If you were an informed American adult by the early 2000s, there were two big questions you had to answer: “Should we invade Iraq?” and “Was Michael Jackson a child molester?” The first question is biased against conservatives who are more pro-war, regardless of social IQ. The second question is biased against liberals, who are more sympathetic to black and gay seeming people, regardless of social IQ. But the compensate score on both questions might give a quick, very rough proxy for social IQ.
Iraq subscale (seeing through conservative BS)
On the eve of the Iraq War (March 17th, 2003) 66% of Americans supported the war, and 34% did not. If you think of this as a kind of social IQ test, then the the median score of those who opposed it was the 83rd percentile (half of 34% subtracted from 100%), and the medium score of those who supported it was the 33rd percentile (half of 66%).
So if as of March 2003, you believed it was in America’s interests to take out Saddam Hussein, give yourself an IQ of 93 on this subscale, while if you saw through the BS, you get a 114 (U.S. norms). If you knew the real reason for the war back then (whatever that real reason might be), you’d probably get a 138.
Michael Jackson subscale (seeing through liberal BS)
In early July 2009 (shortly after his death) roughly 51% of Americans were Michael Jackson fans (and likely thought he never molested a child) and 49% were not. So if you thought (correctly, in my opinion) that he was a molester in early July 2009, give yourself an IQ of 111 on this sub-scale (76th percentile), if not, give yourself a 90 (26th percentile). If you thought he was a molester before 1993, you probably deserve 150+.
Composite score (seeing through all BS)
Because the angry lynch mob type people who supported the Iraq war are very different from the bleeding heart liberal types who felt sorry for a feminine black man like Michael Jackson, there’s probably a negative correlation between these two subscales. That’s a bad thing for the test’s reliability, but a good thing for extending its range.
If we assume the correlation between subscales is -0.5, then:
Composite Social IQ = [(Iraq IQ + Jackson IQ) – 200] + 100
It’s interesting to ask how commenter philosopher (aka The Social Justice Warrior) would have scored on this test since he fancies himself a social genius. He claims to have known the Iraq war was BS but claims he didn’t understand the motives so he gets a 114 on the Iraq subscale. Meanwhile, until recently he believed Jackson was innocent, so a 90 on the Jackson subscale. Thus his composite social IQ is 104. That’s somewhat above average, but nowhere near social genius level.
By contrast I would have scored an incredible 149 🙂 though I chose the questions (and the right answers) so my score would be greatly inflated by selection bias. I would probably regress precipitously to the mean on randomly selected questions. I also had the unfair advantage of understanding Occam’s razor and having an objective personality that is not easily swayed by groupthink.
Pumpkin Person 
Israel and innocent. So 128. Nice.
I suggested MJ was innocent within the last year or two. Before that I was never sure but I had an intuitive feeling he did just because of how weird he is. I never reasearched in depth on either subjects
I’m probably in-between 104 and 125
You probably would have opposed the Iraq war had you been an adult when it started. Hip hop types generally saw through that BS.
Definitely. When all that shit was going down I was listening to a rapper called Immortal Technique. All he ever rapped about we’re liberal conspiracy theories, like with aliens and shit, which in retrospect is pretty unique.
Throwback time:
For a long time I also actually thought Michael Jackson might be innoncent, for similar reasons (“hes just a weirdo, not a child molester”). Also all of the kids accusing him and their families seem really shady.
“Weirdo” is an oversimplication. I hypothesized a buffalo bill type scenario. In the movie it’s revealed that bill doesn’t want to be a women he just wants the skin of women. J suggested MJ wanted to be a child not to molest children this would equally explain everything as well as reconcile the fact that some child actors had confessed that he did not molest them and was supportive. This new documentary and the evidence pumpkin have presented have falsified this theory.
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that’s bullshit, I’ll show you why it’s totally wrong
‘Cause if another country invaded the hood tonight
It’d be warfare through Harlem and Washington Heights
I wouldn’t be fightin’ for Bush or White America’s dream
I’d be fightin’ for my people’s survival and self-esteem
I wouldn’t fight for racist churches from the South, my nigga
I’d be fightin’ to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you and was rapin’ your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that shit after Ronald Reagan’s election
Mercenary contractors fightin’ a new era
Corporate military bankin’ off the war on terror
They controllin’ the ghetto with the fear of attack
Tryin’ to distract the fact that they engineerin’ the crack
So I’m strapped, like Lee Malvo, holdin’ a sniper rifle
These bullets will touch your kids, and I don’t mean like Michael
These bullets will touch your kids, and I don’t mean like Michael
LOL! He gets both questions right, and in the same song!
Dude probably has a huge social IQ. He was my hero back in the day. It’s amazing that these songs still have replay value after almost a decade.
I agree with you Melo. IT is the shit. I don’t even like music (Nevermind rap music) and I really like his stuff. I played the shit out of that cd when I was 15. Dance with the Devil is a sick ass song.
It kinda opened my eyes to conspiracies too.
I’m surprised you liked IT so much considering how conservative you are(or used to be).
Random question, have you ever taken acid? Or anything similar like shrooms?
Well some of my views have changed. I used to be really conservative. But I guess I’ve been becoming more lib lately. I used to consider myself a libertarian, but it conflicted with my views on what I think should be done about our obesity/diabetes problem. I would say that I’m still right-wing, but I do hold some lib views. I guess I’m the dreaded “centrist.”
I’ve never done acid or shrooms. I’ve only smoked bud and drank. That other stuff never appealed to me.
1. We’re you super conservative when you were into IT? I’ve always been liberal but I’ve become more conservative as I’ve gotten older. I’m a dirty centrist as well.
2. Wow. That explains so much. Dude take psychedelics.
Get woke nigga this dude was banned from the radio:
fake church called the prophet Muhammad a terrorist
Forgetting God is not a religion, but a spiritual bond
And Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Qu’ran
They bombed innocent people, tryin’ to murder Saddam
When you gave him those chemical weapons to go to war with Iran
This is the information that they hold back from Peter Jennings
Cause Condoleeza Rice is just a new age Sally Hemmings
I break it down with critical language and spiritual anguish
The Judas I hang with, the guilt of betraying Christ
You murdered and stole his religion, and painting him white
Translated in psychologically tainted philosophy
Conservative political right wing, ideology
Glued together sloppily, the blasphemy of a nation
Got my back to the wall, cause I’m facin’ assassination
Guantanamo Bay, federal incarceration
How could this be, the land of the free, home of the brave?
Indigenous holocaust, and the home of the slaves
Corporate America, dancin’ offbeat to the rhythm
You really think this country, never sponsored terrorism?
Human rights violations, we continue the saga
El Savador and the contras in Nicaragua
And on top of that, you still wanna take me to prison
Just cause I won’t trade humanity for patriotism
continent of oil kingdoms, bought for a bargain
Democracy is just a word, when the people are starvin’
The average citizen, made to be, blind to the reason
A desert full of genocide, where the bodies are freezin’
And the world doesn’t believe that you fightin’ for freedom
Cause you fucked the Middle East, and gave birth to a demon
It’s open season with the CIA, bugging my crib
Trapped in a ghetto region like a Palestinian kid
Where nobody gives a fuck whether you die or you live
I’m tryin’ to give the truth, and I know the price is my life
But when I’m gone they’ll sing a song about Immortal Technique
Who beheaded the President, and the princes and sheiks
One more time for those who didn’t get it:
from where blacks, indigenous peoples and Asians were once
slaves of the Caucasians and it’s amazing how they trained them
to be racist against themselves in a place they were raised in
and you kept us caged in
destroyed our culture and said that you civilized us
raped our woman and when we were born you despised us
gentrified us, agent provocateurs divide us
and crucified every revolutionary messiah
It also depends on who the « We » is. Lots of American Jewish who put diaspora and Israel first may think « we » should invade Irak. In this case, they probably knew it’s not good for America in general but good for them not to have any strong non theocratic government in the region (Irak, Syria, Lybia).
If they knew it was not in America’s interests, I give them credit, even if they supported it. Only those who were duped into supporting it fail the item
Of course it can be hard to know in some cases because people are often in denial of their true motives, and lie even to themselves
Hahahahahahahaha
And if you believe you really are a genius in social IQ puppy what is the DQ or deluded quotient of that?
I specifically said the test is not valid for me since I chose the questions (and answers).
The point of the article was not to prove I’m a social genius, but to prove you’re not. 🙂
“I would probably regress precipitously to the mean on randomly selected questions.”
This is incorrect.
Also, with only 2 questions there’d be a huge margin of error
“seeing through conservative BS”
Most conservatives today think Iraq was dumb. But even back then the libertarian types also were anti war.
So are you going to do the top 10 social justice warriors one or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/mar/06/leaving-neverland-review-michael-jackson-documentary
I dont think i ever said he was innocent. I think I said Im minded to think he was innocent or I wasnt sure.
Another black celeb goes down in flames.
Funnily enough rappers like Dre, Jay Z Lil Wayne or sports stars and so on don’t have any skeletons in the closet this bad.
It was the more ‘respectable’ blacks like Tiger and Cosby.
BTW there are a lot of rumours on alt right forums that Obama is gay. Im not saying I believe it. But its a persistent accusation along with Michelle being formerly a man.
Social IQ test: is Obama gay/bisexual?
i have the social iq to know santo might know the answer better. gays can tell other gays a lot easier. actually i was shocked once when a gay colleague at work told me who the gays were in the office as some had no come out!
what’s your answer pp?
My answer is yes
agreed pp. it’s astonishing that so many people buy into the “cool black friend” archetype, especially when as you’ve said, he’s such a giant nerd. libs gonna lib i guess, feeds peoples’ narcissism. the magic negro is truly a force to be reckoned with.
https://giphy.com/gifs/m2J5d72A5xRXq
this gif is all one needs to see
that “always cool under pressure”, deliberate, measured manner of speaking in public is such an affectation too. ludicrous attempt to cover up his gayface/voice
How come no rappers have been #MeTooed? To me that’s the biggest mystery….
lot of brothers on the down low
Another rumour I keep hearing is that Will smith is bisexual or gay. That I believe.
Ive also read a lot about Denzels private life in the celeb gossip rumours thing. Hes not gay but hes not a family man and has a terrible temper when he gets turned down by the white women he chases (even though he is married).
I’ve read that Usher is gay as well. And that (((senior studio execs))) like to have their way with him. Apparently he was given justin bieber to groom. I don’t know if that bit is true. But the fist bit about this certain jewish music boss is definitely a real thing. He is known to have forced many black young rappers into doing weird stuff.
