Anatomically Modern Humans first appear in the fossil record around 300 kya, yet we do not leave Africa until 50 kya. So for 250,000 years, we were confined to a single continent.
Perhaps this is an example of what paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould called Punctuated equilibrium, the theory that evolution is not gradual, but rather is a characterized by rapid explosive changes, followed by long periods of stability, followed by rapid explosive change etc.
So from 300 kya to 50 kya may have been a period of stability, since we had acquired the ability to conquer Africa, but apparently couldn’t leave (perhaps because Neanderthals were still superior to us at that point and thus would kill us the second we entered the Middle East, or perhaps we were still too dumb to survive the cold Middle Eastern winters)
Then, as paleontologist Richard Klein has noted, this long equilibrium was punctuated by a great leap forward in adaptive behavior. After spending 250,000 years confined to one continent, our species suddenly colonized five new continents in just 40,000 years.
So our ability to colonize jumped from one continent per 250,000 years to one continent per 8000 years (a 31-fold increase!). What caused this explosive change? Probably some mutation(s) in Africa that gave us the intelligence to leave, (as Klein claimed) quickly followed by natural selection for even more intelligence as we encounter cold climates our tropical bodies weren’t built for (as psychologist Richard Lynn claimed).
In the book The 10,000 year explosion, the authors imply another genetic revolution when agriculture occurred. Indeed
anthropologist John Hawks claims positive selection in the past 5,000 years has been roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution and is quoted as saying ” We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.”
On the one hand, such rapid evolutionary change makes sense. There’s been more technological progress and population size increase in the last 5000 years than in all of previous human evolution combined, suggesting that maybe we’ve become smarter since the neolithic transition.
On the other hand, if people living 5000 years ago were more similar to Neanderthals than they are to us, why are they considered members of our species and not the Neanderthal species? Obviously they’re much more similar to us, at least when it comes to the skeletal traits used to distinguish members of the Homo genus.
Also, brain size has not increased since the end of the Paleolithic and may have even decreased, and our ability to draw (a crude proxy for IQ) , also may have even decreased. CBS news reports:
A new analysis of 1,000 pieces of prehistoric and modern artwork finds that “cavemen,” or people living during the upper Paleolithic period between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago, were more accurate in their depictions of four-legged animals walking than artists are today. While modern artists portray these animals walking incorrectly 57.9 percent of the time, prehistoric cave painters only made mistakes 46.2 percent of the time.
Also, if there’s been such rapid evolutionary change in the last 10,000 years, why hasn’t our ability to colonize new locations increased? We saw a huge increase in colonization ability 50,000 years ago as we jumped from colonizing one continent per 250,000 years to one per 40,000 years, but we haven’t colonized anything in the last 10,000 years, not even Antarctica. This suggests no increase in intelligence since the upper Paleolithic.
On the other hand, we went to the moon which is arguably the equivalent of colonizing a hundred new continents. Or did we? A lot of people think that was a hoax designed to elevate the U.S. above her Soviet cold-war competitors, and while I wouldn’t go that far, if I were a conspiracy nut I would find it suspicious that a) we did this with crude 1960s technology yet can’t seem to do it again today, b) we can go to the moon but we can’t colonize Antarctica, and c) East Asians never went to the moon, despite having the highest IQs.
The strongest evidence that we’ve become smarter in the last 10,000 years is that East Asians score about 14 IQ points higher than Arctic people according to Richard Lynn, even though both are big brained cold adapted Mongoloids that split from a common ancestor before the neolithic transition. Similarly, Lynn found the same pattern in Africa: Bantus score 12 IQ points above Bushmen. This may suggest that the 10,000 year explosion added nearly 1 SD to our IQs. Or it could suggest that Lynn’s data is flawed or that extreme differences in environment (not DNA) explains the IQ advantage East Asians and Bantu have over their hunter-gatherer cousins.
Pumpkin Person 
I think the failure to colonize Antarctica is best explained by the fact that no one wants to. Unless you’re a scientist measuring ice sheet melt that’s willing to subsist on astronaut food for months at a time, what’s the point in living somewhere where a warm day is 30 below?
Also, the thought of Paleolithic humans being more intelligent despite lacking a written language is pretty interesting.
Of course you wouldn’t want to go to Antarctica. Places like Antarctica are places in which you try your best to adapt, not voluntarily want to go to.
“Probably some mutation(s) in Africa that gave us the intelligence to leave”
Just-so stories.
“Also, brain size has not increased”
Refuted by Deacon in two papers and his book.
“This may suggest that the 10,000 year explosion added nearly 1 SD to our IQs.”
What’s the argument that IQ tests test intelligence and not class-specific knowledge and skills?
Pumpkin, how conceptually similar are the specific items between Ravens Matrices and WAIS IV matrix reasoning?
Not that similar
Pumpkin, are the differences between the ravens and the wais iv matrix reasoning like the differences between the matrix reasoning items in the WAIS. Hence, a very low practice effect between the two?
This post confirms it for me. 50% of people are republican. 25% of people publicly claim to be liberal, but are secretly republican. 25% of people are actually liberal/too dumb to be on a side.
Puppy why are you questioning the moon landings all of a sudden? CNN says the moon landings happened, isn’t that good enough evidence?
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/06/callum-hudson-odoi-evil-racist-abuse-must-stop-england
Very amusing article.
Why and how exactly is that an “amusing” article.
Might be going to Bayern
Well we dont all have autism like you do.
In high school I volunteered with mentally retarded teens. There’s always one retarded teen who is in denial about his retardation & copes by calling other retarded teens “retards”
I think the same is probably true of autism & pill is like the one autistic in denial , lashing out at the others because he can’t cope with his own self-hatred
peepee wouldn’t post my article on an israeli rabbi who loves hitler.
here it is again: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/israeli-military-praising/
“I think the same is probably true of autism & pill is like the one autistic in denial , lashing out at the others because he can’t cope with his own self-hatred”
Next Puppy will say I am a jewish black man.
so the C-S diagram is only surprising in ONE respect…
filipinos n shieet are their own race…
less like japs, koreans, manchus, hakuho than whites are…
but via obvious phenotype i (like most) ignorantly grouped them together.
hakuho = jack dempsey
https://images.app.goo.gl/dTGSuC29DWUq694X9
https://images.app.goo.gl/drJGwZhEynxoWcbJ6
indo-europeans = chinese…northern savages conquering farmers.
dempsey and hakuho look alike.
so the grouping of NE asians with SE asians is the ONLY error in the grouping of peoples…the only error made by europeans.
Flips, Japs, and a variety of other Asian slurs…I mean groups…have non-human ancestry. They’re descendants of Denisovans and of other hobbit-like humans. Specifically the Ainu, whom you’ve brought up countless times. That’s why there’re actually creative people in the East, because of this ancestry.
mongolian vs non-mongolian chess…
very not what one might expect but…
non-mongolian chess greats are much more boring starting with capi. much more “positional”.
spassky is the possible exception.
There’s definitely been a eugenics of sort since the advent of agriculture; maybe not physically, but cognitively, yes, we’ve become very, very smart. Our reaction times might’ve gotten slower, but our cognitive abilities to reason and rationalize are higher than our primitive ancestors. Our ancestors were so fucking primitive that it’s ridiculous. Their social intelligence might’ve been off the charts, on a primitive level, but anything with a touch of complexity could not be processed by our most primitive ancestors.
