On page 206 of Bias in Mental Testing, Arthur Jensen writes:
Not sure why Jensen considers all these correlations positive, unless zero is a positive number (I consider it neutral).
And I’m not sure why some commenters think weight lifting requires coordination when the correlation between strength (hand grip, chinning) and coordination (Pursuit rotor tacking, Mirror star tracing) is zero.
But maybe these are not the best measures of strength or coordination (mirror star tracing sounds more like a cognitive test than a physical one), but when I lift weights, I don’t feel like I’m using coordination. To me coordination is best measured by very fast paced tasks that require moving multiple body parts with exquisite timing.
Physical coordination probably correlates more with IQ than does any other physical ability. Daniel Seligman writes:
Contrary to certain stereotypes about athletes and intellectuals, physical coordination is positively correlated with IQ. Technical studies by the U.S. department of Labor report a 0.35 correlation between coordination and cognitive ability.
0.35 is very similar to the correlation between IQ and brain size; so there are at least two physical traits (brain size and coordination) that correlate moderately with IQ.
Some might argue that physical coordination is a part of intelligence since it’s largely a brain function. I define intelligence as the ability to use whatever physical traits one has as a tool to exploit whatever environment one’s in. I see coordination as one of those physical traits used as a tool by intelligence rather than part of intelligence itself, but it’s a meta-tool in that it controls the body which in turn controls the external environment.
The problem with including physical coordination in our definition of intelligence is that intelligence is only important because it’s what separates man from beast, and physical coordination fails to do that. Even if it were possible to put a man’s brain in a cheetah’s body, he would not be able to exploit the environment because his brain’s not evolved to control the cheetah’s body. But if a man’s brain could control what the cheetah did with its motor control, only then would the cheetah display the goal directed adaptive behavior we know as intelligence.
It’s like the Master Blaster character in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. If Master’s brain was literally put in Blaster’s body, he might not have the coordination to win so many fights, but by telling Blaster how to use his coordination, he has given him his mind.
Feelings control intelligence
Intelligence is often defined as the mental ability to problem solve, but something is only a problem if it’s bothering us (i.e. cause us to feel pain or discomfort). Hence, feelings define the problems we use our intelligence to solve.
Intelligence controls physical coordination
Once our intelligence decides what behavior will solve a problem most efficiently, our physical coordination must direct our muscle movements accordingly. One could argue coordination itself is a mental ability and thus part of intelligence however by definition, abilities are only mental if they don’t cluster with sensory or motor functions, and physical coordination clusters with the latter. Even though coordination is part of the brain, it’s not fully part of the mind. It’s more neurological than mental per se.
Physical coordination controls the body
This is true by definition
Body controls external reality
This is self-explanatory
Pumpkin Person 
There was a very good artist with schizophrenia i saw in a museum in England. I can’t remember the name. Very vivid colours.
Apparently Van Gogh was schizotypal.
Another artist I like is Kees Van Dongen
I like art thats not hyper realistic. But I also don’t like really abstract or modern art. Ill be honest and say I ‘dont get’ most of that stuff.
Germany got the best architecture.
Sad!
https://i1.wp.com/www.roadtripsaroundtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Wies-Church-Wieskirche-Germany-rococo-side-of-the-altar.jpg?resize=720%2C1084
https://i0.wp.com/www.roadtripsaroundtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Wies-Church-Wieskirche-Germany-Choir-ceiling-1024×680.jpg?resize=720%2C478
Italy is not even close…
Architecture is interresting, maybe becuase im not educated in it. I mean theres an need of form and appropriate detail, too much detail can just become an eye soar:
The church where most of the images were from was made in the 1740-ies, when germany was war torn, only had primitive technology and had an gdp lower than south africa, with only 17 million civilians. Imagine what could be done today with the right motivation and vision.
In cities there needs to be novelty and cohesion, preferably in sync with nature (unless you want to create an sort of “above life” style, but that should be limited to certain areas with particular purposes) so that it becomes engaging and intriguing. The intriguing part is that nothing is beautifull in itself, meaning there needs to be messages that exist in the city that engages ones culture and imagination, you have to be accustomed to it through childhood. Too much linearity in an city, an lack of form, especially what you can find in prolestan, is just depressing. In most cases, its form that matters, properties should only be limited to the messages mentioned earlier. Simplicity should be valued unless you can change the form for the better, but then it has to be coherent with nature. It gets especially engaging when you have different elevations and buildings made to compliment eachoder.
Also i really dislike cars, noicy, take up space, are for lazy people who cant help themselves, are generally ugly, create bad air, cram people in small areas, are stressfull, even kill people etc. They ruin cities. Trains are more beautifull and calming and fast and cheap and can give you great views when traveling between cities.
I shouldnt have been rude and wrong, italy does come close but it never surpasses.
https://static.mfah.com/collection/2002-1949.jpg?maxWidth=550&maxHeight=550&format=jpg&quality=90
Ive only posted small cities so far but the same principles apply. Just do the same things with more stories and an larger concentration of people so you feel like you are somewhere big and important. try to mix open and closed spaces, but always make way for human contact. Have parks. Dont have too much repitition.
just speculation. more likely van gogh had some neurological issue. he cut his ear off because it actually bothered him, not because the voices told him to.
I had an autistic friend that more or less hated every movie he watched. Couldn’t suspend disbelief.
I bet its the same for art. They like photographic art I’d say.
^^^ Autistic artist.
That is really good to my eyes. It just goes to show being socially intelligent is not related to visual art.
There are autistics who are brilliant in all domains, except perhaps social since autistics by definition lack social functioning.
autism is absurdly overdiagnosed. auitsm is a developmental disorder. it starts very early. if you didn’t have it, you don’t have it. and it affects coordination and speech.
You’re probably right, but it’s hard to know for sure that “autism” has an independent effect on such things. Most diagnosed autistics have very low IQs, which also affects speech and coordination, and any high IQ person who lacks basic motor skills will perhaps be diagnosed as autistic because that makes them socially awkward & thus isolated, causing social naivete.
