Tags

Both Oprah and Michael Jackson were allegedly sexually abused as a child, but Oprah led millions of abuse survivors to recovery, while Jackson may have dealt with his issues more destructively.
By 1986, Oprah was the #1 talk show in America, and by 1993, Michael Jackson wanted to jump on the Oprah bandwagon, so she interviewed him live from Neverland around the World. Even back then, Oprah sensed there was something strange about Michael’s sexuality.
“Are you a virgin?” she asked him.
“I’m a gentleman,” he replied.
She was also cleverly suspicious of his childlike persona.
“A child did not build on this,” she told him, pointing to his huge empire.
She also had no choice but to ask him if he bleached his skin, given the shocking change in color the public was obsessing about.
There’s no such thing as skin bleaching, Jackson insisted.
Actually there is, Oprah informed him. She recalled seeing commercials for it growing up. Jackson claimed his lighter skin was caused by a skin disease he had no control over.
Oprah seemed skeptical, perhaps because she understood what a big deal skin colour was among African Americans of their era. When she was a little girl, and was sent to live with her unwed mother in Milwaukee, the landlady was a very light skinned African American. She adored Oprah’s light skinned half-sister, while Oprah was stuck sleeping on the porch because she was dark skinned. It was never something that was said, but even as a child, Oprah intuitively understood.
Oprah was far too shrewd to call Jackson a liar to his face, so she found a more passive aggressive way of venting. When Elizabeth Taylor came out and took Jackson’s seat, Oprah let Jackson stand. So while Oprah and Taylor chatted like two A list celebs, Jackson was left standing like a second class citizen in his own home. He could have humorously ask for a chair, but instead he just stood there looking stupid.
For Oprah it was the ultimate alpha power play. It was as if she were saying “I’m the top star in this country now, so you’re gona stand until I allow you to sit”. Jackson lacked the social IQ to adapt to this unexpected aggression.
Oprah and Jackson would continue to talk after the interview. He begged her to have his friend Deepak Choprah on her show. “If she marries me she could be Oprah Choprah,” Deepak joked.
But when sexual abuse allegations came against Jackson, Oprah decided to keep her distance. When Jackson died in 2009, the vast majority of Americans decided he was innocent and returned to celebrating his music, and Jackson fans were expecting Oprah to comment within hours like every other celeb. But Oprah waited months. It was reminiscent of the Queen not commenting on the death of Princess Di.
Tonight part 1 of HBO’s shocking documentary about the alleged sexual abuse, Leaving Neverland, airs on HBO (airing later this week in the UK). Jackson fans and his estate are going absolutely ballistic, even suing HBO for $100 million. In the decade since Jackson’s death, his image had been whitewashed and he had become a wildly popular brand again, and this documentary threatens everything.
With all the controversy and anger the film has unleashed, you would think Oprah would keep her distance, but instead she’s diving right in, hosting a special on HBO and her OWN network that airs after part 2 of the documentary where she interviews Jackson’s alleged victims and film maker Dan Reed in-front of an audience of sexual abuse survivors.
Oprah predicts she’ll suffer a huge backlash for doing this, but feels compelled to do it anyways, because the film explains what Oprah had tried to explain to the World for decades on her syndicated talk show: sexual abuse is sexual seduction. It’s not about the physical damage it does, it’s about the shame, the cover-up, the secrets you must carry. It’s about who you must become to cope with it. In Oprah’s case, she became a promiscuous teen who was pregnant by the age of 14.

Sexually abused by a series of men from age 9 to 14, Oprah knows all too well what it’s like to be molested, and what it’s like not to be believed. She knows all too well how abusers charm, seduce and groom the victims. She once recalled how a cousin’s boyfriend took an obsessive interest in her when she was just a kid, telling everyone how Oprah was smarter than everyone. The family turned a blind eye as he would follow her around like a lost puppy dog.
There’s a scene in Leaving Neverland where the mother of one of Jackson’s accusers says she did the moonwalk when Jackson died.
The audience of sexual abuse survivors roared with approval.
I know why you are talking about this PP.
This happens yes, a lot of men do this but they only make up a small percentage of men. There are a lot of men who protect women against sexual abuse too, but that rarely comes in the news.
Also, false sexual abuse allegations also happen a lot in the world.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/false-rape-cases-in-delhi-delhi-commission-of-women-233222-2014-12-29
I had a well thought-out argument for why Oprah’s success is due to increased novelty and rate of liberalization, but exhausted myself in the thinking process that I’m now bored of it and forgot some points I thought were really good. My key points do distinguish different types of racism; undue racism would be racism of the broad, sweeping variety, pigeon-holing all blacks into one category, and placing strict rules on interracial interaction; attitudes we would expect from a highly collective and racially conscious period, however adding a level of vehement immorality, at least contradictory to the professed religiosity at the time, and the unwillingness to answer for it, or broad acceptance, having a people made entirely blinded by race.
21th century, since the 90s, argues for an indiscriminate attitude towards blacks. In the 80s, whites felt rewarded for proper appraisal of blacks – and again, just meeting the standard for a white person would result in adulation. Of course, what better way to redress for undue racism. I think there’s something to be said about the decadal shifts in culture that accompanied the liberalization of America inducing a trendy form of acceptance; and we’re still talking about a time period when America was around 80% non-hispanic white, as opposed to now 65% or so. Compared to now, the concept of a magic negro isn’t as alluring – and really, there’s nothing to be rewarded for when you’re constantly being badgered for past wrongs. Picking out that one black and parading them now comes at the expense of whites; it’s now the intersectional, political position made to further denigrate whites; an Oprah made today wouldn’t be as broadly appealing.