It makes sense, too. The cultural complexity of hunter-gatherer societies are a lot less than the societies we see today. The reason hunter-gatherers never innovated was because there was no need to innovate. They were a culturally stagnant people lacking symbolic intelligence. Sure, they could think in visual symbols, much like the rudimentary Chinese do, but nothing compares to using verbal representations than now.
Hunter-gatherers were a primitive group of people. You can tell by their descendants that they would’ve been primitive. The average Amazonian tribe or whatever is indicative of this. There’s a clear and substantiated lack of self-awareness and awareness of others aside from basic human emotions. That’s why I think the Chinese are so primitive too. They lack the basic decency to see outside of their own scope of thought. They think in complex terms about themselves, but not about the world. It’s truly tragic.
Anyways, I think it fundamentally comes down to the fact that you can see the descendants of hunter-gatherer societies are a lot less complex than the ones now. Complexity of society is a great indicator of individual intelligence. Complexity through civilization is a great indicator of the average person’s intelligence, because like RR always says, real-life beats out intelligence tests every time.
Gregory Clark analyzed wills in pre-Industrial England and found that the people with the highest fertility were wealthy commoners (like merchants). The poorest testators did not have enough surviving children to replace themselves. Because disease was so prevalent in London, new people had to be constantly fed into the meatgrinder from the countryside, and once they were in London they’d either sink or swim on their merits (Shakespeare could be a good example).
If this fertility imbalance existed for long enough, there should be selection for “capitalist” traits like industriousness, low time preference, lawfulness, and presumably intelligence. Groups that were not exposed to settled agriculture for thousands of years would be primitive in the way you describe. Some possible support for this is that hunter gatherers work very few hours, seem to have very high time preference, and groups like Australian aboriginals have difficulty finding success in modern societies.
An objection might be that hunter gathers that never developed agriculture are not representative of all pre-Agriculture hunter gatherers. If this were the case, perhaps you could transport an ancient baby HG to the modern world and he would fit in fine. But I think he would be lactose intolerant.
On brain size, I have mentioned before that Clark claims there is a sex imbalance in stone age skeletons.This would imply a bias towards larger skeletons, but I don’t have any citation for this. By his admission, it complicates Clark’s own arguments. But I don’t know what his source is.
Yes you would expect an increase in brain size if there was selection for IQ in pre-industrial England unless the rise in genetic brain size was masked by increasing malnutrition or if the selection was somehow only on other neurological properties that increased IQ
Yup, those traits did lead to the constitution of people we see in modern-day society. I’m more fascinated by what traits were selected for after the Industrial Revolution. Everyone’s always claiming dysgenics this, dysgenics that, but I don’t see any strong decline in cognitive ability. From my perspective, I see it as though people of a certain class, the middle class, are reproducing the most in absolute numbers, and in proportional numbers, the smartest of the illiterate classes are having kids. But Pill’s gonna come in and say something like “they’re all on welfare.” Not really, that’s a small fraction of the reproducing population.
IIRC, the DRD4 gene, specifically the 7-r variant, is prevalent at very high rates under the indigenous peoples of South America, according to a Razib Khan article. I think this is a primitive trait as it leads novelty-seeking, impulsivity, etc.
I think this a very primitive trait, tbh. Look how I never use the word “Archaic,” because archaic can be a good thing too. Primitiveness is really a negative thing. It leads to confrontational behavior, a lack of impulse control, more animalistic thought patterns, driven by only compulsive behaviors to serve the urges that they have, etc.
You can see primitive traits in anyone. I think it comes down to gene expression, really. Sometimes, the epigenetic expression of certain characteristics happens at a generational level, where everyone or a good foundation of the population will express certain things because of it. This is an answer to why there are memes, Mikey, because epigenetics forces a thought to act on the genes itself in a way that will cause for that idea to be most prevalent in the population.
Epigenetics explains everything about memes perfectly.
We’re eating like our primitive ancestors, or the stuff we’re eating is the stuff our ancestors might’ve eaten, so it might be a good indicator of how epigenetics works, by having modified foods, etc.
Agriculture is not a curse because it domesticates, it is a blessing. The primitive man never evolves and self-actualizes.
The thing about Neanderthals is that the traits that were selected for by modern-day H. sapiens are not representative of the entire population’s geno and phenotypes. It’s called genetic drift. Obviously some characteristics will show up in the ancestral gene pool because they were your ancestors, but it’s worth noting that that specific trait varied as much as any other. That’s why when you look at neanderthals, maybe the specific traits we see today are there because they were selected for at a higher rate and they survived longer than the other traits neanderthals had. Makes sense, right?
I’m watching the court case of Jodi Arias. It seems like you need a pretty good social understanding to be a criminal lawyer. It’s a very interesting case, and I think you should talk about it someday on the blog. Also, what would the average comprehension and picture arrangement score of a lawyer be? They probably have a pretty high composite score of similarities, vocabulary, and information, because you have to be able to grasp and reason pretty well, but a lot of cases involve social situations.
Also, does a high grasp of verbal information (vocab, information), compensate for an average similarities score? Also, would people with a baseline score of 12 on the similarities subtest regress to the mean?
Also, are the Ravens items compared to the WAIS IV matrix reasoning items, are the differences between the specific items conceptually like the conceptual differences between the matrix reasoning WAIS IV items themselves?
My thoughts on the article- I could be completely wrong about everything, I know jack shit about this topic, but a lot of changes that happened to the biodiversity of the planet definitely happened because of sudden changes. Evolution itself has to come from sudden changes, because if there is no change, there is no need to adapt differently. Evolution comes out of necessity, changes in the pattern would allow for new ways to adapt. For the Antarctica stuff- We should also look at the amount of times we visited the moon vs the amount of times we visited Antarctica. We visited the moon a few times, and it generally takes a shit ton of money, and we did it quite sparingly. There are people in Antartica (they are scientists however), and they make it alright. But, Antarctica is not a forgiving place, you can’t farm there, it’s difficult to get to, especially by boat. It’s discovery was in 1820, that’s pretty damn recent in historical terms. It’s incredibly difficult (probably impossible) to build shelter on there. Going to the moon vs colonizing Antarctica are on completely different spectrums.
The games today are incredible. They are hitting it out of the ballpark now. Just playing the new Tomb Raider game and while its very different to the classic ones from 20 years ago, it stands up in its own right.
That said, I would like if they did a new version of the old ones with the puzzles and all that. Its very satisfying solving the puzzles.
God of War 4 was also great. More like an rpg than a typical hack and slash.
Actually Resident Evil 2 was remade and they brought back all the puzzle stuff and the running around with items to fit into various things. Was very fun. I always finish RE games with like 5 handgun bullets or something. You really have to be very efficient with items.
I really enjoy watching CNN and their danish producers freak out that a ‘race-ist’ won the presidency. Ahhh yeah, #Trump2020
I remember watching trumps very first ever campaign rally on youtube the next day. After I finished watching my friend turned to me and said “Hes going to be the president”.
I said no, hilary will win, they will never let someone like trump win.
God Bless America.
I said no, hilary will win, they will never let someone like trump win.
Which proves there is no single master running everything. There’s just an amorphous group of oligarchs struggling to maintain their control of the masses.
Though trump is still a puppet on foreign policy. And the very fact trump can be a puppet for one subgroup of elites (neocons) yet rebel against another overlapping subgroup of elites (The media) should tell you that there is no one master calling the shots.