Pill, mine and your narratives are flawed. I think you’re a compassionate guy, but you’ve lost touch with yourself and have grandiose thoughts of yourself and are jealous of people better than you. You are inflicted with the torment of never self-actualizing. That may be a huge problem, since you are an intellectual, and an intellectual’s Shadow lurks closer than anyone else’s. It’s okay, though, as you will soon experience the death of your Ego, you will come back to reality.
“and are jealous of people better than you. ”
Do you realise how much of an idiot you sound most of the time?
How is that statement idiotic!? It’s just my belief of who you are. You can take it as criticism and try to build yourself to become a better person, or you can leave it as just another shit-talker on this entity we call the Internet! Not a big deal, man. You’re too easily offended, almost like an SJW. Hell, I bet those are your initials. I’m going to call you Mr. SJW from now on instead of Pill. And who cares if anyone gets it because it’s the fucking Internet!
peepee might also investigate the connection between “eye health” and IQ.
my anecdotal experience indicates “eye health” is genetic.
i’m lucky. i still don’t need glasses. the one PhD (in history) teacher at my high school was in his 60s and didn’t need glasses or contacts.
and the one kid in my school who was “legally blind” was also retarded.
but i’ve read near sighted people have higher IQs
A lot of east asians require glasses for short sight. Opticians would admit that asians require glasses way more than say, blacks. Then they will go back to pretending 2+2=2
Correct. Both East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have very high rates of myopia iirc.
trump’s SOTU was most interesting for one mention of a yuge dis-confirmation of HBD.
namely, el paso does in fact have a very low homicide rate…as does san diego and as do other border cities…yet mexico and central america have yuge homicide rates…honduras has the highest murder rate in the world.
so when the same people live in a different environment, they behave VERY differently.
hmmm.
lowest homicide rates in US cities.
Arizona Chandler
Nebraska Lincoln
California Irvine
Nevada Henderson
Texas Plano
Hawaii Honolulu
Texas Arlington
California Chula Vista
Texas Austin
Texas El Paso
interesting note is that UTEP was the first all black team to win the NCAA, but el paso has a very small black population.
murder rate correlates well with percentage black…in the US.
I dont think anyone in HBD land says much about latinos being more easy to incite to violence. Maybe they do. But most of the lit is on blacks and crime which you very helpfully already pointed out is a ‘thing’ (and not just in America)
Warren has announced. I don’t have anything against her. Seems like a nice old lady.
“2020 campaign, Warren has proposed a 2% wealth tax on fortunes of $50m or greater and a 3% tax on fortunes $1bn or greater.”
Economist says wealth taxes are evil and cost alot to enforce. They might be right actually. Especially on things like high end property, art collections and exotic financial instruments/private equity holdings.
So it said there should be a property tax, higher inheritance tax and incremental income tax instead.
It was probably the first time I’ve seen the economist make a populist economic argument in its editorial.
I don’t support a wealth tax because its changing the rules of the game after the game has already been played, but I do support raising income tax including estate tax which I consider income for those receiving it.
Well a wealth tax is an admission that the game is rigged.
With taxes you generally have 3 objectives:
1. Efficiency/ease of collection
2. Does it distort economic activity
3. Will it raise funds
You could argue a wealth tax is better on all 3 counts vs an income tax.
1 & 3) are the same : produce the more money at the lowest cost.
2) covers two opposites goals :
A) for the tax be neutral and not impact economy (production, investment nor consumption and their markets)
B) for the tax to create positive and negative incentives through markets or directly (externalities and public policies)
A) for the tax be neutral and not impact economy (production, investment nor consumption and their markets)
B) for the tax to create positive and negative incentives through markets or directly (externalities and public policies)
b is a fourth reason to levy taxes.
It’s only one reason, with two aspects, the government wants money to maintain itself and influence society.
Then you can just get the money, and then you try being as cost efficient and neutral as possible.
Or, you can try to use the taxation by itself (not only the spending) to influence society. Then efficiency is not in the collecting power but more in the incentives (positive and negative) you create. Not being neutral is the hypothesis.
There is always a bit of the two modalities but the first one is more important because of the huge size of government and socialization (one third to half of the GDP). That’s why VAT and consumer tax are everywhere the big provider of Tax.
Only redistribution of money could be seen as a quite distinct form of public policy. You take Paul’s money to give it to James.
No all 4 are mutually exclusive goals that involve tradeoffs with each other.
[redacted by pp, feb 10, 2019] ANY change is changing the rules.
I said changing the rules after the game was played.
All democrats consent to globalism. Most Republicans consent to globalism. Only option is to vote Republican, lest the ensuing circumstance of America being a 15% white country by late century. If you don’t know what that entails, just look at South Africa. We don’t live in the 20th century anymore, where respectable democrats are truly virtuous.
Billy talking a lot of sense lately. Surprising to find someone with common sense here.
He’s recruiting new cult members, I see.
“He’s recruiting new cult members, I see.”
Hmm could “The Philosopher” of PP’s blog be Stefan Molyneux? He’s culty, and he fancies himself a “philosopher.”
Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised either. Seems to me that he has a cult of personality just like our very own Pill. If they’re not the same person, I would love for them to meet in real life, potentially play some tennis, box each other, debate one another, and do various other competitive things against one another haha.
RR,
“Hmm could “The Philosopher” of PP’s blog be Stefan Molyneux”
Hahaha. Creative.
If you remember Hollande had a 70% income tax in 2014 before *mysteriously* getting caught up in an affair scandal and then reverting to globalist chump for the rest of his term.
My sense among the DAVOS class or the globalist elite is that having liberalified children has actually made them look more kindly on people than a normal economic elite might do.
You and I might laugh but for example, Bill Gates treating non white poor people well in the US is actually a big step up from the kind of crude bribery and corruption the Kochs or Adelson would do.
This clashes with my theory that the (very) elite (i.e. NOT Bill Gates) don’t actually brainwash their own children.
I remember David Rockefeller telling a story to Charlie ROse about how his sister become a social justice warrior and protested the rich. If my theory was true, she was either (a) a family outcast for this (b) not reflective of the other rocefeller children’s upbringing.