Anyways, this isn’t what I was thinking earlier today, entirely. I just think you’re missing a lot to her success. I don’t think Oprah is dumb, she’s just not a near genius. And I think I remember somewhere about head size only correlating with IQ reasonably well, statistically, intraracially.
You can rationalize away anyone’s success by saying they were in the right place at the right time. If Oprah got famous in the 60s you’d be saying she benefitted from the power of the civil rights movement. If she got famous in the 2000s you’d be saying she benefited from Obama’s momentum.
Post-hoc sophistry can be used to rationalize any just-so story.
If anything when whites and blacks are matched for IQ, the white tends to be way richer so don’t give me this black privilege crap. It’s altright crap & as a black man you should know better
I agree with the first part. People can rationalize away the success of anyone they don’t like. Fact of the matter is, Oprah is a billionaire. Her cognitive assets (whatever they may be) would’ve put her in at least the .01% of the human population in terms of success in any era.
But is it true that blacks and whites, when matched for IQ, still are unequal in terms of “richness”? I thought blacks had slightly higher incomes…although it makes sense that whites would have higher wealth.
You also have to keep in mind there are traits, other than IQ, that might favor whites over blacks. I can think of a number of traits that do.
And Billy is black????
According to the book The Bell Curve, when comparing blacks & whites of equal IQ, the poverty gap (wealth) is still large but the wages gap narrows almost completely.
Only the job status gap reverses
So billy’s statistically right that Oprah would not have as much job status if she were a white with the same IQ, but in theory if she were white she’d have the same wages & even more wealth. So a white Oprah might be worth $25 billion instead of $2.5 billion, but made her money in a lower status field (porn, realestate or advertising instead of talk shows). In theory a white Obama’s might have been a Vice President instead of president, but worth $500 million instead of $50 million (in other words al gore)
Of course this is all statistical so the predictions may be way off in individual cases.
And I seem to recall billy mentioning he is black
I’m just relating in style, on how the tech industry has worked in the past; you have people with flimsy ideas propped up to astronomical heights. Like tech, I assume being a talk show host is about appeal, at fist. If Elizabeth Holmes was in the software industry, I’m sure you would try to make a good case for why she’s super smart, because then she could profit from a flimsy idea and it’d be okay. All I’m saying is that “trajectory,” not privilege necessarily, played a significant part in her success. And yes, it would be similar to getting Obama elected. It wasn’t black privilege, per se, but a resurfacing of the same concept I was talking about, of white redress (not white guilt, because here whites think they’ll be rewarded with not being called racists and achieving commonality, or whatever, as opposed to self-flagellation).
Also, not all talk show hosts are the same. I’m not familiar with the statistics of the black/white wealth gap for the same job, despite same IQ. If that’s the case, then the more reason to consider what type of show she did; and to her credit, for what she did would still require exceptional intelligence in verbal or knowledge. And I don’t deny her having exceptional qualities. I don’t dislike Oprah – I don’t have a strong opinion of her. If her show was unique, and her being unique for her race, accompanied with what I believe to be within the vicinity of truth, then there is reason to speculate more on her success beyond her IQ. 125-130 sounds reasonable, plus her social skills that’s already exceptional.
And yes, I’m black. I’m hardly tribal, so don’t expect me to see things from a “black perspective.”
If all I knew about her was that she was the world’s only black billionaire (at one time) I would agree that she’s 125 because that’s the likely average for the richest blacks ever
But when you add the freakishly huge head to her freakishly huge success, she’s more likely to be 140
It’s like if I knew you were in the NBA, I would guess you were 6’8”. But if I knew you were both in the NBA & weighed 500 lbs, I might increase my guess to 7’8”. It’s just common sense
How come oprah can’t stop eating?
Because she was sexually abused
Hahaahaaa!!!! that’s hilarious yet sad.
Serious answer: Because she’s never tried a low carb diet – a real one. And she’s a bit food shill. And her company she has stake in, Weight Watchers, is losing a lot of money. They’re losing because of…. Keto. The diet Oprah has never tried because she “loves bread!!” Ironic.
https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2008/12/09/oprahs-plight/
How can she go low carb if she loves bread? Fat people don’t need you telling them what to eat. They know what to eat, they just don’t want to eat it
Weight watchers lost money because they changed their name to wellness watchers. People only obsess about weight loss, not health, so changing the focus to health was poor marketing at least in the short-term.
If Oprah can never give up processed carbs – i.e., bread – then she’s doomed to be obese for the rest of her life.
Fat people need coaching to change their habits.
Source that “Weight watchers lost money because they changed their name to wellness watchers”?
Weight and health are inextricably linked.
Youre committing a version of the ontological fallacy. Losing weight and becoming healthy are coextensive but in the minds of laymen they are distinct concepts.
Excess food consumption makes us obese. Certain types of food are more obesogenic than others. If excess food consumption makes us obese and certain types of food are more obesogenic, then it follows that people who eat the more obesogenic food will be more obese. People who eat more obesogenic food are more obese than people who eat less obesogenic food.
It would then follow that, for two obese people, one eating healthy and the other eating obesogenic, the one eating obesogenic would weigh more and be in worse health than the one who ate healthy. Of course, then, someone that is thin and eats good food and exercises would be healthy relative to the obese person. This doesn’t preclude skinny fat and the metabolically healthy obese.
I’m not familiar with that fallacy.