Watch: Will Smith Kisses Son Jaden in The Mouth – HipHollywood.com
He gave herpes to this fat black chick last year.
Meaning Usher. As far as Denzel, he puts on a persona of being a God-fearing man but of course it’s bullshit. I say this as a big Denzel fan.
I can’t think of any gentiles that have had a sex scandal. Maybe Kevin Spacey but that was paedophilia. I’ve read that Steven Segall gets very violent with women and forces himself on them.
Charlie Rose
Puppy keeps saying liberals are smarter and doesn’t notice how blockheaded they are over jews. I think conservatives can be easy dupes for jews too (e.g. Iraq). But liberals are supposed to be the ones who are educated and well read. So its very strange how none of them have the brains to figure out how the world works. If they figured that bit out they would have an overwhelming question problem – i.e. their entire ideology which is based on all humans being literally the same likelihood to earn a Phd in math or run a ponzi scheme, would come into question.
The other thing liberals can’t figure out is why people are racist in the first place. Is it an airborne virus. Was someone hundreds of years ago bitten by a dog? I guess we will never have the brains to figure that one out. We should just give up and listen to rabbi tim wise.
I obviously realize that liberals are dupes too (this is an HBD blog) but the difference is liberals get duped by lies that appeal to high IQ traits like empathy, moral reasoning and virtue signaling (we’re all equal) while conservatives fall for lies that appeal to low IQ traits like psychopathy, tribalism and religion (poor people deserve their poverty, we need to attack Iraq, Israel is the holly land). Falling for any scam shows at least one low IQ trait (credulity) but falling for conservative scams shows additional low IQ traits, so they’re probably dumber (on average)
it would be interesting iq testing the readers of huffington post vs say steve sailer. or msnbc vs fox. i would guess in the former scenario sailers readers are smarter but the more mainstream matchup would be a tie.
i used to watch msnbc religiously as a liberal a few years ago.
A more fair comparison would be Sailer fans vs Jimmy Dore fans
Also liberals are duped by lies that appeal to high IQ traits like abstraction & novelty seeking (race and gender are social constructs, we need more immigrants) while conservatives fall for lies that appeal to low IQ traits like simplicity (we’re the good guys and must kill the bad guys) and fear of change (we need to return to the 1950s)
I’m not saying liberal lies are necessarily less harmful than conservative lies, but they’re likely more appealing to high IQ people.
Being able to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in a real life scenario is not ‘low iq’. the future of democracy and republic depend on enough people, especually more gofted people in social skills and so on getting the correct answer to this.
Novelty seeking is not synonymous with a high IQ though it is somewhat correlated. Liberals are higher on openness(associated with novelty seeking) while conservatives are high on conscientiousness. Surprisingly however libertarians have the highest IQ of the 3 and are the highest on disagreeableness. Check out Jonathan Haidt for an interresting analysis of these findings.
As for Liberals having a higher IQ I think that is hogwash. The current social dynamic has created ideal conditions for liberals to take the forefront of academia and the media. Unfortunately this IMO is primarily and surprisingly still a result of WWII. The left and particularly the Marxists are taking full advantage of the guilt that exists to this day for the transgressions of the past and are trying to smuggle in their utopia while everyone is busy trying to get over their white privilege. Reality however won’t let them, the human condition won’t allow it. As such I find that it isn’t quite conservatives that are low or of lower IQ nor the liberals but rather the extremes on either side. Typically but not always those at the extremes suffer from lower IQ or some form of psychopathy/sociopathy. My sense is that we need both conservatives and liberals in order to maintain a functional society and viable state. Any one side manages to gain overwhelming power for a prolonged period of time and it all tends to go tits up.
This is also an economic question, a huge chunk of the middle to upper classes vote republican because they favor lower taxes. Would this not indicate at least to some degree that “conservatives” would have a higher IQ due to their higher income? IMO were it not for the current trend for those in academia to overwhelmingly lean left Democrats by far would have the lower IQ. Of course academics do tend to be higher on openness so they would naturally lean left(though perhaps not at the current rate) and obviously be smarter but the correlation is mild and there are other aspects of personality that indicate a higher IQ like disagreeableness.
In any case I consider myself a classical liberal and on an abstract scale would be just left of center however given how far to the left the “liberals” of today are they probably would consider me a conservative. In any case I think the left today has lost the plot entirely.
I’ve seen studies that stated more extreme political ideaologies we’re more intelligent among college students. Including conservatism, but higher intelligence was more associated with conservative economic beliefs(less taxation) than social ones(hating gays).
”Virtue signaling” is a derrogative term invented by hbd-sociopaths. We are essentially all the same, period.
MOST rightilts are blind about jews too. Stupid whitey is a jewish-mental slave since always… since christendom.
Smart and empathetic people is inclined to engage or to associate with another people like that, and regardless about their race. And most very empathetic people, infortunately, tend to be very naive too. Jews have the mastery of how to speak, how to manipulate the whitey and other flesh in the way they believe their words are being spoken by themselves.
AUTISTS RIGHTARDS can’t understand that different people have different emphasis. Only them [it’s doesn’t mean they are a minority] tend to superassociate with another people basically because they are racially similar.
Most white leftists engaged with another white leftists because nonwhite leftists seems rarer.
“Also liberals are duped by lies that appeal to high IQ traits like abstraction & novelty seeking (race and gender are social constructs”
Race is a social construct of a biological reality; sex is biological, gender is socially constructed.
king meLo
Well it depends what you mean by extreme ideologies. Might it be that they are confusing dynamicism, zeal and strong advocacy with “extreme ideologies”? I wouldn’t put it past them to make such an error as most social psychologists struggle to break past the 110 IQ mark. They also likely made sampling errors in the study too. So to me “extreme” are full blooded Marxists(mostly live in la la land) and hardened white supremacist ethno-nationalists(too low on empathy and too monolythic to realize that there’s good and bad in everything). On the other hand typically dynamic political advocates tend to be among the brightest in the bunch. It takes courage and a sharp and agile mind to navigate the political realm and stand for what you believe in. This doesn’t mean that they are necessarily right though and even if they are wrong(provided that they are not tragically wrong) it still takes intelligence to convince yourself and others that you are right.
Both studies suffered from sample bias. I prefer the latter because students have access to more accurate information.
Here’s a link if you want to read more:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/intelligence-and-politics-have-complex-relationship%3famp
Also race being a concept is not why it’s socially constructed. As you said that would imply all scientific concepts are social constructions. The physical variation underpinning race lies within a spectrum and is based on averages of clusters of traits. I could make any number or category of races I decide on and it would not be wrong because it can accurately pick out kinds in nature. No concept of race can circumvent this problem. Race is a social construct. Gender is binary and therefore cannot be a social construct. Race is still biologically real the two are not mutually exclusive.
I could make any number or category of races I decide on and it would not be wrong because it can accurately pick out kinds in nature.
But you have to pick a number of races that are all different enough that none can be considered subgroups within races, but all similar enough that they can’t be considered different species. Only a very specific number of races achieves both criteria.
The catagorization is not the only thing that’s subjective, so is it’s utility. Sure any race concept that fits your criteria is probably more epistemically powerful then one that does not, but who even attempts to categorize by race unless of course the propagator is racist or at least race obsessed to begin with? Usually these terms are coextensive.
Race Realist
“Race is a social construct of a biological reality; sex is biological, gender is socially constructed.”
Race is mostly underpinned by biological reality and as such cannot be described as a social construct. If we follow social constructionist logic everything that the mind conceives of and is socially instantiated is a social construct. Of course that is a preposterous way to think so IMO the words social construct should be restrained to things that appear to be arbitrary, conceptually nebulous and unproven, or could come in any number of iterations unrestricted by reality, enough that it is left up to social whim. Race does not fit that description and so it is not socially constructed save for the obvious social dynamics that bring it about across time(ie evolution, though that too is mostly biological).
Culture on the other hand one could say is socially constructed to a substantial degree as we see human beings formulate wildly different cultures despite belonging to the same species. Though i believe that a lot of HBDers hold the view that this too is strongly influenced by genetics. There might be some truth to that but I still hold that culutre is socially constructed enough that it far better fits the bill than anything else I can think of. Art as a subset of culture seems to be a very good example of this and perhaps why a lot of people that stem from the arts and more broadly the humanities often fall for the trappings of post modernism and moral relativism as
much of their world is open to subjectivity and social whim. They tend to believe that everything is a social construct.
Sex is a biological reality while gender is overwhelmingly informed and driven by that biological reality and as such is NOT a social construct. IMO the words “social construct” are thrown around far too much lately by people that don’t understand what it means and where and how it applies(this is not a jab at you btw, it is a general observation). You see the words sex and gender etymologically mean the same thing and have for most of history been used interchangeably. It’s only recently that they have been differentiated somewhat. I agree with that differentiation since it appears that it is necessary(at least academically). So IMO and to the degree that I have researched and understood this(not to say that this is the official interpretation though i think it should be) sex is a biological classification and gender is a behavioral classification. Seeing as in nature we rarely see behavior divorced from the underlying biology then the two for all intents and purposes talk about the same thing. Gender has a bi-modal distribution with a tiny spike in the center where all the transgenders lie. Sex is a ternary classification in that we have males, females and indeterminates but in reality is overwhelmingly and functionally instantiated as binary.
What’s the argument against the LTV?
Hence the term “gender role” which then was simply shortened to gender. I think that in todays society gender is simply taken to mean gender role(and thus differentiated from the traditional definition of sex) which exists on a bimodal distribution from masculine to feminine. I think we would all be better served if there is concensus and clarity with regard to these definitions if anything to prevent the ideologically possessed from slipping their nonsense through the cracks.
Alternatively we could just say that sex and gender mean the same thing and that out of this stems a behavioral variance that we often refer to as masculine and feminine which are in turn substantially driven by the underlying biology which itself is for all intents and purposes sexually binary. Now this doesn’t mean that we cannot turn a blind eye and entertain the whims of a few that wish to march to the beat of their own drum(as long as they behave and don’t try to shove their ideology down our throats) and to the degree that we do this we are in effect becoming social constructionists but IMO reality is reality we ignore it and run against it at our own peril.
I guess you could say that sex is teleologically binary but empirically ternary(assuming a high enough resolution). Depending on which perspective you approach this with you could readily take either position though it isn’t all that clear to me which one is the more progressive one. In terms of utility the teleological approach is better and by necessity would view those that fall outside the binary as errors. In terms of the empirical approach one could inject their own morality where the more empathetic approach would view them as just another rare but no less useful iteration. I tend to subscribe to a hybrid of the two in which clearly the teleological approach is fully indicative of the underlying natural modality but to prevent teleological misinterpretations and misapplications by necessity we must recognize the empirical/empathetic approach.