I also remember Anna Rothschild leaving her elite jewish husband for a rapper.
Women really are wildcards.
I hope Talbot does another book someday but this time about the (((new elite))) c 1970s on.
Charles Murray wrote a whole book on the new elite called “Coming Apart”. He doesn’t mention Jews specifically though:
Then its not worth reading and not reflective of reality.
My sense of philanthropy by the elite is that formerly most of it went into stuff like art galleries, museums and hospital donations. Usually these were a kind of back handed way of just funding stuff that benefited them. Those ‘thinktanks’ like the cato institute etc are a joke.
Its well known jews are extremely tribal about philanthropy moreover.
But lately I’ve been seeing things like funding the environment, animal welfare and anti-corruption stuff. Soros funds a lot of anti-corruption type stuff.
it was his daughter and peepee thinks oprah is an elite, [redacted by pp, feb 10, 2019]
She’s objectively an elite at the individual level in the sense that she’s a worshiped billionaire who had a huge impact on society (changing the culture, electing Obama etc) But she’s not part of the organized elite who are far more powerful than any one individual including the president
“changing the culture, electing Obama etc”
Hold on…..’electing obama’?!
Hahahaha. If Bush wasn’t so bad, and the media didn’t promote magic negro so much Obama….who was basically unknown before he ran would not have won. Jeff Zucker had more to do with his win than Oprah. Most midwester married women at that time voted republican, oprahs no.1 demo.
If Oprah hadn’t jumped in, Hillary would have won. She was dramatically leading in the polls among women, blacks & non-college grads(3 demographics where oprah has sway) until oprah campaigned in all important Iowa (where she’s especially popular) & South Carolina (which is especially black). Oprah campaign appearance got 24/7 media coverage, hugely increased Obama’s viability & caused him to win 1 million extra votes in the razor close primary.
Only post-oprah did zucker’s CNN prefer obama to Hillary. Before that they picked on Obama for losing every debate & for saying he’d meet with Iran without preconditions
judaism extends morality beyond the 75.
yuge advantage over all other peoples…
and over mario van peebles.
You don’t know what morality truly is…
next…
This is surreal hahaha.
Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin and Trumpy having dinner at the white house. Hahahahahahaha.
but retarded white goyim have good instincts.
”but retarded white goyim have good instincts.”
You’re retarded, likely a white goyim who think is part of ”natural elite” and with bad instincts…
Hilary is a disgusting sociopath. I dont think shes reflective of all the elite. Shes more reflective of the type of people that spend all their lives trying to get into it.
Trump sounds like a 15 year old in these debates. Its remarkably effective. I wonder if he practised that in his prep.
Like that line where he said she put her plan to fight ISIS on her website and that means the enemy can now see her plans is hilariously infantile. But it would resonate with most average people as people might think hilarys people are just as dumb as they are and therefore open to making similar mistakes.
If the people that ran America (and Im not talking about the president here) really were that dumb, America would resemble and African country politically and economically.
One thing I notice watching this again…..
Hilary is just a really bad debater.
In response to him pointing out she flip flopped on the TPP once he bashed it, she says: “I have a book about this, Stronger Together”……she never even addressed what he said. Nobody is going to read that book. Maybe she said that because she just felt the need to say something rather than stay silent.
7:33 is ridiculous! ”She doesnt have the look”! The locker room talk (8:42) is even more amazing. He just diverts to ISIS lmao. He is trolling. Trumps lack of zygomatic bones makes him look primitive. I think his brain has deteriorated thanks to an lack of stimulation and horrible health. He probably is around 105-115 iq today.
i failed at track because the shortest distance (100m) is still pretty long.
should’ve done indoor track. don’t remember why i didn’t. lame!
coach told my form was perfect. that’s the coordination bit.
but when you have monkey legs you can only run so fast…
except monkey legs are good for the first 30m.
i was ridiculed as “short and tall at the same time”.
i ‘member axing coach about ben johnson’s start…
he told me, “that’s only for ben johnson.”
i agree with ben…changes in track surfaces…ben is still the fastest man who has ever lived.
notice how both arms are forward.
and how ben is out of the blocks…while the others are still touching.
“I’m not sure why some commenters think weight lifting requires coordination”
Because “some commenters” have made this their career and have trained hundreds of people and can see how someone is with lack of physical coordination and then see what it is like after NMC improves a few weeks later.
For real PP: stop relying on Jensen and his correlations and actually get out there in the fitness world and actually start training yourself or others and then you’ll see what I’m talking about.
“but when I lift weights, I don’t feel like I’m using coordination”
You’re not lifting correctly.
mclean’s version of the man loves woman greatest song is hard to sing…
i beat stedman at ms pacman, then i whipped it out and he was sad.
my penis is longer an thicker than stedman’s penis.
and more beautiful.
because white penis.
I think we need to evaluate how we see liberals and conservatives. It’s interesting to see that anti-hereditarians, modern-day liberals, and heredetarians, are both very interestingly involved in the historic intellectual pursuits of mankind. For example, people have become environmentalists according to the doctrine of great Greek thinkers, all of whom talked about how the environment was a major factor in thought patterns and what not. But also interesting is the fact that the Church did too. Communists did too. There’s a pattern. All modern-day liberal agendas.
Conservative agendas are primarily keeping strong familial ties. It doesn’t require much intellectual thought, but is the core principle of economics and politics, who to support or who to partition what for a formal definition.
I think that people don’t very well respect each other’s political views. I’m not too different from Chris “Slangin'” Langin, ya know.
*langan
Complex thought can be expressed by anyone. really.
I am the greatest. Forreal.
peepee got her wish. i got the call today. the third and last sibling has developed something like huntington’s disease, also known as black woman syndrome.
so it’s not sex linked. the third and last is female.
but neither parent had it.
i only have a few years left before i turn into a black woman.
so why not drink?
Very sorry to hear that if true. I think whatever genomic variants are causing these diseases have also boosted your IQ.
un-fortunately maybe it is…
because parents lived longer and didn’t have these issues…
but i’ve read about hereditary ataxias which only afflict oprah fans…
so it might skip a generation.