“I’m not familiar with that fallacy”
https://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/02/21/the-ontological-fallacy/
Like I said healthiness is more or less the same as losing weight but laymen conceptualize it as if they’re distinct. Pumpkin wasn’t saying that they are not the same, he was simply stating that laymen do not view them as the same, hence why it was a poor marketing decision on the part of Weight watchers.
It’s what Mugabe and I mean when we say “words are not things”.
I’m still waiting on PP to prove that that’s the reason why the company lost money.
Instead of “weight and health are inextricably linked” how about a more concise measure “body fat and health are inextricably linked”
I’m still waiting for you to prove your theory for why they lost money.
I’m still waiting for you to prove your methods even cause long-term weight loss
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2663585
I’m still waiting for you to prove your theory that muscle motor neuron speed equals physical coordination
https://www.dietdoctor.com/is-weight-watchers-getting-crushed-by-keto
All diets fail. I agree.
https://idmprogram.com/all-diets-fail-how-to-lose-weight-xi/
I’ve explained that rationale already re motor neuron speed. For that specific muscle/muscles used in the movement, they have better NMC (that is, their firing rate between synapses in the muscles in question are higher).
According to this article:
The 55-year-old company started using the shorter name last year in an attempt to embrace wellness — a buzzy but vague term intended to promote a healthier lifestyle that would attract and retain customers long after they achieved their target weight.
The message fell flat with consumers.
You agree all diets fail, yet you think you know the magic secret to weight loss that’s evaded all the experts?
Just because weight lifting improves the firing rates of synapses in specific muscles does not mean weight lifters would score high on direct measures of physical coordination such throwing, catching, juggling, using a speed bag, riding a unicycle, snowboarding, etc, because these complex movements require a high functioning cerebellum and motor cortex.
Most people don’t achieve “their target weight.” We’ve been through how garbage a program WW is before.
Why do all diets fail PP?
I’ve already explained the role of Purkinje neurons in the cerebellum. Again: you’re not winning a pose-off if you’re not coordinated and can’t use your muscles.
You haven’t explained how your training is any better than Weight Watchers:
This has been tested in randomized controlled trials where people have been separated into groups and given intense exercise and nutrition counselling.
Even in those highly controlled experimental settings, the results show only minor sustained weight loss.
And the fact that purkinje neurons are in the cerebellum in no way proves that muscle motor neuron speed (in some muscle groups) is a valid measure of physical coordination. You have to observe actual coordinated activities and prove they correlate with MMNS. It could be that motor neuron speed in the muscles does not predict neuron speed in the brain or it could be that the size and metabolic efficiency of the cerebellum and motor cortex are more important than speed.
I already explained that the meta-analysis shows the effects of adaptive thermogenesis. You need to look at the types of kcal consumed, not only overall kcal consumed.
Nothing you’ve said refuted my notion: speed between synapses in the muscle is a measure of NMC.
But where are the studies showing the right kcal keeps weight off longterm? I suspect most fat people can’t stick to that year after year.
As for physical coordination, you’re confusing involuntary neurology with a voluntary behaviour, or an action as you’d call it.
You can’t do that unless you have proof the neural measure strongly correlates with the action and I’ve already explained why that’s unlikely, although the onus is on you to back up your claims, not on me to refute them.
But at least you now admit that the physical (neuron speed) can cause a partly mental trait (kinaesthetic “intelligence”)
What do you mean by “longterm”?
Moving a muscle is an action. I’ve explained how moving a muscle occurs.
The MMC is training the mind to use the muscles better. It ties into NMC because it’s needed for multijoint movement. Gardener’s “intelligences” are a bunk concept anyway. That doesn’t mean one doesn’t need a strong mental background to be a successful athlete.
By long-term I would settle for 2 years. Keep pasting this quote:
This has been tested in randomized controlled trials where people have been separated into groups and given intense exercise and nutrition counselling.
Even in those highly controlled experimental settings, the results show only minor sustained weight loss.
When Traci Mann analyzed all of the randomized control trials on long-term weight loss, she discovered that after two years the average amount lost was only one kilogram, or about two pounds, from the original weight.
Keep in mind that these are people who received professional nutritional counselling, not just random dieters.
And physical coordination is observed when the “movements of several limbs or body parts are combined in a manner that is well timed, smooth, and efficient with respect to the intended goal”. So all the electromyographic data proves nothing if on actual physical tasks, many weight lifters are clumsy. Show me one single study of weight lifters scoring high on actual physical coordination tests (goal directed voluntary coordination, not electrical impulses in their muscles) such as the Box and blocks test, Nine-hole peg test or the functional dexterity test. I will concede to any large-scale study.
http://www.neuralrehabilitation.org/en/?page_id=62
What does the article mean by “highly controlled experimental settings”? haha
“Keep in mind that these are people who received professional nutritional counselling, not just random dieters.”
I know—I know the paper better than you do.
Now, why do diets fail (“diet” here meaning caloric restriction in an attempt to lose weight)?
Many reasons:
(1) Physiological: NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis; energy expended for everything we do that is not sports-related exercise, eating or sleeping) decreases; this is about 15 percent of daily energy for active people and up to 50 for more sedentary people. When on caloric restriction for some time, this decreases energy used
When dieting, leptin (a satiety hormone) decreases while ghrelin (a hunger hormone) increases. So people in a kcal-deprived state feel hungrier than people in a non-kcal-deprived state (there are ways around this, of course). So “dieting” in the way that Mann et al studied is reducing kcal in order to lose weight—which we know does not work.