There are just hundreds of people who have achieved wealth & power in a diverse variety of fields; a disproportionate number of whom
come from high IQ tribal ethnic groups that conspire, but some of whom are just high IQ aspire nerds with no political agenda & a tiny percentage are even entertainers like trump himself was. There is no one elite or even one type of elite
I absolutely love Pumpkin. He is the most self aware intellectual. The man is a secret down to earth rough and tumble conservative, that simply appeases the liberals and elites.
There are just hundreds of people who have achieved wealth & power in a diverse variety of fields; a disproportionate number of whom
come from high IQ tribal ethnic groups that conspire
im bout to post this quote to fb right now.
And remember that these elites use correct moral and or intellectual stuff to blackmail or convince people… but based on stubborn right wongers here, what elites use as weapons is always wrong…
dude take your meds.
pill uses “master” in a dramatic sense, the drama between master and slave. he’s not using it to refer to a single all powerful elite.
and the personification of the powerful is useful. it’s much easier to think in terms of dramatis personae than in terms of polyarchy or whetever. and propositions involving the dramatis personae can always be interpreted in a way which makes them true.
peepee is too “literal minded”.
russia-gate is obviously a conspiracy of the legal sort though. this is obvious to eric weinstein and me.
the problem is the legal system and american ideology simply doesn’t recognize conspiracies of other sorts, which can be much more damaging than accepted de jure conspiracies.
pill uses “master” in a dramatic sense, the drama between master and slave. he’s not using it to refer to a single all powerful elite.
No, he literally thinks there’s an all powerful secret elite of centibillionaires who conspire to control everything. He finds it impossible to believe “aspie” geeks like bezos & gates could actually be the richest people in America, so he imagines a secret group controlling them & everyone else
He doesn’t understand that a few dozen tribal billionaires much poorer than bezos can be collectively far more powerful despite having less individual wealth or power, thus he must imagine secret people richer than bezos
”Blaze”,
do you have any one here to give to me*
I don’t want your opium…
I have to agree with Pumpkin on this one. im not saying its [redacted by pp, may 7, 2019]
1. Yes there is a small group of people with more power than the president or most publicly known billionaires like gates and bezos.
2. This is documented in Devil Chessboard up until nixon.
3. I only asked if people thought the central banks exist to male a plantation. Im not sure how that works. I know for a fact the soviet central bank printed and handed money to individuals during communism.
4 Every country doesnt necessairly have kings but they definitely have kingmakers.
So i learned how to pitch a tit, setup a campsite, skin an animal, and cook it. (hunting is the easiest part, point and shoot, its ridiculously OP.)
What really blows my mind is the fact, a single deer kill is about 3 thousand dollars of boneless meat and 3 thousand dollars of boned. Literally 1 grown adult male deer, will net you about 1 month, a month and a half if your frugal, of meat. Thank John Gorrie for building the refrigerator.
All of these homeless people living in the city, begging and addicted to drugs, could easily EASILY, EASILY!!!!!!! Live a perfectly normal life as nomadic, hunter gatherers out in the countryside, with a few days of training at most, and less than a hundred dollars spent at Walmart for tools.
Its absolute brainwash.
84% of the United States’ inhabitants live in suburban and urban areas,but cities occupy only 10 percent of the country. Rural areas (villages) occupy the remaining 90 percent.
not only that, but it’s brainwashing by the psychopathic capitalist class that poverty in the US is necessary. it isn’t.
Pumpkin i’m thinking about buying a 1990 practice sat book with 10 practice tests.
After I complete one test, will it predict my IQ accurately?
In my opinion the only test that’s super accurate is the wechsler, but other people disagree.
Will these practice tests give you scores using the same scale used in 1990? If so that’s quite interesting because the SAT had a HUGE ceiling around the mid 80s
Where would you find such old practice tests?
https://www.amazon.com/10-SATs-Advice-College-Prepare/dp/0874473667
I’m taking the wechsler in three days but it won’t be 100 percent accurate since I looked up what’s going to be tested. You also told me to take it cold which make sense. Does me knowing what’s going to be tested really going to effect my score?
I’d think Weschler plus some other IQ tests (SAT, Wonderlic), would be very useful combined.
I’d think the 90s one would be accurate, but you’d have to subtract points because of the flynn effect. 28 X .3 would be 8.4, so do the tests, subtract 8 points from your score. Use the first one you take, and don’t prep for it.
the ONLY interesting political discussion today is the alt-right’s.
all other ideologies have proven themselves to be feckless, gay, and ‘tarded.
all of the opponents of the alt-right are old and gassy, old people who fart too much.
come on! would you prefer to listen to This Week with George Snuffleupagus or Christiane Fuckthepoor or rachel madcow or cucker carlson?
Some of the stuff tucker says is borderine alt tight. Like wheb he adked max boot to list the countries that influence us policy and whether russia was in the top 10. ( i.e. he was talking about israel).
the NewsHour has art fag stories once a week.
yesterday they had a story on basquiat.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/with-east-village-exhibition-the-art-of-jean-michel-basquiat-comes-home
basquiat and haring were contemporaries. both were grafitists.
the one died from a heroin overdose, the other from AIDS, because butt sex.
if i were oprah i’d still buy haring. even though basquiat has had a much higher value recently. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/basquiatpainting-fetches-record-1105-million-new-york-auction/
i like this painting especially.
reminds you of how tyson is the greatest of all time…at his peak.
tyson is like the sprinter who sets the record and then retires…and no one has beaten his record yet.
given changes in track surface and shoes…ben johnson claims he’s still the fastest man who has ever lived.
Pumpkin clarify with me 😦
So when is the Macho Man IQ article coming. Been waiting a long time.
I’d start by asking the important question that needs to be asked: what, if any, traits, do y’all think have been selected for in the last 100 years? Then we can go from there.
Puppy who says he has an iq of 130 or whatever….the only thing puppy has ever got correct in his ebtire blog history was when he said that high iq people run the world. 100% this i agree with. Its not some coubtry club jocks or decadent billionaire brat. I have always said these people are more thank likely ashkenazi jewish and they work togethet. This is the bit that puppy doesnt know or is too fumb to work out.
How can you read a blog every day year after year and have no idea what the blogger thinks? Mikey understands how I think. Why can’t you?
Of course Ashkenazim largely run the world. I’ve known that long before you did.
But you don’t need to posit a secret group that is richer than bezos & gates to explain their influence. It’s easily explained by publicly known facts like the high percentage of top campaign contributors & top pundits who are Ashkenazi.
But because your mental disorders makes you prone to black or white thinking, you expect nearly 100% of the richest & most powerful to be Ashkenazi. This is extremely unlikely for a group that’s only 0.14% of humanity.
Because worldwide gentiles outnumber ashkenazim by over 700 to one, we’d expect the richest single person in the world to be a gentile like gates or bezos, even though per capita, ashkenazim are far more likely to be billionaires & are far more likely to use their wealth to advance political & cultural goals. By contrast gates is politically irrelevant despite his great wealth
Im not talking about wealth per se. Im talking about power.
[redacted by pp, may 8, 2019]
i think you’re confusing individual power with collective influence. At the individual level trump & bezos are probably the two most powerful people but bezos has no interest in creating political change & thus has no influence. Trump is influential, but he’s all by himself. He’s not part of a team of powerful people who share his domestic goals.
The CIA & Israel are more powerful than trump or bezos but that’s collective power not individual power
Im talking about individuals that tell the cia to make up phony evidence for nukes in Iraq. Maximum 10-20 people involved in that decision. Probably 5-10.