If you drink Guinness stout, you’re fine by me.
Seriously I can’t get enough of that beer. It’s so damn good. Anyone ever try the extra stout? Melo are you a beer snob? I don’t even drink to get drunk I drink for taste.
my last irish setter was 100% insane…but he died from butt cancer…anal sac adenocarcinoma…
i looked it up…
grand-dad died at [redacted by pp, feb 13, 2019] and i never heard of any symptoms like these…
my mother’s father and mother died “young” by today standards…in their early 60s…from parkinson’s and heart failure…both of them grew up very poor and had horrible fevers in childhood…
but motherfucker!? did that natty trade work out or what?
cue jimmy.
so woodie died from huntington’s, but his son arlo is still living.
epigenetics more likely.
Could be de nova mutation
But if not genetic, maybe just something about the environment the siblings grew up in.
But wasn’t there a grandfather who went mad?
it has a harp on it.
just like all the chairs in the irish parliament…which recently shit on israel…
check it out…
could be de novo.
black women should stop commenting and have sex with me.
“Melo are you a beer snob?”
Nah, I’m a wino. I love wine. But I aint a snob, I just drink whatever tastes good. I get all fruity and happy on the shit.
” I don’t even drink to get drunk I drink for taste.”
That just seems pointless. When I was a light weight alcohol tasted like shit. I don’t see a reason in drinking something that tastes like goat piss unless I’m getting fucked up.
“my last irish setter was 100% insane”
I grew up with the white side of my family which was mostly irish and french. Alcoholism is common among my relatives.
“Nah I’m a wino”
I like Apothic Red. It’s the only one I’ve really tried. What do you like?
“That just seems pointless”
Why? I told my buddy the other day that I drink a beer for taste with dinner and he couldn’t fathom that I don’t drink to get drunk. Guiness tastes amazing. I can’t get enough of it.
try a real man’s beer like delirium tremens, chimay, laviathan, omegang, westvleteren XII, le fin du monde…they’re like carbonated gravy.
I’ll see what they got this Friday and get back to you. Thanks for the recommendations.
“I like Apothic Red. It’s the only one I’ve really tried. What do you like?”
Apothic aint bad. I like Cab sav and merlot, really anything dry. Tried some sangria at the winery the other day and I hated it. Way too sweet.
“I drink a beer for taste with dinner and he couldn’t fathom that I don’t drink to get drunk. ”
I mean hey, to each his own. One of my worker’s Step brothers is a real beer snob and always bring his shit to the festivals we attend, the stuffs always pretty good. I don’t mind the taste of beer(at least anymore). Sometimes I’ll drink a few at the brewhouse where I live at.
i never thought of it before, but maybe i live in beervana.
what happened was there was this single independent grocery store which had all the beers. then it’s owner burned it down.
but at least two chains then immediately started stocking a yuge beer selection.
you haven’t lived until you’ve tasted abbey beer.
the world’s best beer is NO CONTEST…it’s all belgian…like the yankees and canadiennes…of beer countries…but better.
germany is in the minors. only one country is in the majors…belgium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_Belgium
Pumpkin, on the arithmetic subtest, is you IQ technically underestimated if you have the WM capacity, but you weren’t paying attention or concentrating?
Your score on any tests is underestimated if you’re not paying attention
Pumpkin, since you’re back, what causes the practice effects in similarities and Matrix Reasoning? They were designed to be cracked in a minute or so, any longer, most people don’t get it no matter when.
Not home for a few more days so not even sure how big the practice effect is on those subtests.
home from where?
peepee travels the world giving people puzzles.
sad!
Pumpkin, first of all, why are you called puppy? Second of all, will you ever do a face reveal, third of all, if you don’t do a face reveal, do you have facial hair?
puppy is just a name pill madeup to mock me. It’s derived from the P-U-P in PUmPkin. I have facial hair when I’m off work; otherwise I shave.
why is ireland the first to shit on israel?
///https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wsv-2Z9eY
maybe the same reason an irish prime time talk show hosted david irving.
///must’ve been erased.
namely, ireland has no jews and never has had any jews.
same reason joyce wrote about a jew in Ulysses, because jewish publishers paid him to.
And yet Ireland was the first country to legalize gay marriage. This show gay acceptance is partly caused by the Flynn effect, not Jewish influence only
Puppy thinks being socially liberal is a sign of intelligence. So basically hippies, children and kooky new age people are the theoretical physicists of our age.
I’d expect non-sociopathic high IQ people to be imaginative enough to empathize with the suffering of others, & thus be less cruel to those who are different. If you looked at the biographies of the greatest Geniuses in history, I suspect you’d find most of them were liberal for their time, but I could be wrong.
Since autistic people are the least violent and most socially liberal, is that a sign of their higher intelligence or their low social intelligence?
Citation needed
Violent conservatives strongly supported the Iraq war, which showed low social IQ
Pumpkin is a hundred percent right when he says that empathy and intelligence is linked. Though I’d dare say it goes backwards and forwards depending on the circumstance. Intelligent people are objective whereas there is greater subjectivity in an individual with lower IQ. Higher IQ predisposes people to also be more individualistic and selfish rather than act be tribal. There are only two modes of thought here, individualism vs. tribalism. Higher IQ people will act objectively, but in their own self-interests because they can use their perceptions to dictate how they will come up with advantages in this world for their individual benefit. Lower IQ people need the help of one another and therefore require people to cooperate with one another.
Unfortunately, my statements aren’t blanket ones because human hormonal profiles and other variations in behavior happen. Lower IQ people are generally higher testosterone, lower cortisol, etc. But higher IQ people are generally lower in testosterone and other essential hormones to promote drive.
I think r and K-selection come back into play here. People with liberal dispositions will try to recreate r-selected environments and choose r-selected peoples to build their environment. K-selected peoples are very keen to addressing issues that will build their environment. So it’s a very simple model, but it works.