When people initially lose weight they need fewer kcal to run their lower-weight bodies. But they then also need to continuously decrease kcal in order to lose weight. It’s not possible to decrease kcal to “0” indefinitely. Most people, though, don’t know about this, so they think they’re doing it “right” and then get discouraged by friends and family who tell them they must be cheating.
I’ve already discussed the effects found in Ancel Keys’ “starvation” studies a few weeks back, too, with how they obsessed and dreamed about food. So we know that the body’s physiology changes when one enters (and stays in) a kcal-deprived state and we know what they think (a lot about food) since we have studied it.
(2) Willpower—obesity is not about a lack of it:
http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-is-not-about-lack-of-willpower
(3) Diets make us fat—this is because of the adaptive thermogenesis (AT) and what it does to our physiology and hormonal levels. AT is one of the main reasons why weight-rebound occurs. Read:
Aamodt—like Mann—advocates mindful eating (I advocate it too, and Aamodt’s book put me onto it)—not trying to hit a “weight number”. I disagree, but they’re a psychologist and a neuroscientist, not a fitness professional.
Either way, you don’t need to destroy your metabolism by eating 1 set kcal amount for the day—eat for what you do in that day (i.e., training or not training) and center kcal like that. I can purposely gain 30 pounds and then shave it off in 3 months because I know what I’m doing with my body and I know how it reacts to the foods I choose to put into it. That’s what people need to do—they need a healthy relationship with food—which I applaud Mann et al for attempting to do. But when they say “all diets fail” (and I agree), they should say that “all (CICO) diets fail”, since those types of diets aren’t physiologically-able, to put it in that way, to lose weight like a LCHF diet, since fat cannot be unlocked from the fat cell in the presence of high insulin.
“Show me one single study of weight lifters scoring high on actual physical coordination tests (goal directed voluntary coordination, not electrical impulses in their muscles) such as the Box and blocks test, Nine-hole peg test or the functional dexterity test. I will concede to any large-scale study.”
You’re talking “coordination”; when I hear “coordination,” I think “neuromuscular coordination” and I immediately think EMG tests. You ask me how to measure it, I tell you and I eplain the rationale behind it.
Moving weights are “goal directed [sic] voluntary” movements, which require coordination, neuromuscularly.
In the triceps surae, the weight-trainers exhibited significantly greater reflex potentiation (70%), which was interpreted as an increased ability to activate motor units during maximal voluntary contractions. Peak twitch tension (16%) and twitch contraction time (20%) of the triceps surae were significantly greater in the weight-trainers, whereas their twitch half-relaxation time and soleus motor unit counts were not significantly different from control values.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014488683900778
Either way, you don’t need to destroy your metabolism by eating 1 set kcal amount for the day—eat for what you do in that day (i.e., training or not training) and center kcal like that. I can purposely gain 30 pounds and then shave it off in 3 months because I know what I’m doing with my body and I know how it reacts to the foods I choose to put into it. That’s what people need to do—they need a healthy relationship with food
But some would argue that our bodies evolved to cling stubbornly to the weight we gain, so every time you gain those 30lbs, you have to consume less and train harder to remove them then you did before:
a formerly obese individual will require ~300–400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and composition.
That might explain why you can’t cite any long-term studies supporting your method.
You’re talking “coordination”; when I hear “coordination,” I think “neuromuscular coordination” and I immediately think EMG tests. You ask me how to measure it, I tell you and I eplain the rationale behind it.
I’m describing coordination on the behavioral level as measured by the McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND) or the Korperkoordinationstest fur Kinder (KTK) or the Box and blocks test, Nine-hole peg test, the functional dexterity test, Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (M-ABC-2), and the coordination subscales of Bruninks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP). These are the types of tests that are actually used to diagnose someone with a Developmental Coordination Disorder.
You’re describing coordination at the neurological level (EMGs) which is great in theory but incomplete in practice, because it oversimplifies a behavior as complex as coordination to mere muscle motor neuron speed, ignoring the central nervous system completely. A great athlete who suffered traumatic brain injury might score extremely well on an EMG muscle test because his peripheral nervous system was unscathed, but he’d lack the coordination to even walk because of damage to his motor cortex or cerebellum. This is why behavioral tests are used.
“goal directed [sic] voluntary”
I know you’re sick.
the weight-trainers exhibited significantly greater reflex potentiation (70%), which was interpreted as an increased ability to activate motor units during maximal voluntary contractions. Peak twitch tension (16%) and twitch contraction time (20%) of the triceps surae were significantly greater in the weight-trainers
There are HUGE sex differences in weight lifting ability, yet only small sex differences in coordination. This suggests weight lifting ability required a lot more than coordination
I’m proud of you PP. Something you called nothing but “excuses” last month when I brought up Ancel Keys’ “starvation” studies you’re now using. Baby steps.
I’ve even brought that same point up in the article to explain the findings of Mann et al 2007. And losing weight isn’t about training; you train to mitigate effects of muscle loss while dieting, you don’t train for weight loss.
“oversimplifies a behavior”
We’re talking about actions. Read my article again.
“I know you’re sick.”
The correct way to write it is “goal-directed”.
“weight lifting ability required a lot more than coordination”
I never claim weight lifting only required coordination. I’ve explained how muscle movement occurs. I’ve given you a diagram on how it occurs. I’ve explained how EMG tests are administered and how it measures NMC. I’ve shown that thinking about the muscles you’re using in the movement your doing increases the activation of those muscles.