Also tge smartest people talking about politics right now are the alt right. If people like stephen jay gould actually said their real opinons then they would be the smartest so the alt right is he ext best thing. back in the 60s and 50s the marxist were leading. But because marxists lost a lot of momentum with the failure of the ussr and/or wont accept biological differences in humans they no longer lead the debates bpundaries. People like david harvey are still very interesting to listen to though on economics and structural issues in society.
The devil’s chessboard just says there are secret people in the cia with power. Duh! But it doesn’t claim they’re the only ones with power nor does it claim they’re super rich.
Not sure why you need to posit secret askenazi king makers. Just look at the most elite pundits or the biggest campaign contributors on the Forbes 400. They’re at least 50% ashkenazi
Who decided obamas cabinet?
Have you actually read the devils chessboard?
His cabinet was decided by wall street so publicly known individual billionaires or corporations, not a secret elite afaik
The answer is Michael Forman. He was the one that decided it for him. Hmmm I wonder what else he told obama to do.
Forman is only powerful because he speaks for a powerful interest group (wall street). Had he advised Obama to apppoint Elizabeth warren & Bernie sanders to his cabinet, Forman would be taken down just like anybody else & Obama would stop taking his calls
So the real power is with interest groups, not individuals
Puppy I literally have knowledge of it to the point where I can name individual names I think are in the nomenclatura. Michael is obviously one of them. Do you want me to list all the people that have a decision making capacity? Im not even based in the north american continent and can name actual individuals.
Many times I have named Robert Rubin. Many times Eliot Abrams. Etc
Robert Rubin is more powerful than Bezos. My suspicion is bezos was given the wapo as a kind of turnaround/welcome gift to the elite. He has no decision whatsoever on what the editorials and selection of stories will be.
Carlos Slim is affiliation with fascist lebanese in lebanon, which is the side israel supported in the lebanon civil war. Like Bezos I would guess he has little to NO influence in the NYTs editorials.
The people with influence over the editorials are Robert Rubin, Forman, Abrams etc etc. Note how Slim and Bezos have been the official richest men in the world in the last decade at one point or another and how I am NOT naming them as elites.
No bezos has more power, especially if he started throwing his wealth behind politicians. Rubin is retired & no longer speaks for wall street
An elite is literally someone that has the power to end peoples lives or ruin peoples lives if they want. Thats my definition. Not talking about cooking recipes or being interviewed in forbes magazine.
If Forman wanted Sanders and Warren in Obamas cabinet he would get them there. If he wanted Michael Jacksons corpse in the cabinet, he would get Obama to name it as well. Thats called ‘power’ Puppy. Its different from ‘influence’ or likes on social media.
He would get them there but then he would lose his power once the people who gave it to him realized he was not advancing their interests. His political capital would be spent
You see the only reason Forman has power is because he speaks for a huge segment of the donor class presidents rely on to get elected. Once he pisses them off, he loses his power
But power means nothing unless you can turn it into influence & you usually have to sacrifice it to do that
a small but organized group can dominate a much larger but disorganized group.
because autism and low IQ pill and peepee think the organization must be conscious, it must be like cosa nostra.
but it needn’t be. ants have no idea what they’re doing.
conspiracies and organization can be 100% unconscious even for humans, but in the case of humans they must result from things of which the conspirators or “made men” are conscious of. for example, ethnic nepotism.
call it “murmuration”.
here’s the paradigmatic example caught on video:
Pill thinks it’s conscious. I think it’s a combination of conscious & unconscious
“He would get them there but then he would lose his power once the people who gave it to him realized he was not advancing their interests. His political capital would be spent”
Who are these ‘people’ that gave it to him? You seriously think he consulted with thousands of financial services workers, shareholders, directors, board people etc etc on wall street?!! Hahahaha.
He doesn’t need to worry about losing power, because he IS the power. Why can’t you grasp that? Rubin , Forman, Abrams…..they don’t run a survey of the Wall Street base each time they tell obama to invade this place or that place hahahaha. Your mind is endlessly fascinating to me because of its loop de loop logic.
He doesn’t need to worry about losing power, because he IS the power. Why can’t you grasp that
Because it’s giberish. What’s the source of his power if not the wealthy interest group he speaks for? I’m not saying he consults with anyone but it’s assumed from the title he holds that he speaks for wall street & the second he betrays them, he loses his title & the power that comes with it
pill and peepee and rr are an example of the power of ideology…
specifically the power of the individualist ideology, an anglo-saxon thing.
mongolians: anglo-saxon countries::
european diseases: native americans beginning in 1492.
No, read the Devils Chessboard. Its very clear who ordered the hit on Kennedy. There is no kafkaesque terror of the coincidental wants. Its not adam smith. There is literally individuals in the PRC, Putins Russia, and the good ol USA that have the power to tell other men to go to war, stop a law or put money into a certain purpose.
Individuals, working with other like minded and intelligent individuals rule the world. There is a nomenclatura. They talk to each other. They plan things together. Some other factions might exist, sure. But even if you counted all these people in the other key factions it would still be less than 50 people were talking about in political entities with hundreds of millions. Thats the way it works, always has worked historically and always will work as long humans continue in advanced societies.
Humans are destined to live in feudalism/pyramid structures. Ive said this consistently for the last 2 years. We can put different titles on the roles and try to gummy up the process with elections and ‘free media’ and communism and captalism and whatever other economic arrangement but everything reverts towards knights of the round table and The Prince.
I GET IT…because non-autist…
The Devil’s Chess Board for a non-american is like The Whatever about Japan/China/Russia/South Africa/etc. for an american.
it’s much more credible for someone who has no idea what he’s talking about.
So who do you think killed kennedy then? The cubans? The mafia?
If you say Oswald was really a lunatic lone gunman youre fuckin dumb as rocks and voided any opinion on this matter.
who killed lincoln, garfield, and mckinley?
in lincoln’s case there was a conspiracy involving 8 other people…”officially”.
the two facts i know of which put the warren commission in doubt are:
1. the barely damaged single bullet
2. jack ruby.
there are no facts like these for mlk or rfk afaik.
enlighten us on the other facts and how david talbot found them.
in favor of the warren commission:
who shot tippit?
if you agree it was oswald, this shows consciousness of guilt doesn’t it?
P1. oswald did shoot at kennedy.
P2. oswald could have acted alone.
C. oswald acted alone (the only theory which satisfies occam’s razor).
who shot at general walker?
P3. oliver stone is so ‘tarded he doesn’t even know that putin DID blow up three apt buildings and blame it on muslim terrorists.
that’s a FACT.
Read the book. Its a slam dunk proof it was Allen Dulles as ordered by the council of foreign relations.
Also read about Sirhan Sirhan’s retelling of what happened that night with rfk…
i checked it out and started it but it was just too ‘tarded.
the communists would have won power democratically had it not been for the oligarchs funding yeltsin in return for free state assets. these oligarchs, or nascent oligarchs, were 90% mongolian.
so russian communism didn’t die from natural causes. it was murdered. and by the same people who led its establishment in 1918.
no need for a conspiracy. why should it not be that some small minorities fill an ecological niche (where human societies are “eco-spheres”)? why not the niche of parasite?
Why waste time trying to conquer Antartica when we could just build Atlantis off the coast of Florida? So weird….