Sex comes down to biology and physiology. Gender comes down to societal/cultural expectations.
PP, Sailer still wins hands down. Jimmy gets some bright commenters, but he attracts enough #donthecon types to really do damage to his average.
Fausto-Sterling argues that sex and gender are social constructs but are simultaneously biological because they take place in the body. So to Fausto-Sterling, sex and gender are like what race is. (Even though one can take biological racial realism a step further and differentiate between social and biological aspects of race like Hardimon does.)
”So to me “extreme” are full blooded Marxists(mostly live in la la land) and hardened white supremacist ethno-nationalists(too low on empathy and too monolythic to realize that there’s good and bad in everything)”
Full blooded marxists are old marxists, and not exactly modern left.
The concept of extremeness can be relative. It’s dependable of used criteria. Normalized reality can be extreme, specially when it’s derived or based on absolute extremeness, as capitalism, for example. Capitalism is perfectly understandable if humans no have self-awareness.
“Sex comes down to biology and physiology. Gender comes down to societal/cultural expectations.”
That is not true! There are some societal/cultural expectations but that is more of a correction in order to maintain behavioral consistency and sanity. In other words it is a way to put a check against those that are predisposed or subject to alternative convictions. As you well know trending behaviors do take a life of their own sometimes and can take enormous effort to course correct. By in large gender is INFORMED and DRIVEN by biology. In other words the neurotypical male has a masculine predisposition because that is deeply engrained in his DNA and has very little to do with what society has to say. Neurotypical as in the norm or overwhelming majority. What lies outside this is not normative and as such we cannot use its existence to cast doubt on convention as some sort of arbitrary “social construct”.
Now we can quibble about the finer details and as a generally massculine individual I may have some somewhat effeminite habits but that is true of almost anyone. I think that within reason and to the degree that they make sense I should be allowed to retain those habits as i believe should be the case for anyone regardless of how far outside the norm they are however I think there HAS to be pushback against this because without it we run the risk of going severely of course.
Consider the possibility that we could go back to the norms of ancient Greece where a young boy was expected to have sexual relations with his mentor and that adult men often had sex with other men as a way of increasing their bond and ensuring a more cohesive and invested military unit. There is some logic to this but in todays society this has far reaching social ramifications that we realize that it would overcomplicate things to such an extent that it makes very little sense. So you see we can convince one another of all sorts of behavioral norms, I’m sure under the right environmental pressures we can make a gay man out of the most masculine of men but does that make sense? Just because behavior, personality/character and proclivity can be anything from 20 to 50% enviromentally induced does not mean that we have all earned a degree in social engineering and that biology goes out the window. Once we take a step back and look at the bigger picture and underlying causes, on average it is clear as day that gender(or gender role) is overwhelmingly borne out of our biology.
Conserfs believe ”things” exist ALWAYS OR FUNDAMENTALLY by some utilitarian reason. Why clouds exist* Why trees* Why stars**
First of all, ALL things in the existence exist simply to express itselves.
Things exist first of all in atomized way, to express itselves. Secondly, things are associate or are there in given system where they [derived and] will can be utilitarian as a mean and not just as a first-end, in itself.
Oprah
“Full blooded marxists are old marxists, and not exactly modern left.
The concept of extremeness can be relative. It’s dependable of used criteria. Normalized reality can be extreme, specially when it’s derived or based on absolute extremeness, as capitalism, for example. Capitalism is perfectly understandable if humans no have self-awareness.”
Well this is why we have abstract scales to measure where one lies politically from one end of the extreme to the other. This way we are not subject to arbitrary social trends.
Capitalism is not an extreme in and of itself. We can envision an extreme form of capitalism but unless we are brain dead we should not make the mistake of conflating that with what most people consider to be the ideal amount and form of capitalism. Remember that capitalism is primarily an economic model as is socialism(to some extent) there is far more to society than just capitalism. It is predicated on the idea of right of ownership and means of production. IMO it is a valid and necessary system, without it things are sure to fall apart. The question is how far do we let individuals go with their pursuit of economic capital and the associated power. My answer is as far as they want to go with wealth but no more than anyone else in terms of political power. Of course we are far from this in today’s world and we have a long way to go in order to stave off the amount of power that is aggregated by a few unelected individuals.
At the end of the day IMO the means of production should be a matter of negotiation. There are two aspects of any business endeavor. You have the investment side and the operational side. Workers fall on the operational side and I think it is their job to negotiate a better deal. My sense is that every worker should be entitled to a percentage of the shares of the profit in relation to the amount of work they put in. Nothing crazy but say an apple factory worker gets “floating shares” whose percentage differ compared to their work performance, hours they put in and overall company performance which they can cash out at the end of the year or simply cash out a portion. This means that they are more heavily invested in their job as this provides a shared experience with all employees from the CEO to the lowest worker.
At the end of the day though there is no way of getting round the fact that the investors should get the bulk of the shares/profits while the patent or trade mark owner owns the rights given he was the one that came up with the idea in the first place. Would you like it if you made a new invention and others took over production without your consent and gave you zero royalties. This is incredibly disincentivizing to inventors and entrepreneurs everywhere, they would dare not come up with anything new as they would always end up getting the short end of the stick. Even if their sole passion is the exercise of invention eventually the fact that they are getting shafted will leave a sour taste in their mouth. The idea behind this is that if you have the brains talent and work ethic you can do great things. The economic benefits that are associated with this are a measure of the value we put in people like this. In a way we are saying that Elon Musk is worth 20 billion to us, in that this is what we think he brings to the table. More often than not you will find that this evaluation of worth is fairly spot on(though sometimes we get it horribly wrong, the system is far from perfect). If we fail to award Elon Musk with what he is truly worth he suddenly turns into a Mark Cuban with the equivalent output and so on and so forth. Eventually low rewards lead to stifling progress. No amount of romanticization will induce a slavish devotion to invention(except maybe for the hard sciences which still retain some of their romantic appeal and it is a special breed of person that goes into those fields) without the appropriate rewards, not anymore, we are far too fragmented politically ideologically and ethnically(sad to say this matters but it actually does) while people are far too distrustful of one another seeing as how easily people are elevated and then driven into the abyss at the drop of a dime.
”Well this is why we have abstract scales to measure where one lies politically from one end of the extreme to the other. This way we are not subject to arbitrary social trends.”
It’s not always like that because many of these supposed neutral scales are not too neutral OR just correct.
Because something is normalized doesn’t it’s ideallly balanced.
”Capitalism is not an extreme in and of itself.”
Just your opinion, why not*
”We can envision an extreme form of capitalism but unless we are brain dead we should not make the mistake of conflating that with what most people consider to be the ideal amount and form of capitalism.”
”Remember that capitalism is primarily an economic model as is socialism(to some extent) there is far more to society than just capitalism.”
Capital + ism is itself a extremeness.
Because capitalism is [supposedly] primarily/conceptually an economic model it’s doesn’t mean cannot be extreme in practices and…
But… as well happen with socialism itself, capitalism IS a extreme economic model where currently is based on umbalanced SOCIAL-economic guidelines.
It’s inequality over equality
Competition over cooperation
Individual ownership over sharedship
It’s the dictatorship of merchant while socialism is the dictatorship of [representants of] proletariats.
”It is predicated on the idea of right of ownership and means of production. IMO it is a valid and necessary system, without it things are sure to fall apart.”
Things are sure fall apart, capitalism is chronically incapable to be ideally stable.
”The question is how far do we let individuals go with their pursuit of economic capital and the associated power. My answer is as far as they want to go with wealth but no more than anyone else in terms of political power. Of course we are far from this in today’s world and we have a long way to go in order to stave off the amount of power that is aggregated by a few unelected individuals.”
Capitalism as well socialism are categorically unphilosophical, unwise, exactly because their imponderacy..
”At the end of the day IMO the means of production should be a matter of negotiation.”
Yes, i agree, but you are talking about a perfect world where enterpreneurs are not mostly at least inside dark triad personality and/or most workers are exceptionally honest.
There are two aspects of any business endeavor. You have the investment side and the operational side. Workers fall on the operational side and I think it is their job to negotiate a better deal. My sense is that every worker should be entitled to a percentage of the shares of the profit in relation to the amount of work they put in. Nothing crazy but say an apple factory worker gets “floating shares” whose percentage differ compared to their work performance, hours they put in and overall company performance which they can cash out at the end of the year or simply cash out a portion. This means that they are more heavily invested in their job as this provides a shared experience with all employees from the CEO to the lowest worker.”
Division of labour was quite more simple and correct when or where humans live/d in hunter gatherers. The exhorbitant levels of inequality caused by capitalism where we have very few billionaires and millions of poor and poorest just show how irrational it is.
The problem is not how well-paid the worker is being, but its standard living. Elite standard living push all classes-standard living. It’s a machine of inequality and by exactly what***
Capitalism produce ENORMOUS SURPLES or useless products. Why*
Because creative merchants only want have fun/have money.
The fundamental or philosophical reason why the capitalism is MONEY.
Capitalists invented programmed obsolescence, why*
Profit.
Why countries have a MINIMUM salary and not a AVERAGE salary*
And, because HDDS know that most of inequality is caused by genetic differences in intelligence they must advocate for true balanced socio-economic balance. Sorry, i’m not answer your arguments directly because for me economics often sound chinese.
”balanced socio-economic balance”
😑
”At the end of the day though there is no way of getting round the fact that the investors should get the bulk of the shares/profits while the patent or trade mark owner owns the rights given he was the one that came up with the idea in the first place. Would you like it if you made a new invention and others took over production without your consent and gave you zero royalties. This is incredibly disincentivizing to inventors and entrepreneurs everywhere, they would dare not come up with anything new as they would always end up getting the short end of the stick. Even if their sole passion is the exercise of invention eventually the fact that they are getting shafted will leave a sour taste in their mouth. The idea behind this is that if you have the brains talent and work ethic you can do great things. The economic benefits that are associated with this are a measure of the value we put in people like this. In a way we are saying that Elon Musk is worth 20 billion to us, in that this is what we think he brings to the table. More often than not you will find that this evaluation of worth is fairly spot on(though sometimes we get it horribly wrong, the system is far from perfect). If we fail to award Elon Musk with what he is truly worth he suddenly turns into a Mark Cuban with the equivalent output and so on and so forth. Eventually low rewards lead to stifling progress. No amount of romanticization will induce a slavish devotion to invention(except maybe for the hard sciences which still retain some of their romantic appeal and it is a special breed of person that goes into those fields) without the appropriate rewards, not anymore, we are far too fragmented politically ideologically and ethnically(sad to say this matters but it actually does) while people are far too distrustful of one another seeing as how easily people are elevated and then driven into the abyss at the drop of a dime.”