What more do you want to prove my point? You’re pretty much saying “If you can’t cite a study of bodybuilders and powerlifters riding a unicycle, balancing water and a board on their heads then you can’t say they’re more coordinated than non-weightlifters. That’s ridiculous. I’ve more than proved my point.
I’m proud of you PP. Something you called nothing but “excuses” last month when I brought up Ancel Keys’ “starvation” studies you’re now using. Baby steps.
I’ve even brought that same point up in the article to explain the findings of Mann et al 2007. And losing weight isn’t about training; you train to mitigate effects of muscle loss while dieting, you don’t train for weight loss.
Good for you! But unless you can cite a study showing your advice results in long-term weight loss, it’s just another unproven hypothesis.
I never claim weight lifting only required coordination. I’ve explained how muscle movement occurs. I’ve given you a diagram on how it occurs. I’ve explained how EMG tests are administered and how it measures NMC. I’ve shown that thinking about the muscles you’re using in the movement your doing increases the activation of those muscles.
You’ve proven that weight lifting increases EMG scores and that EMG scores are used as a proxy for coordination, but that doesn’t prove weight lifters are substantially more coordinated than non-lifting men of the same age. Let’s say weight lifting increases EMG scores (in certain muscles) by 0.5 SD, and EMG scores in those muscles only correlate 0.2 with overall coordination as measured by the MAND or the BOTMP. Then the expected difference between weight lifters and controls in directly measured coordination would be 0.5(0.2) = 0.1 SD, which is trivial.
On the other hand if weight lifters are +2 SD in EMG scores and EMG scores correlate 0.7 with MAND/BOTM scores, then the expected difference would be a substantial +1.4 SD.
But unless we get some actual data on how well EMG correlates with directly measured coordination, or how well elite weightlifters score on EMG or directly measured coordination, we can’t draw any meaningful conclusions.
“Good for you!”
I proved my point.
EMG scores are proxies for how well coordinated one is using that muscle. EMG on muscle M doesn’t correlate well with force production used in muscle M, due to a suite of anatomic and physiologic factors.
You’re more than welcome to figure that out. I’ve proven at least 4 things regarding muscle movement and NMC/MMC.
Increases in power were achieved that were not matched by equivalent increases in EMG intensity, but did occur with changes in coordination. It is proposed that the power output from the limb is limited by the coordination pattern of the muscles rather than the maximum power output from any one muscle itself.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/213/3/487
You said “I’m not sure why some commenters think weight lifting requires coordination”. That you think you’ve shown that it doesn’t is laughable.
That you think you’ve shown that it doesn’t is laughable.
Not my job to show that it doesn’t. We are never called upon to prove a negative. Basic rule of logic.
Anyway I’ve explained why I find your reasoning unconvincing. At this point let’s just agree to disagree.
When I read she was taking this position, I inferred it illustrate your hypothesis of her having a high IQ.
I haven’t seen the episodes yet, but the description but the press shows quite a bit of talent to not offend her black audience while being respectful of the white male victims.
The idea that rape – child rape – is also seduction is bright too. You see the duplicity of MJ playing the child. In his case, he was also so socially clever that there is still a doubt, he instilled, even in my mind.
Yes MJ was a human IQ test because most people are fooled by his innocent Peter Pan persona. For Oprah to see through him so early was especially bright, because as a socially liberal black woman, she’s naturally inclined to see gay seeming black men as victims & she’s under a lot of peer pressure from other blacks to think he’s innocent. It takes high IQ to look beyond your politics & culture and see the truth. It also takes a complex mind to understand that even Geniuses, icons & great philanthropists can be pedophiles & that child molestation is far more nuanced than people think
Social IQ test question: if a black person still believes Jussie Smollett (and some still do), does that mean they have high or low social IQ?
The only Smollet explanation I would see, with an extremely low probability, is that the 2 Nigerian bodybuilders would be anti-gay, and stupid, and either really attack or trap Smollet in a false attack. The 3500 could be coaching or escort money. There is no proof yet – that I Know – Smollet paid back the masks and noose. It would have been quite a dumb plan but the alleged Smollet one is equally stupid.
” It takes high IQ to look beyond your politics & culture and see the truth”
I agree. In addition, a certain amount of level-headedness, objectivity etc are also required.
Isn’t objectivity paired with intelligence? All those traits, conscientiousness, intelligence, creativity, objectivity, etc. come in groups. I think you could say that about physical traits as well.
I dunno, not all creative people do their work thoroughly. They are not methodical. But can have other traits of conscientiousness. And the other traits.
Some people can have various combinations of them, but not all or sometimes all or just a few.
I guess it also differs between different groups of people. In some groups all of them are more likely together, in some others only some of them are together.
Damn OPrah was ugly.
What image are you referring to?
The one where she was younger. Her head looked obscenely big and her eyes were spaced far apart.
She didn’t look so bad from the 80s onward but she has a team of makeup artists who travel with her who have Rembrandt-level talent.
Well, it goes to show you that most people act selfishly when it comes to making status-based (statistical) leaps in life. She (Oprah) chased the money. That’s an intelligent move. That shows a high social IQ, being ruthless. Psychopathy is the most important form of a personality trait, so why try to suppress it?
If Bernie Sanders wins, will you do an IQ profile of him as well?
Pumpkin, haha.
So, did MJ really sexually assault them? How much evidence is there to suggest it?
In my opinion he was a pedophile. The evidence is overwhelming.
The fact that he seemed to favor boys almost entirely proves it to me (and particularly white boys. The black boys he mentored like Webster and Alfonso Ribeiro were never molested). But I’m sure there’s plenty of other evidence.