Higher degree of continentality may mean higher levels of mutation load and evolutionary changes. Pre historically, southern places has been very lower human demographic density. It’s helps to explain why Antarctic was not discovered earlier, specially via Tierra del Fuego.
Pumpkin tomorrow i’ll be taking the iq test. I’m excited to share my results and to see your career recommendations! 🙂
Get a good night sleep!
Does knowing what’s going to be tested bad?
Knowing a little might be good for reducing test anxiety but knowing a lot is cheating & invalidates your results
I simply know what going to be tested (due to reading your blog so much!)
I did practice I bit of digit span but its not like I improved but as you said, i’m definitely much more confident. What do you think my iq is. I want to see how close your estimate is.
Also do you sense a iq of 89 based of my writing? (5th grade iq test)
Pumpkin reply or I won’t send my interesting test results 😉
No seriously pumpkin please.
I did reply. I said no, you can’t be a lawyer with a sub-90 verbal IQ
Why base your career choice off a test score and not what you want to do?
why have any career choice?
man vs technology is an as yet un-politicized issue. ted k tried.
because conservatards naturalize everything.
and liberalotards normalize the UN-natural.
For example, what if I wanted to become a lawyer. Would that make sense if I had a verbal IQ of 90?
Pumpkin i’m waiting for your reply.
No
So what? Why not try it and see if you can do it rather than basing your choice on a test score? If your horoscope told you something about yourself would you take to it too?
So if someone had proportionately larger limbs you’d still tell them to keep their dreams of being the strongest powerlifter?
IQ tests are empirically backed by rigorous research. Horoscopes are backed by anecdotes and intuition. They aren’t scientific.
”For example, what if I wanted to become a lawyer. Would that make sense if I had a verbal IQ of 90?”
First of all. are you autist or have any other mental condition*
If yes, so the correlation between your IQ and your real ability will be lower because IQ is generalist even about subtests.
I wonder if a ”good’ lawyer have both, good verbal skills and good pattern recognition to manipulate its vocabulary. He’s not like the librarian type: above avg on verbs but naive === low on pattern recognition.
Any knowledge have intuition with first stage of development…
“So if someone had proportionately larger limbs you’d still tell them to keep their dreams of being the strongest powerlifter?”
“Strongest powerlifter” ever? Because I have long arms and legs and I have won competitions before vs people with shorter limbs. I have won OHP contests in my weight division while everyone else had shorter limbs. (Which, if you’re in the know, long arms are a detriment to a strong OHP. I just have really strong shoulders/triceps.)
“IQ tests are empirically backed by rigorous research”
What “rigorous research”?
1. RR, you told me to do more pulling excercises specifically because of my body proportions. It doesn’t matter if you do good in powerlifting someone with shorter limbs will do better ceteris paribus. What other mental faculties do you think could compensate for low verbal when it comes to being a lawyer?
2. The correlations to neuro diagnostic activity, genes and physiological properties. Correlations to other IQ tests, the g factor, and it’s correlations to educational attainment like the SAT. Nevermind the fact that it’s a high predictor of happiness, income and life success in general.
IQ tests intelligence a priori.
King meLo, I’d think that a very high pattern recognition score and working memory could potentially have some compensatory affects to bad verbal intelligence. A lot of verbal intelligence is crystallized, so the working memory will help you work with information you have, and the pattern recognition would help you screw around with the information. I could be completely wrong though.
“1. RR, you told me to do more pulling excercises specifically because of my body proportions. It doesn’t matter if you do good in powerlifting someone with shorter limbs will do better ceteris paribus. What other mental faculties do you think could compensate for low verbal when it comes to being a lawyer?”
Right, I did. Those individuals were not better than me on that day, and I have beaten the same people a few times in the same comp.
“The correlations to neuro diagnostic activity, genes and physiological properties”
What “rigorous research”?
“Correlations to other IQ tests, the g factor, and it’s correlations to educational attainment like the SAT”
Most IQ tests are “validated” against the Stanford-Binet and the ‘g’ factor is built into the test through test construction. Re educational attainment:
For example, IQ tests are so constructed as to predict school performance by testing for specific knowledge or text‐like rules—like those learned in school. But then, a circularity of logic makes the case that a correlation between IQ and school performance proves test validity. From the very way in which the tests are assembled, however, this is inevitable. Such circularity is also reflected in correlations between IQ and adult occupational levels, income, wealth, and so on. As education largely determines the entry level to the job market, correlations between IQ and occupation are, again, at least partly, self‐fulfilling.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5538622/
“Nevermind the fact that it’s a high predictor of happiness, income and life success in general.”
Built into the test. Simon (1997) has a good overview of test construction.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/bf02259523
IQ tests don’t test intelligence because they are not construct valid.
You can’t get around the problem of test construction. IQ tests are riddled with middle-class knowledge items, and that’s why they “correlate” with school performance—they’re constructed in that way.
In any case, my original claim was “So what? Why not try it and see if you can do it rather than basing your choice on a test score?” Why should he—if he did have “low verbal IQ” not at least try to become a lawyer? If someone told you that you’d be bad at something that you wanted to do, would you at least try to do it or would you listen to them?
1. Right that’s not what I asked
2. The body of research I just mentioned. Are you looking for specific sources? I’m not home at the moment, you’ll have to wait til then.
3. I don’t see a problem in test construction. You haven’t really explained how arbitrary they are, you’re only argument is that they could be arbitrary. All measurements are constructed.
Secondly, the brain is an experience dependent organ. I would actually be concerned if culture and environment were not reflected in the tests.
Muscles function in a similar manner. Clearly things like opportunity and money affect your ability to be healthy(poor people tend to be obese) would you say weight lifting is not construct valid because it cannot account for cultural effects? The more you discuss construct validity the more I realize how little you understand what it means.
IQ a priori test intelligence because all mental problem solving requires cognition by definition.
4. Because we have limited time in this world. If he has a verbal IQ of 90 then it would be a waste of time to be a lawyer, at least in america. I’m helping him in this regard.
“I don’t see a problem in test construction. You haven’t really explained how arbitrary they are, you’re only argument is that they could be arbitrary. All measurements are constructed.”
It’s a problem because the distribution is based on the presuppositions of the test’s constructors. They select and deselect items to discriminate between good and bad test-takers, which makes the bell curve (normal distribution) an artifact of test construction. The tests are further devised by people from a narrow (higher) class, further biasing the test towards middle-class knowledge and skills.
“Secondly, the brain is an experience dependent organ.”
Wow really?
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1542/peds.2011-2663
“I would actually be concerned if culture and environment were not reflected in the tests.”
You don’t see a problem with the fact that IQ tests are devised by people from a narrow (higher) class background? You don’t see a problem with the fact that items are selected and deselected on the basis of discriminating between good and bad test-takers which produces the bell curve (normal curve)?
“Muscles function in a similar manner.”
How do muscles function? What causes muscle movement?
“Clearly things like opportunity and money affect your ability to be healthy(poor people tend to be obese)”
Wow really? It’s not like I’m not in the health field. It’s not like I’m active in changing things so that lower-class people can afford these kinds of things. It’s not like I work with people like this daily in regard to their weight training and nutrition. Thanks for the information.
“would you say weight lifting is not construct valid because it cannot account for cultural effects? The more you discuss construct validity the more I realize how little you understand what it means.”
You say that you “realize how little [I] understand what [construct validity] means yet you conflate weight lifting (muscle movement) and psychological constructs?