Actually, I backtrack, I think higher IQ individuals are better at cooperating, just also better at lying, manipulating, and showing off their power to individuals as well. Though I guess that depends on the person’s hormonal profile. So not an accurate depiction of reality on my part.
Lower IQ individuals may be lacking in cooperative abilities, but are more subjective and emotional and thus at the helm of having to make decisions based on heuristics rather than rationalizations. At least that’s what makes sense to me, there may be contradictions there as well.
r/K selection theory is dead. Rushton’s just-so stories don’t hold weight.
And you’re referencing Anonymous Conservative and his liberal/conservative BS. Too bad for him – if the theory is valid (it isn’t) – liberals would be K while conservatives would be r.
Can you explain why K are liberals and r are conservatives? Is it because that liberals have less children and conservatives are r? I actually believe this myself, to be honest, but liberals might have a tendency to support minorities because they want equality of resources. The extreme left is just Communism and extreme right is just fascism.
First time i agree with RR. Indeed, it’s so stupid to believe [white/western/high-above avg IQ] liberals are R-oriented…
Puppy are people socially intelligent because theyre smart. Or is it because smart people tend to go to college to get extra sensitivity training to minorities?
I think they’re intrinsically more sensitive to racial & sexual minorities because they’re flexible enough to empathize, but there’s a genocidal effort to exaggerate this tendency in whites
Smart white people concluded CORRECTLY that most of big problems in the world has been caused by white hetero males… Massive destruction of environment, globalized predatory capitalism, massive slavery, etc…
But, they are too much on this virus, believing all whites are that stupid.
Boy i wish we had an example of a genius who never went to college and was found out to be the smartest man in america. I wonder what views he has.
His views are neither liberal nor conservative
Read his facebook post on ‘racism’. He puts the word ‘racism’ in scarequotes. He is also on the record about being pro-eugenicist, which is something I find too conservative.
Eugenics has nothing to do with conservatism which I define as being pro-underdog. As whites are slowly becoming underdogs, the true liberals will become pro-white.
And I’m not even that liberal myself. I worship billionaires which is a very conservative view
Eugenicism is a far right policy that the nazis used. But Chris was saying it would be for high IQ people, not blonde blue eyed people.
The nazis were liberals: national SOCIALIST
Puppy you admit you ‘adore Oprah’ and watch tv shows like ‘Dear White People’. You are the most liberal person in this comment section by far.
But I also read Charles Murray and Steve Sailer. I like Oprah & Bill Gates for the same reasons Ayn Rand libertarians like The Fountainhead‘s Howard Roark and Atlas Shrugged‘s John Galt. They’re self-made superheroes.
Puppy generally I find when you are right wing on social issues but left wing on economic issues like the nazis were, people will still call you ‘far right’. Most people think ‘nazi’ is synonymous for an extreme far right person. And indeed during their existence they killed communists, gays and others.
The media dictates who is called far right and they have a vested interest in emphasizing social issues, but that doesn’t make it objectively true. You’re right that Nazis were super conservative in some ways, but eugenics is not intrinsically conservative. In fact the left pushes abortion which is a form of eugenics since low IQ women have the most abortions.
No they weren’t.
”The nazis were liberals: national SOCIALIST”
This is so stupid, a false equivalence…
…”I’m socialist, but i want to persecute another socialists”…
Both old comunism and nazism are totalitarian [… as well capitalism], but it’s doesn’t mean they are in the same ideological side.
And, because nazis self-declared socialists, mean nothing
Indeed, national + social = nationalism, a typical conservative stuff, often also in pseudo-democratic socialistic societies [democratic socialistic societies NEVER exist…]
So, tell me PP, if nazis were liberals because they were, nominally, socialists, not in the communist sense, East Germany [German Democratic Republic] was democratic too**
” I worship billionaires which is a very conservative view”
You must be ashamed about it.
”You must be ashamed about it.”
I doubt PP worships billionaires like a devotee worships a deity. PP admires billionaires not because of money, but for their achievements. I admire billionaires too. I think it is harder to be earn a billion dollars than even winning a nobel prize. How many nobel prize winners are there and how many billionaires are there?
What’s to “admire” about someone with a lot of money? Kinda cringey if you ask me.
Billionaires achievements = their money…
”How many nobel prize winners are there and how many billionaires are there?”
Rarity is exceptionality but it’s not always a good thing.
I agree must be talented to earn a lot of money, be CLEVER, but…
Earning a billion is kind of like acing a super IQ test.
So IQ test by enesimal time is not the totality or integrality of intelligence…
What?
Pill and PP
The nazis were right wing as fuck.
They tore down and illlegalized uinions and replaced it with the corporatist entity called “german labour front”.
had low taxes during war times (they finansed their military spending through extortion of other lands)
had an world record in the privatization of public services (they were the inventors of privatizations)
had an significant increrase in capital gains with no remedies
Made some of histories largest slave plants
gave many positions of power to people of royal ancestry
all of the racism
Produced “lebensborn”, which was just an excuse to harass blonde girls
The list goes on but i guess you guys get an idea.
Yes and no
Dinesh D’souza argues the Nazis were leftwing as fuck:
How were they “leftwing as fuck”?
They were leftwing in that they opposed the wealthy and powerful.
That’s it?
That’s one of the defining criteria of left-wingism.
Therefore the Nazis were leftists?
In Dinesh D’souza’s eyes
So what?
Compromise for the wins, the Nazis were right as fuck socially, like, extremely fucking right. Economically, I have zero fucking idea, but just because you claim you’re shit doesn’t mean you’re that shit.
I don’t think D’Souza has said anything that he wasn’t paid to do in his life. He really is a rare example of an Uncle Tom working for Uncle Whitey.
He really is a rare example of an Uncle Tom working for Uncle Whitey.
It takes one to know one
Whats that supposed to mean? Im not paid to post anything here.
Which makes you even more of a tool. At least Dinesh is smart enough to profit off his his Uncle Tommery. You bend over for whites voluntarily.
Puppy your idol is an obese black daytime talk show host who says god contacts her about important decisions in her life. I think you need to re-asses where you stand in these conversations.