Is there really evidence?
Yes
Yeah Gman is right. There just seems to be a a constant pattern to the people that come forward. – white male. Its a bit like how all Bill Cosbys victims were white women. Blacks probably fetishise whites more than the other way around actually.
All tiger woods accusers were white women too.
Something that maybe the blacks on this forum can talk about more, but I notice how a lot of black women on the internet are into this ‘black is beautiful’/black pride thing. Its them trying to fight back against the perceived attractiveness gap with white women. And the number 1 target audience is black men imo. Its a bit like the gay pride movement. Basically whenever you add the word ‘pride’ to your movement its to cover something you are ashamed about.
Actually one of Cosby’s accusers is the very beautiful black model Beverly Johnson (And she’s quite the MILF now!) But yeah, most of Cosby’s accusers were white. Some of them were ugly, though, like the lesbian athlete one. Damon Wayans called her “unrapeable”.
To put it bluntly, black women are the least attractive compared to white and (NE) asian women. That is the assertion from the study done by Satoshi Kanazawa and corroborated by online dating patterns; literally everyone, including black men, make sharp turns on black women. But I think it goes further than that. Black people in general feel negatively about their looks subconsciously, at least. It’s part of the reason why the one-drop rule is appealing and persistent (I think played by both sides, with whites, but blacks the most adamant about it); the non-black aspect acts as a sheen and sheer for black attributes that blacks are dissatisfied with. With the remaining, dominant traits, even with just having a darker skin tone, it’s easy to appropriate mixed people. Now black people can celebrate about the illustriousness, the sublimated, portion of them, and maybe even call it “Black History Month.” So what if there is an odd amount of half-breeds, quadroons, and octoroons, for a so called “Black History.”
Mixed people also seem to have identity issues that makes it easy for the lesser race to take them in, but that might be specific to blacks. Though, I notice in general, when it is any race with white, the child seems to associate more with the non-white race; there’s something there that isn’t what could be an obvious answer, but I haven’t thought it out through.
Mixed race people identify as non-white because whites don’t accept anyone who looks non-white, but non-whites are happy to call a white looking person one of their own.
It’s like an average height person can identify as short but he can’t identify as tall because both tall & White are prestigious clubs so they must exclude to maintain their status
If you only score Ivy League level on half your SAT & state school level on the other half, you’re not allowed in the Ivy League but you’re still allowed in state school. Sadly in the eyes of many, white is like Ivy and non-white is state school.
Spike Lee used to complain that in interracial marriages, the white was often much uglier than the black. The white didn’t need good looks because their mere whiteness was the prize
The average black man (myself included) prefers lighter-skinned women over darker ones. But how much lighter? I know for me personally there’s no particular attraction for blonde women–theyre often too pale and I noticed from an early age they tend to wrinkle more and get this creakly skin texture on their upper chest area if they’re out in the sun too much.
Black men also generally prefer more voluptuous women. I also have this preference. Black women generally have bigger T & A than women of other races. I think black women are conscious of their lower value in terms of skin tone (relative to certain other groups) so they play up the T & A to a ridiculous extent–especially if they’re from lower-class backgrounds and have little else going for themselves.
Often when black men date outside of their race, they’re willing to fuck anything, even if the woman looks like a sack of shit, but sometimes they get with women who are considered attractive in black culture but not so much in other cultures–meaning, less facial attractiveness/beauty but a voluptuous body. Kardashians are good example of this (who I think were pretty ducking hot until they went overboard on the plastic surgery…)
I guess my point of this screed is that white physical traits are generally considered the most beautiful in all cultures but blacks have certain standards (big T & A, especially giant booties) that are unique to their culture, that are kinda embodied by black women and almost exclusively appreciated by black men. And black men even pursue these traits when they date outside their race…
I’ve always been interested in doing an analysis of women black men think are hot but men of other think are hideous, hahaha..
Philosopher ,
In my view its that populations have archetypes that are genetically intrinsic to our brain, but that the archetype gets mediated by what we see and what is esteemed in our soroundings, especially during youth when our brains are the most plastic. I think that sexual selection in the north therefor made the northern eurasian peoples as they are becuase it was easier to survive in those climates. How it occured is that the archetype really only manifests itself in attraction weakly relative to the culture. We can see this in various equatorial primitives that prefer lighther skin but not “too” light. nonwhites outside of Africa are especially prone to like whites becuase of the current and historical prescense of white society and media (most intesely so in latam and east asia, and african americans). Or maybe the latent architype is just colonialism, but that opens the question as to why non-blacks look like they do, which i already awnsered. Equatorial amerindians and the indian negritos are counter evidence to my claims however.
GondwanaMan,
“I guess my point of this screed is that white physical traits are generally considered the most beautiful in all cultures”
By all cultures you surely mean american cultures, right? Im uncertain if whites would be that popular amongst (relatively) untouched populations. For example look at african pornhub stats.
“they’re willing to fuck anything, even if the woman looks like a sack of shit”
Or maybe thats all they can get becuase they arent admired by americans. Also that they would deviate from black americans seems like selection bias.
“but blacks have certain standards (big T & A, especially giant booties) that are unique to their culture”
Other cultures dont have them today but its not unique from an historical perspective.
“meaning, less facial attractiveness/beauty but a voluptuous body”
Even afro followed that, i was shocked when he said that face isnt everything. For me it very much is, like i could probably be with an walking octopus if it had the right face, maybe.