The next human stage is CONCILIATE a stable/egalitarian nation with CORRECT progress. If was possible for humans go to sideral space why the final introduction of true philosophy in the center of social organization would be not possible* Try to think why.
“First of all, ALL things in the existence exist simply to express itselves.”
If that were the sole purpose of existence we would not be here. It would mean that yours and my ancestors would have expressed themselves out of existence instead of expressing you and me into existence. As much of an individualist as I am I find your way of putting things highly problematic. I guess we are here to do both express ourselves and move the world forward. That is what I mean by a teleological approach. Now don’t get me wrong I am not saying that since some gay or transgender people take themselves out of circle of life suddenly they have no purpose. There are many many purposes to life one of which(perhaps even the most important one for the average person) is to procreate. One of my favorite examples is Alan Turing gay and as far as we know no offspring(according to many this would make him useless to society) yet moved us forward far more than 99.9999% of people in the 20th century. My theory is that if you cannot do anything substantive and productive in life at the very least bring someone into this world and equip him/her to move us in the right direction, however slight that is.
EVERYTHING in this world can be seen through a teleological lense and whether that purpose is predifined or it is an emergent quality it is there, all you have to do is look for it. If there was no teleology to something it would not exist, the laws of nature, determinism and causality would simply not allow it to exist. The key is in making sure we do not let the wrong people interpret that teleology.
There are many many purposes to life one of which(perhaps even the most important one for the average person) is to procreate
I think sex, not procreation per se is very important to the average person. Since we evolved a strong sex drive, we didn’t need a strong procreation drive in order to procreate.
“Division of labour was quite more simple and correct when or where humans live/d in hunter gatherers. The exhorbitant levels of inequality caused by capitalism where we have very few billionaires and millions of poor and poorest just show how irrational it is.”
I think you would be well served if you took a look at the pareto principle or pareto distribution. The law goes as follows in any creative domain(art, science, business, etc etc) the square root of the people involved do produce half the work or creative output. Say in a company of 10 people roughly 3 would do be responsible for half the productivity. In a company of 100 people that is 10 and ten thousand people it is 100. the percentages go from 33% to 10% to just 1%. So you see as our groups get bigger and bigger and bigger(this applied to our hunter gatherer past as well) fewer people do more of the work and so deserve more of the share of the profits. Bring this to a complex system like the world we live in and you are bound to get all sorts of inequalities. Not through any insidious invention of anyone but rather borne out of what seems to be an intrinsic law in nature(the pareto distribution applies to virtually everything in nature).
What we can do to mitigate this is create the welfare system and other social means to at the very least minimize suffering. However my philosophy is as follows, why is it any of my business how much someone else has if they didn’t take it from me or they didn’t acquire it through some sort of illegal means. As long as i have enough then I should be content and focus on running my own race. If that person is mad enough to slave over becoming a billionaire then good for them they can become a trillionaire for all I care, provided they get that legally and they do not interfere in my life. Which is why i think we are far better off not worrying about how much money someone has but rather worry about how much power they have. My philosophy is money out of politics, period. You can live in your gated community, hell you can live on Mars if you can pull it off but stay the fuck out of people’s lives and the laws and regulations with which they decide to govern themselves.
“The physical variation underpinning race lies within a spectrum and is based on averages of clusters of traits. I could make any number or category of races I decide on and it would not be wrong because it can accurately pick out kinds in nature. No concept of race can circumvent this problem. Race is a social construct.”
You are forgetting another very important mitigating factor that makes race less of a social construct than you think. Well two factors in fact, geography and history. In other words races are separated not only by physical traits but also by geography and history. We can trace this as far back as written records take us and in many instances much further back than that. It is only in recent times that the concept of race has been obfuscated and this is primarily due to the “melting pot” experiment/concept of the US. There was a time that not only did people recognize the three main races but also many many other sub-races. Its only in the last 50 or so years that the European sub races have for all intents and purposes coalesced into one. Of course we can take this only so far, obviously all europeans have to some degree shared genetics history and borders so it is easy to blur the lines there but can we really do that with Asians or Africans? My point isn’t to push people further apart from each other or add to the tension, clearly we are all humans and we are similar to each other to an overwhelming degree but there are certain realities that we must not be afraid to acknowledge, what we must fear is what some might decide to do with that knowledge. Much like nuclear physics, it gave us the atomic bomb but it also gave us nuclear energy.
So I beg to differ, race is very much NOT a social construct, no matter how much some might want to obfuscate it as a concept or how hard it is to define or discern in people. The idea is that we should just view it as we view height or athletic ability or any other interesting phenomenon in nature. Fun, interesting, but at the end of the day not the end all be all in life and certainly no reason to fight one another.
Unfortunately more and more these days people are being divided by race adding fuel to the fire and surprisingly it is the left that is the major culprit this time. I have seen opinions from afrocentrists to white ethno-nationalists(on youtube mostly) and i’ve yet to see anything more than a wish to be left to their own devices voiced by whites while some other racial and religious advocates(muslims in particular) wish to exact revenge on the evil white man and wrestle power away from him. Now I’m sure that true hardened white racists do exist who hold the most obhorrent of opinions but they are few and far between(far less than any other group I have seen) and whats more they have been driven out of the discourse.
”If that were the sole purpose of existence we would not be here. It would mean that yours and my ancestors would have expressed themselves out of existence instead of expressing you and me into existence.”
Definitely you don’t get what i said, maybe because your excess of literalness…
I don’t said that things ONLY express by themselves BUT PRIMARILY express by themselves..
PRIMARILY OR FIRST OF ALL…
Your comments are too long, too pretend to be upper-analytical… because you FIRST OF ALL misread my conclusive point, i no longer will not waste my time [redacted by pp, March 8, 2019]
”As much of an individualist as I am I find your way of putting things highly problematic.”
REALLY* oh..
So, your individualismus is interferring in your heuristics.
”I guess we are here to do both express ourselves and move the world forward. That is what I mean by a teleological approach. Now don’t get me wrong I am not saying that since some gay or transgender people take themselves out of circle of life suddenly they have no purpose. There are many many purposes to life one of which(perhaps even the most important one for the average person) is to procreate.”
Final purpose of life is to live, procreation is the mean to this very end. Again, your first [redacted by pp, March 8, 2019]misreading of my comment make you write all this and even put a video of this PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHER, A PHISOLOPHER…
again, i tried to pay attention to your verborragy, i try…
[redacted by pp, March 8, 2019]
Try to read carefully what other people write…
My conclusive point is just correct,
Your analysis is just wrong because you put words in my hands..
Oprah-You
“Definitely you don’t get what i said, maybe because your excess of literalness…
I don’t said that things ONLY express by themselves BUT PRIMARILY express by themselves..
PRIMARILY OR FIRST OF ALL…”
First of all you wrote something to the effect of conservatives assigning utility to everything in somewhat of a derisive tone. Correct me if I am wrong but this sounded awfully reminiscent of my use of the term teleology in describing the purpose of things and so I thought that your comment was mainly directed at me. Before I continue allow me to set the record straight. I am not a conservative but find myself defending them as of late because I think that a lot of people on the left have lost the plot entirely.
Now I hate to split hairs but utility is not the same as purpose. Utility denotes usefullness almost always to human beings and purpose implies an ultimate end to a causal chain of events(useful or not) or an instantiated modality of something in existence. For example what is the purpose of the heart, it pumps blood around the body. What is the purpose of the moon, to orbits around the earth and is responsible for the tides. What is the purpose of the sun it emits light rays and creates heavier elements from lighter elements. In many ways teleology need not fit perfectly into some grand narrative but quite readily could be taken to be an attempt to derive meaning from things in existence. This is vitally important because meaning is how we make sense of the world. If something is meaningless it is senseless and the only things that are senseless are things that we do not understand. Of course you are kind of right, things do just exist but just existing says nothing about how something came to exist and how that existence impacts other things. This is where teleology comes into play while you will find that nothing in existence just exists without some sort of interplay with its environment suggesting an origin and an ultimate end(ie teleology).
“So, your individualismus is interferring in your heuristics.”
No, despite my individualistic tendencies seeing as how individualistic your interpretation of existence is I cannot find merit in your argument.
“Final purpose of life is to live, procreation is the mean to this very end.”
Technically the final purpose of life is life itself which we ensure by procreating. Your logic is very scrambled. If we are simply here to live then why not drop everything and just enjoy ourselves, why not “live” as you say? Well because within a couple of generations human beings will be wiped out of existence if we all follow that logic.
“misreading of my comment make you write all this and even put a video of this PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHER, A PHISOLOPHER…”
I don’t see why you took offence with what I wrote in that particular paragraph. It was a general observation and one that I thought was a fairly reasonable one to make.
“Your analysis is just wrong because you put words in my hands..”
No I think I understood you correctly, but even if I didn’t this does not make my analysis wrong. It merely makes my interpretation of your words wrong.
pumpkinperson
“I think sex, not procreation per se is very important to the average person. Since we evolved a strong sex drive, we didn’t need a strong procreation drive in order to procreate.”
Right, well i was referring to the current(and likely for at least as long as the family unit has been around) concept of procreation in as much as it is instilled in most people through pedagogy and perhaps natural instincts too though likely a little stronger in women than men. In other words most people today and for the last few thousand years are brought into the world in a somewhat planned way with the father and mother often times willful participants in the procreation. We have for the most part differentiated the act of sex in as much as it is fueled by our sex drive from the act of ensuring the continuation of life though its nice to know that we still have instilled in us this primitive instinct that will ensure our survival if suddenly all knowledge is lost tomorrow.
I think what you might be referring to is what we speculate might have been the modality in our more primitive ancestors and perhaps most animals today. Though that instinct is what got us here and is still what gets the machinery going I don’t think it is any longer the primary driver in moving us forward.
Also don’t underestimate the average person, most people know why they are having kids and its relative importance. The sex drive is for the most part now just a relic of the old programming, a fun one nonetheless.
Why my tolerance with useless verborragy is so low**
“First of all, ALL things in the existence exist simply to express itselves.”
If that were the sole purpose of existence we would not be here. It would mean that yours and my ancestors would have expressed themselves out of existence instead of expressing you and me into existence. ”
PRIMARILY OR FIRST OF ALL…”
First of all you wrote something to the effect of conservatives assigning utility to everything in somewhat of a derisive tone.”