Construct validity is the degree to which a test measures what it purports to. The well-established sliding filament theory (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2234572/) states that sarcomeres shorten as a result of the ‘z-lines’ moving closer together. The reason these ‘z-lines’ converge is because myosin heads attach to the actin filament which asynchronistically pulls the actin filament across the myosin, which then results in the shortening of the muscle fiber. Sarcomeres are the basic unit controlling changes in muscle length, so the faster or slower they fire depends on the majority type of fiber in that specific area.
Furthermore, you’re conflating psychological constructs (what construct validity is about). A construct is an unobservable, hypothetical variable that is not directly observable. We can observe ‘z-lines’ converging fue to myosin heads pulling the actin filament across myosin which then causes a shortening of the muscle fiber.
Here is a helpful gif:
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072495855/student_view0/chapter10/animation__sarcomere_contraction.html
Actin filaments slide over myosin filaments during muscle contractions—hence the sliding filament theory.
Look, don’t tell me that I don’t understand construct validity when you’re venturing into my field and what I do everyday, misusing the concept of construct validity (what you purport I do).
“IQ a priori test intelligence because all mental problem solving requires cognition by definition.”
IQ tests aren’t construct valid so the claim “IQ tests test intelligence” is false. Lower-class people are not exposed to the types of knowledge and skills on the test, so they then score lower. Nevermind the socio-cognitive affective nexus which further depresses test scores. Nevermind the fact that stress can impair aspects of test performance and cognition, self-confidence and memory.
IQ tests are tests of social class background due to the item composition of the tests.
“Because we have limited time in this world. If he has a verbal IQ of 90 then it would be a waste of time to be a lawyer, at least in america. I’m helping him in this regard.”
“Don’t do/try X because Y.” Sorry, I don’t give into shitty attitudes like that.
1. No I don’t see any problem. The distribution has nothing to do with whether the test is accurate as far as gauging an individual’s intelligence goes. The difference between a good and bad test taker is not arbitrarily chosen. Go ahead demonstrate that it is. I’d like you to pick out the subtests on the weschler and explain in detail why the questions are completely arbitrary. You can’t. Your criticism is completely irrelevant. My point stands, stop showing me that it could be arbitrary and instead show me how it actually is arbitrary.
2. Yes really you jackass. Put aside your damn ego for ten seconds. The questions are irrelevant. Muscle fibers are highly malleable just like the brain is. So when you show me that IQ tests are confounded by culture and environment, it doesn’t prove either are not construct valid. QED. I’m not conflating anything, it’s a metaphor.
3. You don’t know what construct validity is. Something is construct valid when it measures what it purports to. IQ does that to the fullest extent. The effect of culture doesn’t matter and it’s distribution does not matter.
4. That’s not a shitty attitude that’s how all logic works.
“The distribution has nothing to do with whether the test is accurate as far as gauging an individual’s intelligence goes.”
Baseless assumption that it tests “an individual’s intelligence.”
“I’d like you to pick out the subtests on the weschler and explain in detail why the questions are completely arbitrary”
Verbal comp: The test-taker is posed examples of two words and asked how they’re alike; vocabulary: asked to define words; comprehension: asked questions about social situations; information: general knowledge questions; word reasoning: given a series of clues having to say what the common concept is. It’s not that they’re “arbitrary”, it’s that they information on the tests (test questions) are more likely to be found in certain classes over others. Furthermore, Richardson’s sociocognitive affective nexus determines an individual’s readiness for IQ test-taking, which involves factors mentioned in my previous comment.
In any case, the items on the test—again—are more likely to be found in certain classes over others. IQ tests test class-specific knowledge and thusly IQ tests are a measure of social class.
“Your criticism is completely irrelevant”
Nope. It’s only “irrelevant” if IQ tests aren’t constructed by people from a narrow social class and the items on the test aren’t class-specific. (1) and (2) are true, therefore its not “irrelevant.”
“Yes really you jackass.”
Triggered. I don’t need you to tell me something that I readily know from real-life experience.
“Muscle fibers are highly malleable just like the brain is.”
What do you mean?
“So when you show me that IQ tests are confounded by culture and environment, it doesn’t prove either are not construct valid.”
What’s the theoretical construct when it comes to muscle movement? It’s a psychological construct?
“I’m not conflating anything”
hahaha yea you did.
“You don’t know what construct validity is. Something is construct valid when it measures what it purports to”
That’s EXACTLY what I said.
Construct validity is the degree to which a test measures what it purports to.
“it’s a metaphor.”
A shitty one with non-coeval terms.
“The effect of culture doesn’t matter and it’s distribution does not matter.”
Yes it does, as test construction dictates what items are on the test (which are class-specific) AND it forces the distribution.
“That’s not a shitty attitude that’s how all logic works.”
Yes it is. “You can’t lose weight because of X; you can’t get stronger because of Y.” If some idiot told one of my clients that, that’s a shitty attitude. Telling someone they “can’t do something” before they even try is a shitty attitude.
1. It’s not baseless it’s a priori true.
2. So are you going to explain how those questions are arbitrary? If it’s not about how arbitrary they are then your point is irrelevant.
3. Right just like certain classes will inevitably do better at weightlifting. Im actually dumbfounded on how you’re missing the hypocrisy of your contention.
4. They are not class specific. You cannot name a person in our society that does not use some combination of the skills you listed.
5. I’m not triggered, you’ve just missed the point multiple times now. Both muscle growth and brain growth are highly experience dependent. IQ tests would in fact not be construct valid if they didn’t reflect discrepencies in social class. You think there’s a difference between social class knowledge and intelligence, there isn’t one. So no I’m not conflating anything, you just didnt understand the metaphor, got offended, and then preceded to strawman me like you usually do.
6. No it’s not. If you were stark naked and wanted to run inside a burning building, I would tell you not to because you would get burned. That’s not a shitty attitude, all logic works this way.
if there’s no such thing as g, IQ tests are bunk. if g loadings vary significantly across time and population, IQ is bunk. even professor shoe doesn’t believe g is a thing. he thinks it’s just a way of compressing data or something like that.
but even if there’s no such thing as g, people can still be compared if they’re far apart. if person A scores higher than person B on every test, person a is “smarter” than person B. there might not be a real difference between an IQ of 125 and 135, but there is between an IQ of 135 and 65.
I’ve always felt g was overrated. The way I see it, the 11 or so abilities measured by the wevhsler are just a small sample of the much larger number of abilities that exist in the human mind.
“It’s not baseless it’s a priori true”
They’re not construct valid.
“So are you going to explain how those questions are arbitrary? If it’s not about how arbitrary they are then your point is irrelevant.”
They’re class-specific.
“Right just like certain classes will inevitably do better at weightlifting. Im actually dumbfounded on how you’re missing the hypocrisy of your contention”
It’s not hypocrisy. You’re conflating two non-coeval things.
“They are not class specific. You cannot name a person in our society that does not use some combination of the skills you listed.”
Yes they are class-specific. They’re constructed by narrow classes. The knowledge is more likely to be found in certain classes.
” IQ tests would in fact not be construct valid if they didn’t reflect discrepencies in social class. You think there’s a difference between social class knowledge and intelligence, there isn’t one. So no I’m not conflating anything, you just didnt understand the metaphor, got offended, and then preceded to strawman me like you usually do.”
No strawman. That they reflect discrepancies in social classes is why certain classes don’t do well compared to others. If knowledge is found in certain classes over others and tests reflect that class-specific knowledge then members of that class will necessarily score lower.