Billy ,
While agree that what you say is the case, the study wasnt done by kanazawa (it was done by ADD health) and had very wierd samples. Prepubescent black girls were considered worse looking . becuase they were also meassured. The races actually came equal if you controll for that mistake, which in itself is obviously false. And the race of the raters were not mentioned. So theres three falsities.
If you’re talking about whites and non-whites, you’re talking about social categories with minimalist race as a correlate (that the mixed race people are mixed from continental-level minimalist races).
Whites and non-whites is “us” against “them” type thinking. Especially because whites represent the power structure to non-whites.
It looks like most pedophile, or sadistic persons into torture, like to film their actions and are interesting in exchanging it. Many were brought down by it (like the submarine multimillionnaire). So if MJ was a pedo, there must be videos and eventually, the place and the children will be identified.
Sadistic/sociopaths are obsessed with a sense of ownership over other people. When they commit crimes, they like to relish the memory, and how they were able to dominate their victim. I think videotaping helps with the relishing of memories, and also that sense of dominance and control since they can watch their victim at any time without their permission.
And I think it’s come out recently that Jackson did videotape some of his sexual encounters with minors.
And who owns those videos ? their value is millions, either for destruction or use, with extremely hig criminal risk. It’s like someone owning WH nuclear codes 😉
MJ was raided by police a few times & tipped off ahead of time, allowing him to destroy most incriminating stuff
What first attracted me to this blog was something curious like the reaction times of people and its correlation to intelligence. I always wanted the current era to be remembered as the most intelligent than the Victorian, so I had hoped there was a relatively minimum gap between the Victorian era and our era. So far, I think we’re a lot more cognitively superior to the Victorians in many aspects, except for those not tested by IQ, like conscientiousness, attention-span, etc.
as for a 30-point gain, I can believe we have an abstract intelligence gain of that amount. I think if you can’t trust the tests themselves, then you can’t trust the system at all.
Plus, the reaction time thing was all made up by Galton. There’s a lag in digital monitors that increases reaction time significantly (up to 60 or so seconds?), so I think we may have declined 3-5 points that are associated with reaction times, like maybe verbal recall/intelligence, etc.
Do I think that the average white in the early 1900s was as smart as the average African today? I could see that.
I think the average white person was much smarter. The gap was probably wider than today.
Loaded we are getting more intelligent for sure, however we are already more intelligent than any other animal. Slight 15-30 point improvements arent making a huge difference. I mean if your in the NBA at 6ft3 and extra 7 inches is not going to do much. We are at that point now, where higher IQ is only going to help us learn faster. There is likely no knowledge beyond human understanding, if given enough study time.
So you think there has been eugenics in those communitues, or dysgenics in white communities?
That question was aimed at Pill.
If someone is born with IQ 300 and maintains that 300 their whole life, the person will just learn faster. He would not learn anything other people would be incapable of learning with enough study time.
*cognitively normal people* IQ 100 at least
What are you basing this on?
What??? I think i know what you’re saying but I’m not quite sure…
So I got this friend who’s an actor, and I suggested a buffalo bill type scenario where Michael jackson didn’t want to molest children, he just wanted to be one. He agreed, my buddy simply couldn’t believe the accusations because a few child actors who had been molested said MJ had helped them through their rough times. But if this new documentary is as damning as people are claiming, then it probably falsifies my pet theory.
He probably did help victims of other abusers but may have been too egocentric to reflect on his own behaviour
That’s true. Some of the smartest people can still be hypocrites. The absolute quantity of knowledge there is to know vastly outweighs what any individual can know in their lifetime.
I suspect he found a way to rationalize his impulses. He probably saw himself as healing kids not abusing them, because he was so used to being treated as a God that he felt the normal rules didn’t apply to him. He was a huge narcissist with a painting depicting himself as Christ
How did he rationalize equating molesting children and healing children?
His accuser(s) claim MJ would tell them this is how we show our love & society is too stupid & ignorant to understand
Yikes, that’s insane.
So in other words Jackson was a sociopath. Sociopaths can rationalize (in their own minds) any behavior, no matter how egregious. This can include verbal, physical and sexual abuse. And they use tactics like blame-shifting, projection, and “they/society just doesn’t understand”.
Wow, I am armchair psychoanalytic genius!😆 but this more or less makes sense to me.
unmod my comment. this time i wont stand for your idiocy
Your comparison of gays to pedophiles is idiotic. Just because MJ allegedly used the same talking points to defend pedophilia that are used to defend gays does not make them similar. Pedophiles can be straight or gay & most gays have consensual sex.
Its not whether its consensual or not that makes a sex act morally wrong to the VAST MAJORITY of human beings. Especially those outside western countries. Do you want me to provide links of what africans think of homosexuals?
What most people consider moral is just whatever advances their genes. Homosexuality doesn’t advance our genes so we evolved to find it disgusting
Cue RR complaining about just-so stories for the 5000th time
So by your reasoning scat play and some cases of incest are fine and dandy right? I mean its consensual. How about cuckoldry? Just want to know if you draw any line or not on peoples sexual behaviour.
I draw the line at hurting people. Your right to freedom ends when it infringes on someone else’s rights. So incest harms the inbred kids of such unions. You could make a case for outlawing homosexuality if you could prove it was unhealthy in a society with publicly funded health care, but law based on disgust is not intellectually defensible.
People find sex between fat people, ugly people, old people disgusting too. Would you outlaw all that? Do you really want the government in people’s bedrooms?
By the way in some countries paedophilia is accepted but not homosexuality. E.g in central asia and some parts of south asia. Just want to point that out.