I also dislike intellectual dishonesty. It’s so easy to show where you was wronged.. why not just accept ONE TIME in your life this battle you lost*
I was during an one decade believing conservatives were on very avg a bunch of son of bitches, careless about others BUT they, on very avg, at least, had the capacity to interpret reality relatively better than uppereducated leftists, BUT, right now, i’m perceiving i was superestimating them/you.
Why there are trees* The existence exist first of all to exist, to express ITself.
[redacted by pp, March 9, 2019]
”Correct me if I am wrong but this sounded awfully reminiscent of my use of the term teleology in describing the purpose of things…”
”and so I thought that your comment was mainly directed at me. Before I continue allow me to set the record straight. I am not a conservative but find myself defending them as of late because I think that a lot of people on the left have lost the plot entirely.”
Don’t waste your time defending people who are favor about all type of opression including about themselves. They are just like a race of horse, overdomesticated to be competitive and existentially alienated.
”Now I hate to split hairs but utility is not the same as purpose.”
well..
” Utility denotes usefullness almost always to human beings and purpose implies an ultimate end to a causal chain of events(useful or not) or an instantiated modality of something in existence.”
Translation required.
Yup, utility denotes usefullness..
Life no have a purpose, we who create anthropomorphic explanations for this, and in the end of day the fundamental reason of life is to live, to express itself, as well all other ”things” in the existence.
”For example what is the purpose of the heart, it pumps blood around the body. What is the purpose of the moon, to orbits around the earth and is responsible for the tides.”
Moon is a piece of a planet that hit the early Earth. All things are derived from something. It’s doesn’t mean the obvious: These things must express itselves before be associated to given system and have an utility.
”What is the purpose of the sun it emits light rays and creates heavier elements from lighter elements.”
Sun procreate* So you’re saying that sun do this things by itself, by self-expression…
”In many ways teleology need not fit perfectly into some grand narrative but quite readily could be taken to be an attempt to derive meaning from things in existence. This is vitally important because meaning is how we make sense of the world. If something is meaningless it is senseless and the only things that are senseless are things that we do not understand.”
Only things which are meaningless are things which don’t exist, for example, God or Oprah.
” Of course you are kind of right, things do just exist but just existing says nothing about how something came to exist and how that existence impacts other things.”
How not* It’s basically by self-expression of given things we can see how it impact another things…
” This is where teleology comes into play while you will find that nothing in existence just exists without some sort of interplay with its environment suggesting an origin and an ultimate end(ie teleology).”
Your entire try to counterargument is based on misreading.. it’s sad. I NEVER said what you understood.
”No, despite my individualistic tendencies seeing as how individualistic your interpretation of existence is I cannot find merit in your argument.”
Of course, you think you’re a master of self-knowledge…
”Technically the final purpose of life is life itself which we ensure by procreating. Your logic is very scrambled. If we are simply here to live then why not drop everything and just enjoy ourselves, why not “live” as you say? Well because within a couple of generations human beings will be wiped out of existence if we all follow that logic.”
COLLECTIVELY yes, but the fundamental identity of all life is the individual, i’m looking by subjective or individual perspective and not by collective, an abstraction…
”I don’t see why you took offence with what I wrote in that particular paragraph. It was a general observation and one that I thought was a fairly reasonable one to make.”
A phisolopher is always very offensive for a true philosopher.
”No I think I understood you correctly”
I’m sure you didn’t.
”but even if I didn’t this does not make my analysis wrong. It merely makes my interpretation of your words wrong.”
Yes, it’s make your analysis just wrong.
Sun iluminate,
Life… live*
”First of all you wrote something to the effect of conservatives assigning utility to everything in somewhat of a derisive tone”
It’s what they believe because they are sub-selfconscious humans.
You said utility is not a purpose, but on all of your examples you’re basically saying ”utility is a purpose”…
Life intent to procreate [in the correct lense, all life just want to have sex, not exactly to procreate, ;)] IS self-expression…gotchah
King MeLo
Also just because race is a far more complicated issue than gender does not make it a social construct. Like I mentioned for something to be a social construct it means that it must be substantially arbitrary, be equally likely to manifest in any number of iterations and be to a very large extent divorced from natural reality. Art, fashion, musical taste, social organizations(democracy for instance) or anything that readily lends itself to our subjective sensibilities are social constructions. Race most decidedly does not fit that bill for three major reasons, DNA, geography and history. All three exist in the real world(at least in principle) and are not arbitrary fabrications of the human mind despite their complexity.
Put more simply non social constructs are things that are not subject to human intervention(within a reasonable span of time) nor do they lend themselves to arbitrary human abstract conceptualization. In other words they occur naturally and they are what they are and will continue as such regardless of how much we try to tinker with them. Now we may wish to enforce racial mixing thus completely henceforth negating the idea of race but this does not mean that there once wasn’t a genetic differentiation between groups of people that could broadly be classed into races.
At least this is what a social construct means to me. Some would go as far as to say that anything that is shaped by man is a social construct meaning that even race to the degree that humans were at some point involved in bringing it to realization renders it a social construct. But that is a preposterous definition a social construct first exists purely in our own imaginations and can take any number of forms before we realize it while a non social construct exists in reality where our interpretation of it is bound by that reality(that is assuming we want to be intellectually honest). So race is real, is created by man across time but is not socially constructed at least not to the degree that you and I, anyone that is alive today, or anyone in our immediate ancestry had anything to do with it. It just is and has been so for several thousand years while the dynamics that created and maintain it are deeply engrained in our DNA and beyond the scope of our immediate ability to alter. With regard to gender likely been the case for many millions of years.
Now the name we give each race and some characteristics we attribute to them may be entirely fabricated and arbitrary but this is neither here nor there. By this logic all of science is a social construct because all the names and methodologies are of our own invention. You could say that our “social constructions” in that respect are simply a proxy for a deeper underlying reality and an attempt to get closer to understanding that reality a reality that has nothing to do with us and is not subject to our shifting whims and as such not remotely a social construct(ie gravity as opposed to currency).
Race is a social construct TOO, because cultural/collective aesthetic tastes were selecting desirable traits.
Oprah-You
Ahh now I remember why I decided not to interact with you any longer a while back. Your logic is all over the place(a genuine scatter brain if i’ve ever seen one), you fancy yourself a philosopher but you couldn’t philosophize your way out of a paper bag, and your english is beyond woeful. Case in point:
You seem to think that the phrase “first of all” is interchangeable with “primarily” at the beginning of a sentence. It is laughable how little you understand and I have not even started on your supposed philosophy. FIRST OF ALL, when used at the beginning of a sentence and virtually all other circumstances alerts the reader to the fact that what you are about to say is of chief importance. If you want to say that self expression is the primary modality(among others) then you say as much, you did not do that! The way you wrote it implied that the sentence that followed was central to your way of understanding the topic. First of all is used as a primer for the statement that follows and not used as part of the meaning of that statement.
Now you’re in luck because I am quite fluent in gibberish(I’ve had a lot of practice reading your nonsense) and know full well that you are a crackpot bigot who for some reason has it in for conservatives(now that is a big group of people you seem to hate). Is it because they don’t approve of your lifestyle? Whatever happened to “to each their own” or “live and let live” is that not a central theme of you looney far lefties? And for the last time I am not a conservative I am a classical liberal with libertarian instincts(very much a defender of your lifestyle) and sit comfortably just left of center on a standard political compass.
Now I hate to be mean but your attitude is simply horrible, if you cannot handle a debate then abstain, you don’t need to start insulting your interlocutor just because he disagrees with you. As for the rest of your fantasies regarding our conversation I won’t get into it, clearly all this is beyond the scope of your understanding.
“Race is a social construct TOO, because cultural/collective aesthetic tastes were selecting desirable traits.”
A social construct is something whose value meaning and utility is entirely constructed via social consensus. Once that consensus is gone or altered that construct loses all its value and meaning. For example gravity is not a social construct as regardless of what we believe gravity will be gravity and will still operate the same way. Want to challenge that notion, then try to jump off a building and you will soon find out how wrong you are. On the other hand currency is a social construct and despite the fact that it exists in the real world and is tangible, its value and meaning exists as long as we say it exists. The same for democracy, once enough of us decide that it is not a viable way to operate then it longer is. This notion of a social construct is not to be confused with literal physical things we construct including genetic clustering(ie race or ethnicity) though its pretty clear that race was not a planned endeavor it is for the most part beyond our control and borne out of natural social dynamics. The mechanisms by which it is brought about are beyond our scope to understand or readily alter while so far those mechanisms were deeply engrained in our DNA(in group preference etc). So do not conflate random mutations and natural selection with a social construct and in as much as race is already instantiated(how this came about aside) and subject to change over thousands of years no matter how we choose to view race we cannot alter it in the present or any reasonable length of time(without significant draconian measures). The genetics are the genetics, we cannot change our conception of them just because we don’t like what they signify.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I won again …
An ENORMOUS comment where you just show how childish and pretend to be rational you are …
first of all and primary are fucking the same thing …
Under your pedantic verborragy you contradict yourself and misread my fundamental comments by buying a whole wrong argumentation above and you had zero humility to accept it.
My problem about conservatism encompass social inequality, hate about arts and intelligence, an extremely cretine elite, materialism, countless stupid wars, extremely retarded ” religion ”, hate about nonhuman animals … a mediocre as a fundamental virtue, a ” normal ” as a state of supreme sanity ..
There are lgbts who are completely comfortable in this shopping, murrican trash culture societies, they just advocate for better respect.
I’m not like these gays.
You are intellectually dishonest, extremely pedantic and monotone …
Your well-wrriten essays here deserve an A + on grammatic school, congratulation sir !! 1
Not on phillolososophee ..
I ” destroyed ” your try to manipulate what I said, just starting with your primary misunderstood ..
I also hope you do not write to me again, too long to say too little and then use your rationalization skills to falsify your defeat.
Oprah
You wrote all that as some sort of rebuke to my response and general argument yet not once did you actually address my argument or try to counter the points I was making. So I take it I am wrong just because you say so…hmmm Alright supreme leader Mao, you call the shots! Clearly you do not have the intellect to properly debate me so you resort to cheap jabs and self affirming fantasies with zero logic or evidence.
As for my lengthy responses, I realize how much of a twit you are so i thought I might as well take the time to flesh it out for you but also because getting to the truth is hard, very very hard and intellectual honesty requires effort. You should try it!