And your idol is an obese white reality TV host who believes Ted Cruz’s dad killed JFK. As for Oprah believing in God and divine intervention, so do you.
Just because Niggesha said this it’s doesn’t mean this is true… maybe b cause he is a right winger… an ideological trap.
He is a right winger
He earn a lot of money writing right winger argumentative defense stuff
So, he must need find great arguments to defend capitalism and conserfism
He found many similarities between socialism and nazism
He invested in the ”social” word into nazi official political term to use as a primary evidence that nazis were socialists, just like modern antifas or old-schooled-communists
He believes most right wingers will buy this because it’s a great way to put socialism in badder view and to dissociate capitalism/conserfism ideologies from nazism
Capitalism is totalitarian too, 😉
Just because capitalism is extremely persuasive, so many people think it’s an ideology of freedom..
And in the end, socialism, perfectly or not, always try to reach some equality while nazism is the upper-hand on super-hierarchy or inequality, based on race…
Watching the SOTU. Trump is really hammering on about the borders to the point even I am getting bored listening to it. The politicans who are pro-Zionist obviously hate someone talking about illegal immigrants.
Puppy what are your opinions on borders anyway? What do you think we should do with illegal immigrants like loaded.
I support strict border security & punishing businesses that hire illegals
“& punishing businesses that hire illegals”
Too little is being talked about that. Its much more important than the wall, becuase the natural barier of desert is alot harder than an wall. You cant militarize the whole border like in berlin or israel, unless… drones! but thats not politically palpable. Leftist economics prevails again…
Im going to be honest. If I was a law enforcement official and saw loaded walking on the street, I’d arrest him and throw him into the ocean. I wouldn’t even let him ‘appeal’ or other bureaucratic crap where jews sandbag the justice system.
Are you trying to bait me into describing how I look like? I’ve been arrested before, no one’s thrown me into the ocean. I’m a bit of a juvenile delinquent to be honest, though I try to stay out of trouble. Not really a tough guy, but definitely a very cunning and manipulative individual, to be honest.
HAHAHAHA Nancy Pelosis reaction to trump saying the usa would be at war with north Korea if he wasn’t elected!
Amazing how the entire pol establishment is now falling in line with trumpy on trade. I would have thought that would be one of the hardest aspects of goverment to change from corporate/deep state control. Just goes to show how most economics textbooks should be slathered in oil and set ablaze theyre so fucking useless.
My college textbook literally has a section on how great nafta is giving the example of the car industry relocating to northern mexico (and leaving out the bit about detroit becoming a mad max city). I cant rememer the term for those factories. Something -doras. Maquiladoras?
My other textbook said inflation depended on exprctations of inflation. I just recently read that sargent proved that wrong showing goverments can basically control inflation by stopping money printing. Who would have guessed. That textbook should also be burned.
I suppose maybe other fields ‘change a lot’ within a generation e.g. psychology talking about halo effects and how that was proven overhypped etc.
Basically people go to college to learn globalism. There are 3 theories for this.
Puppys theory: Because they are big brained and smart and know globalism is the greatest.
Mugabes: Because the people at the top are idiotic conformists who are more brainwashed than the students.
Philosophers theory: A globalist cabal sets the standard for what is knowledge and what is not knowledge generally speaking.
Maybe its a mix of these 3. But i think my one was the one that started the brownian motion.
no i said high IQ people are more liberal (though part of this is college brainwashing). But liberalism != globalism. I fully agree with your theory when it comes to globalism but only partly agree when it comes to liberalism.
Pumpkin, are ADHD folks considered to have underestimated IQs do to their attention issues? Like, some folks when super interested in some stuff will show high working memory, but in normal situations the working memory would be considered very low.
Ok, the previous question was terribly worded. Would someone who has a high potential capacity of working memory be considered to have an underestimated working memory score if the person didn’t concentrate or responded impulsively without thinking (when the person had the ability)?
“a place for everyone and everyone in his place” is bad.
but “a place for no one and jews rule” is much worse.
because brainwashed non-european immigrant to the anglo-prole-sphere peepee doesn’t grok that CLASSISM is more evil than racism, etc. but that it is REQUIRED of the anglo-american elite.
if the people picking lettuce in cali were english immigrants…then you’d know.
oh believe me.
why is it acceptable for bill maher to use the term “white trash”, but un-acceptable for him to use the term “nigger”?
answer: IDEOLOGY!
CLASSISM is more evil than racism, etc. but that it is REQUIRED of the anglo-american elite.
if the people picking lettuce in cali were english immigrants…then you’d know.
oh believe me.
why is it acceptable for bill maher to use the term “white trash”, but un-acceptable for him to use the term “nigger”?
answer: IDEOLOGY!
Nothing I’ve said or implied contradicts any of this.
Ann Coulter destroyed Bill Maher:
She is very good . He likes her a lot and give her plenty of space. I think the Kellyane ans George Conway is a private joke.
Not sure about the meaning when he said he would play Kellyane and she would be George. Maybe he thinks she is a lesbian or she engages in « ménage à trois ».
Yeah she thinks very similarly to me. Bill talking about this russia stuff is very disappointing. I didn’t think he was that much of a hack.
I always pictured Pill looking like a Bill Maher, or some prominent Gen Xer. Maybe Julian Assange? Someone of that sort, I would guess. And I fashioned him a computer engineer, not a financier.
Pumpkin, does having the ability to do the arithmetic subtest problems; but when someone doesn’t solve them, not because they can’t, but they miss small details in the problems, would that technically be an underestimation of the subtest score?
Not really because part of what it’s testing is the ability to process all the information.
Pumpkin, but don’t most people generally grasp the details in the arithmetic problems, since they’re very simple (the point of the subtest is not attention to detail)? Aren’t most mistakes due to a lack of WM capacity? Also, since the details are very small, isn’t the problem easily fixed?
And isn’t the norming sample based on people who probably aren’t impulsive?