“No it’s not. If you were stark naked and wanted to run inside a burning building, I would tell you not to because you would get burned. That’s not a shitty attitude, all logic works this way.”
False equivalence. My example to try something that’s not life-threatening is valid. Ever gear or self-fulfilling prophecies?
1. We’ve already established that you don’t know what construct validity is. For example in your most recent blog post on the subject you claim the correlations between IQ tests and other measures of intelligence is a circular way to validate a construct. This is incorrect. It’s called convergent validity. IQ is supported by a nomological network of other constructs and theories including strength or athleticism( as they are dependent on neuromuscular control).
2. The claim that strength and intelligence are “non-coeval” is pure denialism. Not only are they a part of the same network, they are both experience dependent which is what my metaphor hinges on. They’re both holistic. You can’t actually explain why they are “non-coeval” you can only assert that they are not. I’m waiting.
3. Social class knowledge and intelligence are the same thing. Intelligence is just an actualization of the nervous systems genetic predispositions through sensory stimuli. So it is incoherent to say “IQ measures social class knowledge not intelligence”
4. “Don’t listen to expert advice when making important life decisions”
-RR 2019
What do you think intelligence is?
“We’ve already established that you don’t know what construct validity is.”
We said the same exact definition on what it is.
“It’s called convergent validity”
Having validity hinge on correlations with other tests (i.e., the Stanford-Binet) and tests of scholastic achievement is circular in virtue of the fact that the questions on the tests are similar, selecting and deselecting questions which makes the appearance of measuring a common factor.
“Social class knowledge and intelligence are the same thing. Intelligence is just an actualization of the nervous systems genetic predispositions through sensory stimuli. So it is incoherent to say “IQ measures social class knowledge not intelligence””
It’s not incoherent if the items/questions found on the test are class-specific. Further, the fact that sociocognitive affective factors differentially prepare differing individuals based on their class membership is also in play here. This also means that “the actualization of the nervous system” is class-dependent, too, based on a whole slew of factors that affects lower-classes over higher ones.
Test scores between different tests intercorrelate due to test construction. Moreover, that test scores intercorrelate does not mean that they are measuring the same thing.
““Don’t listen to expert advice when making important life decisions””
“Give into self-fulfilling prophecies and don’t try to see if you can do something.”
—Melo, 5/11/2019
“What do you think intelligence is?”
As a working answer, the ability to predict complex changes in the environment.
Physiologies evolved to correspond to dynamic changes in environment. My physiological system can adapt pretty quickly if I go to a mountain top (though it would take some time to get acclimated). If physiologies evolved to correspond to dynamic changes in environment, then the cells that comprise the physiological systems can, too, be dynamic.
So experience with specific cultural tools changes brain networks—which we both agree with. If experience with specific cultural tools changes brain networks, then if one lacks access to certain tools, then—in the context of test-taking—since they lacked access to a tool critical for test-taking, then they, too, will score lower.
IQ test scores are an index of an individual’s distance from cultural tools that make up the test and not cognitive ability,
How explain a middle-class born white man who score lower on IQ test and a amerindian tribe-born man who score higher than him*
Fashionable Nonsense did not include derrida for good reason.
he was NOT nonsense. he was a comedian…for the very high IQ.
Marx’s insight was to say that if all the slaves banded together and acted consciously together, they would be more powerful than the small minority that ruled them. He called it class CONSCIOUSNESS for a reason. And even the proletariat would need leaders and heros of the revolution, it wouldn’t just be a mindless mob of green goo running around
In the novel’s final scene, a deputation of neighboring farmers are given a tour of the farm, after which they meet in the dining-room of the farmhouse with Napoleon and the other pigs. Mr. Pilkington makes a toast to Animal Farm and its efficiency. Napoleon then offers a speech in which he outlines his new policies: The word “comrade” will be suppressed, there will be no more Sunday meetings, the skull of old Major has been buried, and the farm flag will be changed to a simple field of green. His greatest change in policy, however, is his announcement that Animal Farm will again be called Manor Farm. Soon after Napoleon’s speech, the men and pigs begin playing cards, but a loud quarrel erupts when both Napoleon and Pilkington each try to play the ace of spades. As Clover and the other animals watch the arguments through the dining-room window, they are unable to discriminate between the humans and the pigs.
And the leaders of the revolution become knights of the round table.
the dumb group produces the individual.
The aftershocks of the raid at Apalachin upended the criminal justice system, forced the Department of Justice to revise their policies, and proved to the American public that the Mafia, whose existence the FBI had vehemently denied, was real…
But with the capture of nearly 60 mafia members at the Apalachin meeting, Hoover and the FBI could no longer avoid taking action against the Mafia, or denying its existence.
so maybe there are de jure conspiracies today which are denied by those who should know…especially when those conspiracies aren’t technically criminal…and the conspirators control politicians.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1957-meeting-forced-fbi-recognize-mafiaand-changed-justice-system-forever-180967204/
…control politicians AND the highest ranks of law enforcement.
Pills say the problem in the world are
jews
gays
only.
I see what is underlying in every human problem:
HETEROSSEXUAL MALES.
And specially those who have the support of brilliant minority of geniuses to expand their madness throughout the world: IRRATIONAL WHITEY.
If we have a new ”world war” will not be because jews or gays, but by every HETEROTRASH SOLDIER who believe only war is a available answer.
Remember Pills,
Jews do the mental work to CONVINCE stupid whitey to fight one each other… can you understand it now*
If your blessed stupid/irrational whitey was full of true virtues [as you think], jews would [redacted by pp, may 8, 2019] fatigue to convince them.
Testing
Masculinists can’t accept this hard reality.. sad. It’s not primarily the black, the jew, the leftist, it’s the predatory masculine human nature one of our fundamental problems…
Ideal societies are completely possible, one of the rocks on the way is the heterossexual male stupidity, of course, not all, but most of them, regardless their intelligence or even genius levels. It’s not about cognitive competencies but about wisdom.
And yes, most homossexuals also are not wise enough to help humanity to search by its full-sanity.
