a4517fd9aed.pdf
For the bilingual data on information subtest, 3 sd above the mean is 17 (16.76), while for the monolingual data 3 sd above the mean is 15.4. Since I got a score of 15 on an American normed wais test, can I increase around 2 points to make it 17, since I’m bilingual?
Pumpkin, please answer this question.
Please answer this question pumpkin.