Pumpkin, this source relates to our earlier discussion:
https://elifesciences.org/articles/44560
What frustrates me(besides the small sample sizes) is the fact that they don’t really extrapolate further on the implications of the study. More specifically, it is one dimensional. Yeah, longer dendrites are associated with faster reaction times, but IQ testing is largely a test of reaction time which is obviously a part of intelligence but it cannot be the whole story regarding neurophysical aspects of the concept.
I think RR and MeLo would make great friends in their free time. So would Pill and PP, or Fenoopy possibly. But MeLo and RR would quite possibly.
Yea we’d def have a ton to argue about. I could see myself being friends with Melo. We’re kinda similar in some ways.
I would say that you and MeLo have identical thinking styles. I kind of read into the tonality of a conversation more than anything, and you guys have the same tone of voice, almost. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was true of you two in real life as well.
We both have an apathetic tone to our writing, and have similar styles of arguing. As far as real life goes, he has the jersey accent and I was raised in Virginia. Plus, I’m more bubbily in real life. I don’t like people knowing how smart I am. I can flex it on here because of the anonymity. I think he and I would get along in real life, he irritates me but so does everyone to some extent and we agree more than we disagree on HBD subjects. I feel like I’d also get along with PP, simply because I think he’d be easy to entertain. I wouldn’t mind hanging with Philo we both got a fucked up sense of humor and hate politically correct bullshit.
A trucker from Michigan told me he couldn’t understand what I said because of my accent a few years back. I don’t hear one; I don’t think I sound similar to my family that does have the accent (that I can full-on hear). But accents/voices are weird. I hate the sound of my voice (don’t we all?) and it’s really deep but women like it.
What do you mean by apathetic tone and similar arguing styles?
I’d say our main disagreements are (1) the scientific status of psychology (unsure of this one); (2) genetic transmission of mental abilities; (3) IQ as a valid metric; (4) and I think we hugely disagree when it comes to philosophy of mind. If I left anything out or didn’t elaborate properly I’d like to hear your thoughts. Also what do you you think we agree on re HBD subjects?
“I feel like I’d also get along with PP, simply because I think he’d be easy to entertain”
Ouch
“I don’t like people knowing how smart I am”
What do you mean?
And everyone pisses me off too, so that’s not weird at all.
And duh how could I forget (5): Natural selection as a mechanism for trait fixation.
I’m not trying to debate these points now; just discussing our overarching disagreements in general.
“What do you mean by apathetic tone and similar arguing styles?”
We both sound like we’re just indifferent to the subject. We also both tend to try and dismantle a dissenter’s arguments by picking out the subtle speculations in their claim.
1. I think psychology tries to be scientific and does have scientific theories within itself. However, most are complete and utter bullshit. They obfuscate and rely on less controlled experiments. I believe you have epistemic concerns but they’re different from mine. If I recall correctly, you don’t think there can be a science of the mind, which would be perfectly fine seeing as how psychology is not that scientific. I don’t really agree with this though.
2. I believe mental abilities are identical to physical abilities. I don’t believe causation is linear, but that doesn’t contradict this.
3. If Weight lifting is a valid measure of strength then IQ is a valid measure of Intelligence. It could be better, as one of my biggest issues with psychology is how some of their theories and concepts(like IQ) are not specifically fitted to physical realities. We both disagree with massive modularity as an example.
4. Probably the biggest gap between us. I’m an epiphenomenalist/reductive physicalist(I consider them the same) and you’re…I don’t know. You haven’t made it abundantly clear what you are, I assume some kind of Dualist? I’ve been on the fence lately about accepting scientism. Often looked down upon by philosophers but I think it may be the only viable option for coherency.At least regarding our epistemology
5 Natural selection is not a mechanism but when people say “NS caused X” I understand what they actually mean.
“What do you mean?”
Sometimes if you’re intelligent you’ll be seen as a know-it-all. Especially if your interests align with those of the average prole.
I just learned at a young age to not play all of your tricks at once. It’s more impressive if you just let it seep out through other people’s curiosity. Not to say I haven’t before I was 17 at a party drunk and blurted out “does anyone know philosophy!?” Some random guy next to me said he did and we talked for hours about ethics. Awesome night.
“Ouch”
That wasn’t supposed to be an insult. I just think PP and I come from vastly different lifestyles, so he may be surprised.
“We both sound like we’re just indifferent to the subject. We also both tend to try and dismantle a dissenter’s arguments by picking out the subtle speculations in their claim.”
I agree with this. I don’t really care about who’s “right” or “wrong”, I just like discussing things and learning new things. I don’t have anything to gain about arguing about what are, in my view, trivialities that don’t affect my life in any way, shape, or form.
1 You’re right – I don’t think there can be a science of the mind. Because, in my view, the mind is not physical and science studies the physical. So if science studies the physical and the mind is not physical then it logically follows that there cannot be a science of the mind.
2 You’re a Mind/Brain Identity Theorist?
3 I disagree with that notion. Lifting is a valid measure of strength – we can see what program/exercise X does to physiological parameter Y. I’m sure you have refs to rebut my notion here, but I think it’s conceptual and not empirical.
4 I can say I’m somewhat of a Dualist. Chalmers’ arguments in The Conscious Mind are solid. Two quotes:
In this book, I reach conclusions that some people may think of as “antiscientific”: I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism. (pg 14-15)
In this book, I do not solve the problem of consciousness once and for all, but I try to rein it in. I try to get clear about what the problems are, I argue that the standard methods of neuroscience and cognitive science do not work in addressing them … (pg 13)
You should pick up the book The Philosophy of Cognitive Science by Mark Cain. I don’t really agree with him, but he has some good arguments and he really elucidated some points for me.
Re scientism: I don’t agree that “it may be the only viable option … regarding our epistemology”; we can learn things through logic and reasoning, too. I think if you take to a form of scientism then you’re in “rampant empiricism” territory.
5 Glad we agree. (I know we don’t agree on the intricacies of Fodor’s argument, but we agree in general.)
“Sometimes if you’re intelligent you’ll be seen as a know-it-all. Especially if your interests align with those of the average prole.”
True. People pay me to be a know-it-all, though. So it’s hard for me to not show my smarts.