As for your caricaturizing of conservatives, well that says everything I need to know about your intellect, I think bigot sums it up.
I suspect your IQ is in the mid 110s, you really aught to reign it in a little your tongue is running a little too fast for your brain to catch up. Doubling down on primary and first of all being the same thing only reveals how tragically stupid you are.
“first of all:
phrase of first
before doing anything else.
“first of all, let me ask you something”
most importantly.”
When used at the beginning of a sentence first of all denotes the importance of the statement that follows, you epic douche!! You could have said that “things primarily exist in order to express themselves” and i might have given you a pass. This leaves room for other things too but instead you started with first of all meaning “stop the presses, listen to what I’m about to say it is very important” turning your statement into more of an absolute statement.
Half of what you write is virtually unintelligible, ask PP to do a poll and see what people think. But regardless I can decode your gibberish and have realized that even your “phillolososophee” is discombobulated, incoherent, meaningless and ultimately irrational.
”Oprah
You wrote all that as some sort of rebuke to my response and general argument yet not once did you actually address my argument or try to counter the points I was making. So I take it I am wrong just because you say so…hmmm Alright supreme leader Mao, you call the shots! Clearly you do not have the intellect to properly debate me so you resort to cheap jabs and self affirming fantasies with zero logic or evidence.”
One of the most arrogant comments i ever read here. Well, it’s expected coming from you. I don’t value people by their professions, only sub-humans do this.
Many words, little insights, little interesting things to say. You look like a google answering questions.
Why you stopped to couterargue** Because you perceive you just lost.
I’m a great winner and a great loser. When i perceive i commit a mistake, a huge mistake, i’m mature or sane enough to admit it. What we have here is a typical ”cademical” sissy who live in a bubble and believe s/he is a genius just because a purfekt vocabulary and higher score on icube tests.
Your comments are BORING as hell.
I already said to you that socialism is far to be perfect, i just equalized it with capitalism. But, your short memory + intellectual dishonesty make you still insist in this self-humilliation.
Again, are you a RETARDED autist* A lot of this cheap i found in wrong planet when i was there. Rational, because your poor social skills* Don’t buy it, honey.
”As for my lengthy responses, I realize how much of a twit you are so i thought I might as well take the time to flesh it out for you but also because getting to the truth is hard, very very hard and intellectual honesty requires effort. You should try it!”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
CYNICAL!!!
”As for your caricaturizing of conservatives, well that says everything I need to know about your intellect, I think bigot sums it up.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ooooh, such prejudice’d.
conserfs don’t need to be caricaturized… on very avg, they are walking caricatures.
”I suspect your IQ is in the mid 110s, you really aught to reign it in a little your tongue is running a little too fast for your brain to catch up. Doubling down on primary and first of all being the same thing only reveals how tragically stupid you are.”
I suspect your ”iq” is higher than mine, BUT… but… it’s mean little about qualitative differences and you are showing without be self-aware how ridiculous you’re posing here. Be a man and admit you no have more arguments because i take it all from you.
Again, why you suddenly stopped to counterargue, sissyhead*
“first of all:
phrase of first
before doing anything else.
“first of all, let me ask you something”
most importantly.”
JESUS CHRISTUS,
aspergy is such a sad disease of mind…
”be four doin an’think elsa” = ”praimary”
Yeeaah, there are two meanings
importantly
AND
fbefore anything else = primary.
Often, primary IS most important. How a thing can exist without self-expressing* an, sissyhead*
”When used at the beginning of a sentence first of all denotes the importance of the statement that follows, you epic douche!! You could have said that “things primarily exist in order to express themselves” and i might have given you a pass.”
I googled this just to be fair if i don’t misuse a english expression wrongly.
And, no.
THE
SAME
FUCKING
THING
”This leaves room for other things too but instead you started with first of all meaning “stop the presses, listen to what I’m about to say it is very important” turning your statement into more of an absolute statement.”
It’s hurt you*
”Half of what you write is virtually unintelligible, ask PP to do a poll and see what people think. But regardless I can decode your gibberish and have realized that even your “phillolososophee” is discombobulated, incoherent, meaningless and ultimately irrational.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
New York Times ”praising” writers
Look like a ”smart” angry white academic woman from literature studies.
Well, if my engrish is IMPOSSIBLE to be basically understood how you can conclude ”my” philosophy is even more irrational than most of your ridiculous pills of your ancerters, sissyhead**
I don’t care if 98% of people here don’t understand my comments, but, i always think when someone says this he is just using it as an excuse for…
My engrish [again] is minimalistic. Maybe i write some incoherences, but most part of the time i’m in the intent to write in minimalistic way.
Oprah
Well its pretty obvious that you are a certifiable crazy person. No logic no reason no coherence in anything you write.
“Why you stopped to couterargue** Because you perceive you just lost.”
We’ve already established that logic is not your strong suit but it looks like it is a lot worse than I thought. In order for me to “counterargue” you have to make an argument or at least address my argument. Seeing as you haven’t…..
Now if you think that your onslaught of abuse and nonsense constitutes an argument then you are crazier than I thought. I’m sorry I’m not going to engage in a back and forth with a deragned lunatic. I have a little more self respect than that which is why i’m done with this exercise in regression. Good luck in life crazy person, I wish you well!
Wheres mugabe, have you banned him?
No I don’t know where the hell he went. Probably busy with something in his off-line life.
Where is your boyfriend*
israeli politics is very interesting. it looks like netanyahu will be indicted!
hahaha apparently affirmative action exists in china for tibetans and uighers and the native han call these students ‘pandas’ disparigingly. Haha thats a bit like my magic negro label
China has preserved the racial purity of Tibetans from potencial and real illegal Indian immigrants and has allowed them to become an larger proportion of the PRC and CCP through affirmative action and less restrictive population control (none really). Tibet when it was independent was a shithole but the Chinese has developed it more than any other agent in their history (outside of their medieva empires).
That is, the Tibetan medieval empire. They had influence in Bangladesh!
I think east asians and south asians dont actually like it much to mix their races with each other.
Or maybe its east asian and dark caucasians in general. Their genes dont mix well.
seems like an indian guy named ajit jain is being considered to take over verkshire after buffet. i know a bit about him from the snowball book. mugabe will hate him because hes an actuary that passed al his exams. jain is from the insurance part of buffets portfolio. i would imagine hes the highest iq ceo he has.
if u look at how google and mckinsey and citibank had indian ceos in recent memory i think its an example that indians can reach western standards if they fix their birth rate. indias number 1 issue is the babies. something china solved and started to geow as a result. i amgine south asians could reach western iqs with a better diet and sanitation and some eugenic economic policies
India still has a lot of population because it started with a high base population to begin with.
But after that, modern health care reached faster than the modern education sector did in many parts of india. It is easier to establish a dispensary than a school. This slowed down the slowdown of indias population. Yet now indias TFR is 2.3. The average married couple in india now has on avg the same number of kids as the avg married couple in the west. Except muslims. But even their population has slowed down in the last few decades. 30-40 years back they used to have atleast 7-8 kids per couple, now its around 4-5. With education and after that everyday expenses increasing by a lot like for eg:tuition fees for private schools and colleges increased by more than 200 % in the last 30 years. In some regions, by even more.
Or Greg Abel, Jewish Canadian
economist has a really good obituary on a guy who was involved with the chinese communist party from the start but later grew jaded. His life is a good story. Apparently mao hated intellectuals. He was a civil engineer so he was rare in the start of chinas 1 party state. Evebtually mao put him in solitary confineent and then exiled him.
Michael Jackson subscale ….. Iraq subscale…
Am i in Oz*
Catpeople is more Michael and Dogpeople is more Iraq
Why natural selection don’t favor homossexuality*
Blue eyes in Norway is a result of natural selection, or traits which become the majority of guven peupleleition… get it*
Natural selection also favor for diversity of many traits… justha’..
I wonder what the correlation to these question would be to the comprehension subtest? Also, how do autistic people do/score on the comprehension subtest on the WAIS IV.
Good questions Rahul! I think (adjusted for reliability) these types of questions would correlate better with comprehension than with any other Wechsler subtest. Autistics score lower on comprehension than non-autistics of similar general intelligence.
Knew the war was bullshit and was pretty clued up about what the reason behind it was. I knew about Michael around 93 though this was more likely due to the clued up adults around me at the time. I also predicted Trump would win the presidency in Nov 2015 when he was still campaigning for the primaries and not yet the clear front runner. Odds makers at the time gave him 47 to 1. Sadly i didn’t take the bet. I also predicted that Brexit in the UK would be delayed past the deadline almost 2 years ago, with a strong chance that it would be cancelled. It appears that they are giving it a 3 month delay and are laying the groundwork for a second referendum. I guess this makes me a social uber genius, yet I can’t seem to be able to maintain a relationship with a woman past the 2 year mark. Hmmm go figure!
Predicting trump’s win would have made a great item since so many political experts would have failed that one. Coulter & Michael Moore got it right, though only the latter was right about iraq.
Well I think that Coulter is an odd combination of an extremely smart but perhaps exceedingly unlikeable person. Michael Moore is a crazy person, a militant democrat that might have a fairly high social IQ given his prediction and rather entertaining and timely documentaries but something isn’t quite right upstairs with that guy.
Coulter is genuinely smart.
Michael Moore is a kind hearted person but maybe its his obesity that makes me think hes not as smart.
Coulter has similar enough opinions to me on immigration.
Coulter’s a good debater. I can’t say the same for moore.
To be fair moore makes entertaining documentaries on topics. It does take a lot of perception to imagine what people would find interesting about a topic.
OH WOW
Cenk just propositioned Trump to release his transcript and compare it to Cenks Wharton transcript (they both went to Wharton) and whoever has a worse transcript pays the loser 1m!!
The comments under the video are hilarious too.
Based on everything ive read, trump was terrible academically. I think he might have really bad ADD. Lots of salespeople and jocks are like that.
Ann Coulter is extremely smart when it comes to domestic concerns. And I would say the reason she previously failed on foreign policy is because she was closer to an establishment elite than what she is now, an anti-establishment elite.
The SJW
“Michael Moore is a kind hearted person but maybe its his obesity that makes me think hes not as smart.”
Michael Moore does appear to be kind hearted and I guess in some settings he is however I’ve seen him in enough interviews and the alarm bells are ringing wrt him. He’s ideologically posessed and perhaps a clauset Marxist. He considers Republicans his and the people’s mortal enemies which shows a lack of empathy in fact. People like that are very dangerous despite appearances as they follow an ideologically rigid approach and viciously apposed who they consider their enemy. At the same time I’m not entirely convinced that his kind heartedness is substantive and a practical one, it may even be to a surprising degree just for show. As for his overall IQ I cannot believe that someone that holds his political views is intelligent but I’ve seen smart people say stupid things often enough to realize that it is definitely possible. I would say his strength is his social IQ.