Woah1 In south asia?
I’ve been watching some Gregory Clark lectures. He said there’s skeletal evidence that neolithic people were pretty tall. In Clark’s view, this shows it was possible for people to eat well and live luxuriously in Malthusian economies.
But he admitted taller skeletons may be more likely to survive the ravages of time. He was vague, but seemed to suggest smaller skeletons could be destroyed because they are less structurally sound. iirc he said more ancient male skeletons are found than their smaller female counterparts.
That’s strange. I’ve always heard we got shorter post-agriculture & didn’t recover our Paleolithic height until the late 20th century
I’m inclined to believe that’s what happened, and I can’t find anything (in my few minutes of searching) about a dearth of female skeletons.
PP, that first picture is not good. You should have posted another picture.
what don’t you like about it?
The black mike in it and the way it looks and seen together with the pictures’ caption.
Pumpkin, why are my thoughts on sociopathy moderated?
Conan Oprah BEES ARE COMING!!!!
What is even the “optimal” IQ for a species? Well, it would depend on the species. There isn’t a lot of necessity to be high IQ and survive in our world or even our Universe. In fact, it might even be a detriment.
I think high IQ is a necessity too.
I like how RR uses the term “IQ per capita” because it illustrates that collective thoughts and ideas on what is right and wrong are far more important than your individual beliefs, because at the end of the day, you’re more likely to follow the status quo than your individual beliefs.
Ive immersed myself in white subculture. Its the most convoluted, disturbing thing Ive ever partook in. White subculture is retarded and overcomplicated. Nothing to do with being smart, just treating certain people with the proper authority. Fuck em.
I think the modern-day attention-span and cognitive mode is to go through things subconsciously and not apply any effort into retrieving information. I think it was the opposite awhile back ago. I think that that’s exactly what the Raven’s Progressive Matrices test tests for.
I don’t tell people this often, but I scored in the 99.9th percentile of my state’s advanced RPM. I took about 8 hours to do it, though. I’m sure there are time restrictions now, but this was kind of when they were beginning to do this.
Not literally 8, but about double the time most people took to do it.
I used to watch reslly dark, Satanic movies, especially when I was 20.
Reading about India fighting pakistan. It reminds me of what i said last year that i believe south asians are likely the only other race along with east asians and whites that could achieve ‘modernity’. But thats based on the indians i met in the UK working there. I have no idea what some rural peasant is like.
I have heard blacks in britain are high achieving too. A friend of mine works in the one of the rich caribbean islands. And he was very impressed with the blacks over there.
Every human being is capable of achieving modernity.
Some racist HBDers don’t want to accept that there are likely pockets of high achieving-Africans. If you can accept that Jews and Indian Brahmins score 10-15 points higher than their broader racial categories, then you should be able to accept that there are African tribes and sub-groups that approach IQ 100 on average.
Jewish IQ is exaggerated imo. There simply hasn’t been enough time for a 10-15 point advantage to evolve unless you make some pretty unrealistic assumptions. And whites are too accomplished as a race for me to believe they’re 10 points dumber than Jews. 5 points seems more realistic
I could see Jewish IQ being in that distinct category of being 5-7 points higher. Jewish culture and gentile culture are almost identical now. However, if we were talking about their ancestors, I could see the gentile IQ being higher than that of the Ashkenazi Jewish one. I think there has been significant gain in IQ by the Jewish community due to eugenic breeding. I would also think that people who were excommunicated and/or died in the Holocaust and other anti-Jewish violence.
*other anti-Jewish violence benefited the per capita IQ of the Jewish community, because only the smartest survived. Quite literally, if you look at the survivors of the Holocaust, they were probably smarter than their other community members and that can be restated by the long and lengthy lives the Holocaust survivors live today. In America, all Jewish immigration done during the Nazi era was done by actors, scientists, and musicians, primarily. So that bolstered Jewish IQ nonetheless.
>Jewish IQ is exaggerated imo
There’s a selection limit for how high of an IQ a human could be given our current gene pool, and none of it requires anything but a specific permutation of a specific genotype. Novel advantageous mutations aren’t necessary. There’s definitely already stable, non-inbred (excessively genetically homogeneous), non-jewish populations with average IQs greater than 110 but they don’t label themselves as being intrinsically separated from the population they’re a part of. Given that there aren’t any high IQ genes unique to Ashkenazi Jews, what they are is just a high IQ variant of an already existing population. What’s slow is accumulating “high IQ” genetic mutations, not breeding high IQ genotypes.
Although if your point is that Jewish, as in both self-identifying Jews and “genetically jewish”, IQ suffers from selection-bias, then I’d agree.
Gather every single white aspie in the world on the continent of Mu and you’ll spontaneously get a collection of humans with an extremely alien autistic culture within a single generation (who’ll probably die out within a couple generations due to no one intuitively knowing the point of doing the sex). In the same way, if we decided to breed back neanderthals, we could probably produce a specimen that’s ~20-40% neanderthal.
2019, but live slow die young.
G-man, do you believe that the wealth of African Americans is normally distributed according to IQ? I think it is. I think the wealthiest people of the black race happen to possess the highest IQs as well.
This can also be aimed at Billy, because he is black as well.
Trust me, genes and genetic tests are going to get really popular in the future. genetic measurements of who people are is going to shift the world in a whole new direction.
I don’t know if this is how we measure IQ or not, but we should measure it by sentience. How much pleasure or emotion someone derives from a single action and how aware that person is about the things around them.
Puppy do a top 10 greatest social justice warriors in the world article.