When I was that age (17) I didn’t care one iota about anything academic; I was an idiot back then (weren’t we all?). I got into science in my mid-20s (after being obsessed with astronomy and the like when I was a kid).
Oh and (6): The First Law and human physiology.
Gotta say, I like this format better. Just a discussion, no “debating”, if you get my drift.
Oh yea, one more thing: what do you think of evolutionary debunking arguments? Most of the lit is responding to Street’s A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value, but I think Russ Shafer-Landau’s arguments are sufficient against Street – in particular, his essay Moral Realism and Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics. (If you like EDAs, you should pick that book up; has many essays “for” and “against” EDAs.)
I’m pretty busy at this point in time, but when I get back to blogging more regularly I’m going to write about EDAs.
“trivialities that don’t affect my life in any way, shape, or form.”
Well i think HBD effects our lives to at least some extent. I don’t really argue to “win” though.
1) Well if Psychology does not actually adhere to the scientific method as other disciplines do, then it isn’t a “Science of the mind” but clearly there is still meaningful knowledge to be acquired on the mind. Psychology is only incoherent from a scientific view, not an ontological one. Basically, if our thoughts and subsequently our logic is non-physical, then there should be no problem constructing an epistemology by purely conceptual means. This is something some parts of Psychology currently do(whether it’s logic is faulty or not).
2. I guess so.
3. I’m more talking about your criticism of it’s construct validity. Our differences in Ontology aside, both weight lifting and IQ tests are tightly correlated to physiological structures but they are not specifically designed to scale to them. Someone lifting a dumbbell tells you nothing on the temporal variation of their endogenous physical architecture or it’s causal processes without other tests being incorporated. Same with IQ. I still consider them valid measures of what they purport to be.
4. I feel it’d be better if you gave me quotes to the main points of his criticism instead of what seems to be conclusion statements. It may help me understand your position more.
I also don’t really know what you mean by “rampant empiricism”. I think logic can be valid but still be indeterminate with it’s meaning. Same with observations, but as humans it’s impossible to observe without making sense of them conceptually. So I find it strange others think it can work the inverse way instead. Conceptions and perceptions are insufficient by themselves as epistemic devices. When conjoined they give each other meaning. This is what science does.
6. What exactly do you think we disagree about regarding that?
“When I was that age (17) I didn’t care one iota about anything academic; I was an idiot back then (weren’t we all?). I got into science in my mid-20s (after being obsessed with astronomy and the like when I was a kid).”
Basically what I did but after some social isolation when I was around 15 I started getting more into science. By 17 I had an existential crisis and within the next few weeks I developed the tone and style I have now.
“Gotta say, I like this format better. Just a discussion, no “debating”, if you get my drift.”
It helps clear confusion. Which is pretty convenient.
“Oh yea, one more thing: what do you think of evolutionary debunking arguments? Most of the lit is responding to Street’s A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value, but I think Russ Shafer-Landau’s arguments are sufficient against Street – in particular, his essay Moral Realism and Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics. (If you like EDAs, you should pick that book up; has many essays “for” and “against” EDAs.)”
I will come back to this one.
I’ve never heard the term but I’ve definitely seen people use these kinds of arguments. i don’t really mess around with morality anymore simply because I find it subjective.
Also I can expand more on point 4 if you’d like. I feel as though I may have been too vague.
Commenting on the Internet is usually self-selection. You can probably learn a lot about people from their search history.
Pill, when did you think the elite started?
Agriculture.
^^ Formal answer.
Informal answer: When humans developed language.
Jared Diamond has an article on that matter.
Which is probably garbage.
Here: http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race I agree that it was one of our worst mistakes (look at all of the havoc that obesogenic environments have wrought on our societies), but for a different reason than Diamond.
There is, quite obviously, a Marxist tilt in the argument he makes. But, in my opinion, I think he is somewhat correct.
I think autism is a pure form of aesthetic bewilderment of some sort. A person with autism would see the world as a really objective, patternized dictation of what is happening in their minds. I think on the otherhand, we have schizos who like to create subjectivity. I think I have a tad mix of both, which, if under extreme duress, causes Asperger’s. I don’t know too much about the subject, but I think that’s what Asperger’s can be defined as and I think autism and schizophrenia vary based on how objectively someone demonstrates their worldview or the schizophrenic key to creating subjectivity.
Idealization of autism, plenty of autists are overshadowed by their cognitive biases. Autists appear to be more rational because lack of normal and intense range of emotionality but it’s just a appearance, at least based on this generalization you did.
I think you have to be aspie to be a genius. I think the comorbidity of extreme intelligence and Asperger’s may be rather high. I don’t know if IQ tests accurately demonstrate that or demonstrate meaningful characterizations of peoples’ intelligence, but may demonstrate some specified regions of cognitive behavior that is very indicative of extreme intelligence.
wow, I’m very baked, didn’t really understand what I wrote there myself, but intelligence tests can demonstrate peoples’ cognitive abilities, but it’s a limited scope of one’s intellectual capacity. I think they do a good enough job to use for a proxy in the workforce, but if you want geniuses to create things, you need lateral thinkers. I think the modern college-day environment favors creating lifestyles that suit the upper-middle class, but it squanders the hope of any genius prevailing in this world.
” but if you want geniuses to create things, you need lateral thinkers. I think the modern college-day environment favors creating lifestyles that suit the upper-middle class, but it squanders the hope of any genius prevailing in this world.”
Very interesting stuff. Ive also thought that, but the thing is, most people arent always interested in becoming experts and just want an carier, and so the ciriculum is made for that. There are talented people who excell and then go on to make amazing things intellectually, though there are many allegations of dysgenics occuring (i suspect the SD in traits will get smaller, but median increase on many traits). As science gets harder to do, it gets harder to compare an population ceteris paribus.
What do you you guys think of people who base their value solely on associations with other people? Is it common to wish that a lot of people like you or that you have value based on what other people think of you, valuing different people differently depending on their social status? I think this is the way to genius. Connect yourself and win the likability of others. Simple, yet manageable.