You see what I find incredibly worrisome and obtuse about Moore is that he wholeheartedly believes that subscribing to an ideology in as much as that by necessity requires some sort of adherance to conventional preconceptions and societal norms however they are constructed(valid or not) is far better to having no ideology or being the type of person that is hard to categorize. He therefore takes this logic to its natural conclusion and has become ideologically possessed himself. In fact he cites this as the primary reason that he thinks Trump is dangerous in that he does not appear to have a coherently consistent ideology. He thinks this leaves Trump captive to his personal whims and desires that are somehow a collection of the worst characteristics of your typical evil genius self serving capitalist white male. Of course this is utter nonsense and is more indicative of an intellect that is not well searched and paradoxically rigid and fearful of what lies outside the boundaries of ones preconceptions(a typical right wing modality as opposed to the left wing supposedly “open minded” one).
The fact is that Trump did what he had to do to win as most politicians do all too often. He pandered to his base but what differentiates him from Clinton is that in that political game he infused a great amount of raw truth(something that Moore himself admits). Clinton has waivered massively depending on the political winds and is far more guilty of this than Trump yet Moore seems to think that she is the smartest political mind in recent memory which is utter nonsense. This only reveals how incredibly ideologically possessed he is and despite operating on high doses of empathy and having an incredible social intuition and intelligence he lacks a huge amount of the remaining qualities required for a balanced and thoroughly informed intellect. In other words it appears the truth comes secondary to his ideology and his political loyalties.
What is quite telling is a video where as a youngster in the 70s he is questioning Miltion Friedman regarding corporate interests/profits(often cited as corporate greed) vs risk to human life(broadly speaking capitalism vs socialism). It appears that he has been a life long lefty heavily entrenched in all that it entails and strongly infused with an empathy that all too often ingores the facts and reality. They say that “If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain” and I believe that there is some truth to that or at the very least there is enough truth to it that Moore should have by now become a little less of a lefty yet that appears not to be the case. As such I think he is politically immature still carrying that naive mindset of his youth. Now is it more a matter of not biting the hand that feeds you(in this case the democratic party) or a sign of a rigid ideologically entrenched individual, is not all that clear to me.
@pumpkinhead I think “partisan” characterizes Moore better than “ideological.” To be ideological is to consistently adhere to a particular set of ideas about how the world works, without rejecting any aspects of your ideology or borrowing aspects from another one. This clearly isn’t the case with Moore. When midwestern Democrats were primarily white and working class (back in the 80s), he railed against neoliberal free trade in Roger & Me. In the run-up to the 2016 election, he went on the record supporting NAFTA in a debate with a hard-hat Trump voter.
Friedman is actually a great example of an ideologue. Have you ever heard him say anything opposed to textbook neoclassicalism?
And he didn’t do a very good job answering that kid’s question.
caffeine withdrawals
You are right, partisan may be a more fitting way to describe him. In fact partisan is primarily what I was alluding to though he is also failry ideologically possessed in as much as that pertains to to his central theme of rich equals evil and poor equals virtuous and good as well as his general socialist bent.
As for Friedman, I am not necessarily a fan of his but what i do like is his pragmatism something that goes way over the head of a lot of lefties. I beg to differ on the video, what Friedman honed in on was this preconception of corporate evil greed at the expense of human safety that was very characteristic of Moorse in that video. He still operates with that very same mindset which in my book constitutes ideological posession. I think socialists adhere to some of the most destructive ill informed and regressive ideas in society(even though a lot of them appear to mean well) which is why they almost always fail with anything they touch.
@pumpkinhead you’re right about Friedman’s pragmatism. He absolutely slaughtered Donahue back in 1979, who, like a lot of true believers, simply couldn’t comprehend basic cost-benefit reasoning and that the government can’t/shouldn’t solve every problem.
Moore has been consistent on “rich = evil” so far, but I can easily see him switching sides. If Trump wanted to break up some sort of monopoly in an industry dominated by Democrats (i.e. tech), I doubt Moore would endorse the breakup, even if there was a consensus among economists that consumers would benefit. If he felt that a protracted fight against the SEC could give the Democrats momentum by bringing more corporate donors to their cause, Moore might even come out in opposition. He’d salvage his credibility by framing it as an act of “resistance” against the Trump Administration.
caffeine withdrawals
I can’t say that i would disagree with your assesment here though i think it would be equally likely that he would simply remain silent on the matter. Clearly his optics are seen through the “orange man bad” lens but I think he might be a a little too socially and politically savvy to make such a blunder(as per our new finding regarding his social IQ). I will agree though that his loyalty to the Democratic party is second to none and as such he would likely be willing to bend the rules to fit the party line narrative if need be. Given how easy it is these days to forgive all sorts of ideological transgrassions and inconsistencies citing an existential imperative to oppose all things Trump he might be able to figure out a line of reasoning that gives him a reasonable out but I think it would be risky and would cause him a lot of damage in the long run.
I think a person being really fat like Oprah or Michael Moore says alot about their personality. But in oprahs case its largely genetic as its well known black women are larger than women of other races. In the same manner, many black women are more athletic than women of other races. Its a strange dichotomy.
Another gay date on the show. This time a polish guy. He had a funny story though. He said that once his father rang him and asked why there was a picture of him sitting in a mans lap….”wouldn’t people think youre a faggot?” and then he replied that if his dad ever wanted to see him again, he would see him with his boyfriend.
This funny and sad. Sad because of the shame and great pain gays bring to their families by living this lifestyle.
I find ocasio cortez quite good looking. She must be the best looking politician in america right now.
I remember people said Palin was good looking. Honestly, shes ok, but I often see better looking women just walking around the street.
The vast majority of female politicans are super ugly. I am not attracted to hilary at all even with all her plastic surgery
But for some weird reason I find Theresa May quite good looking, especially for her age.
You are kiddin
I also find her quite good looking as well, to be honest, despite being super right-wing. She’s a definite 6 – good for the average man. But she’s definitely not the best looking politician in America right now lol.
Palin looked good when she was younger, but I didn’t find her attractive during her running with McCain. And Hillary is disgusting and smells like sulfur. And Theresa May have looked good back in the old days, but she’s too much of a weirdo type.
Trevor Noah is such a horrible replacement for Jon Stewart. For his first joke, you can literally see him trying to remember his line and he still fluffs it. I don’t think Noah is a funny guy in real life. He doesn’t strike me as a natural comedian.
I think many white americans would be dumber than european whites even though on paper theyre similar genetically. I don’t know what is going on over there, but americans even look goofier and more childlike. It just goes to show you what happens when you let a high IQ minority take over the media and education…and so its quite ironic that meritocracy leads to people pulling the ladder up once they move social position.
Maybe Stephen Jay Gould can explain to me someday the 15 point IQ gap with Ashkenazi jews using a diagram, because all the other stories I’ve read don’t make any sense.
A lot of personality comes from people trying to overcompensate for their genetic predisopositions, from my observations. Another thing that strikes me as funny is that I’m a very empathic person, but that doesn’t always mean social success. Unfortunately, too much empathy can cause a lot of problems for someone because they get taken advantage of. Social IQ I think is relatively similar to being empathic, being dominant/Machiavellian, and then perceiving things correctly. I think that having an abstract idea about the underlying actions occurring while perceiving are also very important to identifying social intelligence.
However, social IQ is not objective, so it can’t be reasonably measured. I think there are characteristics of this world that are inherent, obviously, but to actually try to determine what is high social IQ and what is not is really difficult. People buy things due to various cognitive biases. At the end of the day, cognitive biases govern us and how we make decisions. So there’s no way of knowing what the truth is, unfortunately.
Everything is or can be objective, as well ”social IQ”, it’s just find the right criteria.
Personality is fundamental part of our intelligence. You must be ”autist” to believe personality and intelligence because different specializations, are completely separated. Personality often influence heuristic quality. BUT, different ”cognitive” biases often mean different ”evolutionary”/perspectives.
Some people want, consciously or not, a more competitive society because they believe or they feel they work better there.
Anothersome people want, consciously or not, a more egalitarian society because they [idem].
Less human you are more easily governed by your ”cognitive” biases you will be. Indeed, when people say ”cognitive biases” they want to say ”psychological-cognitive biases”.
Less human? I think subjectivity comes with labeling things, which derives from language. Concrete perception of the world is lost through language because we’ve symbolically rearranged the meaning of everything. Language can be used to create heuristics, which are then processed by people, and then diluted in one way or another. The initial framework of what is being perceived is lost, because the short-cuts/heuristics don’t add up to what was the intent of the person. Language dilutes whatever perception was initially there.
Social IQ has to do with conformity. If you can understand and perceive things the same way another person can, then you will be deemed socially intelligent.
Language is a great way of observing how people can interact. On the topic of verbal IQ, some languages favor more technical and objective/concrete language, while others are more intuitive and emotional. I think this is why East Asians score lower on verbal IQ in the United States, because their communication is very different and technical and is hardwired in the brain to communicate through visualized objects. Some languages have heuristics for visualizing what is being said, others do not. This is why things can be chalked up to being lost in translation, in my opinion. Because one language favors one style of thinking more than another, or plainly because one culture is more visual-spatial and the other is more intuitive/reactionary.
Subjectivity is about a perspective of a individual or even a given element/ an object.
LOADED
I really like the way you think man, you make some excellent points especially the bit about language. I’ve never been a fan of the idea that language is what allows people to think. Being the type of person that mostly thinks in images and symbolic logic(conceptually that is, not literal symbols) I often find that language slows me down and boxes me in. At the end of the day if we become slaves to language we are actually limiting ourselves to whatever perception others have of the words we are using. For this reason I often operate on two levels my own efficient reasoning level and another level where I try to put words to what I’m thinking when communicating with others. Now I realize I’m not the only person that does this but I’ve run into enough people that insist that they think in language and words that I wonder what percentage of people do this?
Having said that I’m not too sure about this one,
“Social IQ has to do with conformity. If you can understand and perceive things the same way another person can, then you will be deemed socially intelligent.”
I don’t think conformity has all that much to do with social IQ(in fact i think it might be negatively correlated) while I do think that there is an objective way to measure social IQ(at least in principle) it’s just that it appears to be very complicated and studies on the matter are still in their infancy. I think social IQ basically boils down to how well you understand others, their psychology, intentions, motives, body language and finally how well you can predict the behavior of others in one to one settings or the most important setting of all, large groups across time. Of course there is the intrapersonal intelligence which is just another variant of social intelligence but the spotlight is turned on yourself.
Understanding things the way others do requires a little bit of conformity in that you have to entertain their mindset and mode of thinking and in a way induce acceptance (on some level) of their perspective but IMO a person with minimal intelligence can do this. Its a trick basically, it doesn’t mean that you accept them wholeheartedly you would be a fool if you did that(some people are truly messed up) but you are doing it just enough to gain some insight into what they are thinking. I too am an empath, in that sense I understand what you are talking about because at some point you struggle to reconcile all the psychoanalysing you are doing which requires this acceptance but then find yourself in a position of having to reject their perspective or even head them off in a social setting. You feel like a fraud because one second you are “empathizing”(but not really) and the next you are rejecting but I think this is a necessary part of life. If you give in to your empathy/guilt(I think that a good chunk of our empathy is induced by feelings of guilt but that is another story for another time) too much people WILL take advantage of you.
Back to conformity then, I find that having a healthy dose of disagreeableness helps in navigating this world of “all sorts” while being predisposed to high empathy. As such I think that even the most sociapathic of people are capable of incredibly high levels of social IQ, they simply lack the empathy to stave off some of their more insidious impulses. So by my reckoning a high social IQ plus moderate to high empathy and extroversion will make for a very very popular person indeed. Empathy is a tricky thing because it depends on the setting, people you are with and time period. It’s only in recent years that empathy is all the rage, there was a time when you would have to hide your empathy for fear of being perceived as a softy a weakling or effeminate.
This is why I am somewhat of a proponent of disagreeableness(not too much of course) but in the right doses it can protect you in social settings, make you a good negotiator and make you less likely to give in to peer pressure, adverse conditions or even your own shortcomings. At least this is how I balance out my high empathy otherwise i would turn into a pushover.
As for subjectivity, I think it primarily takes over when we become slaves to our intuitions particularly when we haven’t properly calibrated them against our critical thinking. It takes a lot of thought to break free of our biases and our intuitions are fraught with all sorts of biases. When we are in the zone or in a zen like state of mind is when our intutions operate optimally against our critical thinking.
“Neuroticism seems to come about when there are contradictions in someone’s cognitive biases.”
This sounds a lot like cognitive dissonance. Neuroticism basically amounts to having a predisposition to experiencing negative emotions(fear, anxeity, embarrasment, emotional conflict etc). When those negative emotions are not balanced out properly or headed off with some kind of upper(I’m talking about natural uppers here, like seratonin or dopamine) then neuroticism sets in for good. The way I see it negative emotions are absolutely necessary otherwise we won’t be alerted of dangers. Problems start when they are too intense, not properly balanced(as I have already mentioned) and what I think might be the worse problem, when other people misinterpret them. This compounds your problem because not only do you have to manage your own negative emotions but also do damage control with others to ensure they don’t misread your situation. I think a lot of psychological issues in people start there. They start doubting themselves regarding their own negative emotions(which for the most part are ones own internal warning systems) and they start buying into other people’s interpretations of their emotions and intentions. This can lead to a very deep and dark hole which is why its good to have enough strength and disagreeableness to shake it off and assert oneself. People can be very unforgiving if they deem you a threat or catch you out of sync with your environment. I’ve seen a lot of otherwise decent people be driven into the ground and labelled everything under the sun because they didn’t properly address the social dynamics developing around and within them.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it got moderated, so I’ll say it again. Conscientiousness is all about projecting your ideas onto the world. Basically, we have a set of inherent things we believe, we project onto others, and expect them to comply. As pumpkinhead mentioned, that is the conservative narrative.
Agreeableness seems to be accepting the worldview that is common at that time. Openness is trying to find new ways to answer old questions. Extroversion also seems to be accepting the mainstream or trying to influence other people into accepting your thoughts on society. Neuroticism seems to come about when there are contradictions in someone’s cognitive biases.
This is kind of a breakdown of the Big 5 without too much in-depth analysis. It’s just a brief overview as to how different personality types interact with the environment around them.
But the actual definitions of them are something like this:
https://www.verywellmind.com/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-2795422
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
High
Spends time preparing
Finishes important tasks right away
Pays attention to detail
Enjoys having a set schedule
Low
Dislikes structure and schedules
Makes messes and doesn’t take care of things
Fails to return things or put them back where they belong
Procrastinates important tasks
Fails to complete necessary or assigned tasks
According to the table i am low in conscientiousness. By the first three points. But with
regard to other points. i like working on a schedule and i like a structured work environment. Possibly because i pay less attention to detail in a physical space. I take care of things in the workplace or home. But i make a mess. I also procastrinate important tasks but i complete them.
Also regarding agreebleness
Has a great deal of interest in other people
Cares about others
Feels empathy and concern for other people
Enjoys helping and contributing to the happiness of other people
Assists others who are in need of help
Low
Takes little interest in others
Doesn’t care about how other people feel
Has little interest in other people’s problems
Insults and belittles others
Manipulates others to get what they want
I dont have a great deal of interest in other people. Not even some interest.I mean astuff like whats going on in their lives,visitng their parties or birthdays of them and their friends,family. But icare about people,feel empathy and concern and tremendously enjoy helping them or others. I get tremendous happiness if by my help somebody big problem had been solved. Growing up i had a saying by myself for myself ”contribute to others happiness’. And coincidentally this has been part of the definition too.
And i am high in neurotism/openess partly and low in extraversion
regarding nuerotism i dont struggle to bounce back. But all else is there. Neurotism is influenced a lot by lifestyle and health habits too. Late sleep, smoking, drinking beverages like coffee/tea at late evenings or at night times, or even drinking alcohol daily or drinking it extremely in the weekends or presence of depression/anxiety all contribute to it.
It comes by a contradiction in what they want to do with how well they are being able to do it and how much it matters to them how well they do it.
And regarding agreeableness i dont manipulate people or belittle them. I would request or convince or sometimes even scold people into doing something rather than manipulating them into doing it.
But i insult people when i get angry. But i feel really bad after i do that. And i am working very very hard to reign in my temper.You should have seen me a couple of years back,
Those are formal interpretations of what each personality type demonstrates. My interpretations are a lot more analytical and in-depth than the one that you made. Regardless, I don’t think anyone on this blog is as empathic as me. You might care about a select group of people, but when it comes down to it, do you empathize with various strangers, many of whom need something from you? How many characters in a movie can you empathize with? Reading comprehension is also another way of investigating how well someone can empathize, by accurately judging the other person’s intentions, etc.
If anybody…anybody comes to me for help if i can do it i will do it. And what characters in movies are you talking about, give an example?
except bout extroversion, i think your interpretations of them were i think wrong.
well, let’s say you were watching a stereotypical movie about good and evil. Let’s make it a classic Western, so everyone on this blog can understand. How many of the characters in this movie could you relate to being? Can you understand where each character, good or bad, is coming from? Can you see why the character would act the way they act? These are things that clue into empathy.
Is that a trick question?
It is one thing to watch a movie and being all empathetic about it, and another thing entirely how empathetic one is in real life.
Real life empathetic behavior and actions are what empathy is.
Empathy in real-life can be used for both good and evil. Empathy is just the ability to understand others and see where they’re coming from. This can be used to either take advantage of someone, manipulate them, etc. or to better the outcomes of another person. In real-life, you have limited choice with who you can empathize with because society forces us to empathize with certain people and shun others.
However, a movie or a novel indicates how well you can read the intentions of many different people, how you can associate with them, whether or not you can tell where they’re coming from and their motives. So it’s a whole new ball-game to empathize with someone who isn’t real, because not only is it difficult to do so, requiring greater empathy, but also requires greater flexibility because you know more details about a person than you do in real life.
I do agree with you that being empathic in real-life is a lot more indicative of empathy, but empathy towards characters in fictional settings is also a good proxy for judgment.
You do know that most of empathy is not a choice? People who are truly empathic suffer from it, not benefit from it. I would say I score very, very high on being empathic for a male. I’m a pescatarian (I eat seafood for nutritional reasons) by choice, I care a lot about the human race and how it fares, etc. Honestly, if you truly are empathic, at least in this society, you end up regretting it more often than not.
Again, though, empathy can be used by people who understand your motives and feelings and manipulate you.
Loaded,
”Empathy in real-life can be used for both good and evil. Empathy is just the ability to understand others and see where they’re coming from. ”
Yes i know. That is why is why i said empathetic behavior.
Also, there is cognitive and affective empathy.
But in a movie there is stuff like background music too to help with the empathizing. And the characters in the movie or novel usually interact with other characters in it than with person watching the movie or reading the novel.
Good points, Name.
I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, but the points you bring up are a lot more intuitive in nature, rather than having a more abstract judgment.
I am very high in openness, in agreeableness, in conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism. My genes reaffirm all this, except there is no measurement of extraversion yet, and I am average in terms of neuroticism. I also have a very, very high predisoposition to risk-taking, like somewhere in the 95th percentile according to a report by GenePlaza, but I would say I’m very risk-averse in real life.
”I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, but the points you bring up are a lot more intuitive in nature, rather than having a more abstract judgment.”
Its the other way round.
”I am very high in openness, in agreeableness, in conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism.
My genes reaffirm all this, except there is no measurement of extraversion yet,
and I am average in terms of neuroticism.
I also have a very, very high predisoposition to risk-taking, like somewhere in the 95th percentile according to a report by GenePlaza, but I would say I’m very risk-averse in real life.”
Whats up with that emoji, Santo?
Your sentences are in contradictions.
To know about Iraq is not a ”social iq” test, sorry for that.
Social intelligence is a contextualized emotional intelligence, the capacity to understand the true intentions of another people and use it to the good or the not good, correctly.
”having an objective personality that is not easily swayed by groupthink.”
Ahem. Crowley.
i’ll get to it sometime this month, like i said.
also “Elite” = “Isra-Elite” its right in our faces who controls the world.
So when is the macho mans IQ analysis coming?
this week?
In French media, many intellectuals and artists, after seeing the documentary say Michael Jackson couldn’t be a paedophile because he was a child himself (wich even literally doesn’t make any because a child abusing sexually another one is a paedophile …. )
How much more emphasis on detail is put in RPM as compared to WAIS IV matrix reasoning (I think a part of the score differences between 16-17 year olds is because of the detail)
Isn’t social IQ more than just knowing about how bullshit politicians are, and How agenda based they are?