“it could suggest that Lynn’s data is flawed”
https://www.nature.com/articles/6800418
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/30/dumb-and-dumber-3/
What the World Has Come to:
In summary:We are living in a literal world of Good vs Evil. One of the archetypes of Good is a farmer/gardener. The Amish and the Mormons,are a blessed God fearing people, and are primarily farmers and they are the only white demographics actually growing, instead of decreasing, because as an extremist community they worship God, and reject money, whole heartedly. Money is simply the positive reinforcement version of the whip. They both serve the same purpose, to motivate you toward doing something you do not want to do. and the Amish/Mormon men and women believe so strongly that in death they go to Heaven, that governments and death threats have no effect on them, they have no fear of death which makes their people incorruptible, The thing is “Good” and “Evil” are mirror opposites not complete opposites. The side of Good uses negative reinforcement. ” Do this and (Insert bad thing here) wont happen to you” to recruit members, and to fully commit oneself to the side of Good, the individual must sacrifice worldly pleasures as a requirement. This takes the focus away from the individual and toward the groups, and the families, so as many people as possible prosper, thus a hi average fertility, hence why God (the ultimate Good’s) main blessing is a large family/tribe Then Evil uses positive reinforcement. “Do this and (insert good thing here.”) will happen to you.” Evil uses temptation, especially pleasures of the flesh to recruit its members. Evil focuses on the individual, at the groups expense, thus a lower average fertility. Hence why Evil, always loses in the end. Evil focuses on short term gain, while Good focuses on outlasting in the long run. Based on real life, verified, historical records, a “Good’ man that provides for his family and community can never be as genetically successful as the ‘Evil” man that conquers tribes and nations. The most amount of children a “Good Provider Male” can have is about 50-90. Where as the most amount of children “Evil Male Conquerors” Pharaohs, Shoguns, Kings, Emperors, can have is a little bit over 1,000. Its long term vs short term. When good people keep getting conquered, raped and slaughtered what happens? They revolt and or take measures to ensure the atrocities don’t happen again. That’s why you look around today on the world stage and see no conquerors. Every time an alpha male rises up Stalin, Hitler, Ghengis Khan, etc. measures are put in place, by non Alphas to stop the same event from happening again, eventually thousands of years from now Alpha male violence is going to dwindle down to simple, relatively, harmless bullying. Women on the other hand try to stay passive,and more or less neutral because for women moral alignment does not influence fertility. However most women are not fathered by “Good” Provider type Men, remember 50-80 kids max for Good 1,000 max kids for Evil. So women have a deep impulse to be impregnated by strong, tall, Alpha male, conqueror type guys, despite knowing, the man is going to leave her a single mom. Therefore it takes a woman fathered by an Evil Man a massive amount of self, and impulse control to be in a committed relationship, AND impregnated by a “Good Man” and thus stake her genetic future on the side of Good. It also takes a massive amount of self, and impulse control for an Alpha Male, with a natural genetic drive for Evil, to commit himself to “Being Good” Hence the popularity of all powerful super heroes, fighting for the sake of weak civilians. Hence why super hero leagues are stable and orderly, while villain leagues fall and break apart. 1 Evil overlord can not stand up to X amount of heroes in the long run.
Pumpkin, would a subpar spatial IQ (Block Design- 8, Visual Puzzles- 5) but good pattern recognition (Ravens Matrices/WAIS IV Matrix Reasoning- about 120) inhibit you from understanding theoretical physics properly?
probably not. Ashkenazi Jews are great at theoretical physics and they average spatial IQs in the 90s. I recently even heard that Einstein had no sense of direction, though that could be a myth.
”probably not. Ashkenazi Jews are great at theoretical physics and they average spatial IQs in the 90s”
Remember de meaning of the word average.
Because the avg IQ of ashk is likely to be around 90’s it doesn’t mean no have any one among them who will be at least above avg on spatial intelligence.
That’s gotta be bullshit. Einstein supposedly had larger brain regions dedicated to spatial processing and it’s said he was a more visual thinker.
Sense of direction is more of a concrete spatial ability. The IQ test ones are abstract, very abstract. Just because Einstein had amazing abstract skills doesn’t invalidate his lack of concrete skills, at least I think.
Where would Spatial IQ help then? Also, what two subtests load highest of Computer Programming and Theoretical Physics?
I would get processing speed and working memory for computer programming.
For theoretical physics my guess is all subtests are highly loaded.
guess*
go to bed. You’re taking the wechsler tomorrow, you’ll need your sleep.
Man’s GREAT LEAP FORWARD: There seems to have been a rapid increase in the development of symbolic culture about the time of the Toba explosion (more powerful than Yellowstone, and more globally critical because of its location in the tropical zone) circa 71kya, and it is hard not to suspect that there was a connection. I speculate that grammatical language appeared about this time. Grammar allowed us to communicate more complex, detailed, and subtle concepts. It allowed us to make use of a far larger vocabulary, and the ability to learn that vocabulary is itself highly g loaded, so this lead to a rapid increase in human IQ. Vocabulary requires symbolic thought, to decide that one sound will stand for an arbitrarily selected concept. Symbolic thought lead to representative art, where the image represents the thing rather than being the thing itself. Sophisticated grammatical language made possible a community of shared beliefs, and therefore the origin of religion, which facilitated greater group solidarity. Knowledge and discoveries could be transmitted far more efficiently, and joint planning about the future became possible. The world soon began to fill up rapidly.
MOON LANDING: Some conspiracy theories deserve serious consideration: the Kennedy killings, 9-11, Obama’s real birthplace (Kenya, according to his grandmother). Then there are “the others.” Like the moon landing. It was definitely not a hoax. Consider: 1. The USSR global propaganda machine did not dispute its genuineness. 2. The astronauts who went to the moon never denied it. 3. When Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon, he uttered the prepared message, “One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind,” but a transmission glitch prevented the indefinite article from being heard, so the sentence sounded self-contradictory if taken at face value. A carefully orchestrated Cold War propaganda hoax would not have allowed this glitch at the most iconic moment in the whole history of the space program.
. ANTARCTICA: Except for a few oases, humans don’t colonize the Sahara either. Antarctica is a polar desert. Too little liquid water, dark for nearly half the year, extremely cold, too dangerous to raise a family because the ice shifts and can swallow your house. We could probably attract people to it if we could find a way to melt the ice, but the world’s huge coastal population would be up in arms if anyone even seriously floated such an idea. (Most people live fairly close to the coastlines.)
Interesting comment. Chomsky & Robert Berwick argue that modern language is much older than the Toba eruption because it would have had to have happened before bushmen split off since they have it too
It is implausible that the Bushmen populations (which once occupied a much larger range than today) lived in total isolation from non-Bushmen populations. Presumably the mutation or mutations that facilitated the emergence of grammar appeared or came together in one population first. This development was so valuable that the relevant genes had a high chance of being preserved and spreading to fixation if even a small amount of interbreeding occurred with a neighboring population. Thus, even if Bushmen (and Pygmies, BTW) split off between 200kya and 300kya, that would not have prevented the spread of an especially valuable mutation from any one human population to all the rest. I argue that a limited vocabulary already existed in all sapiens populations (and probably some non-Sapiens populations as well), but the appearance of the “grammar gene(s)” made vocabulary immensely more useful so that it was now worthwhile to coin many more words, and the more intelligent band members could master the use and comprehension of this expanding vocabulary much better than the less intelligent. The grammar mutation should have spread relatively rapidly from any human population to all the rest. If we backcrossed with Neanderthals and Denisovans, I cannot imagine that there was not also gene flow to (and from) Bushmen (and Pygmies) as well. Further, I know of no reason to presume that grammar did not first emerge in Bushmen and spread to non-Bushmen rather than vice versa. We simply do not know.
Neanderthals possessed our FOXP2 gene and a hyoid bone that facilitate speech, but the larynx was still in a more anterior position, as in an infant of our species, which restricted the number of vowel sounds that could be formed, and therefore the number of words that could be created. I argue that if Neanderthal has possessed grammatical language at an earlier date, there would have been evolutionary selection for a larynx positioned so that a larger number of words could be formed. Thus, I also argue that grammar evolved sometime after Neanderthals split from the lineage that led to sapiens, and our sudden and rapid colonization of the world in the last 70ky suggests that the grammatically structured use of vocabular evolved shortly before we exploded suddenly over the world’s surface, since the appearance of grammatical language is the most likely advantage that allowed us to expand rapidly and to quickly displace our rivals who were longer established and better adapted to the local environment.
How come you never praise my comments Puppy? Is it because the truth of them is too painful to bear?
No youre right.
Pumpkin, what’s the threshold IQ of a lawyer, theoretical physicist, advanced computer programmer and mathematicians (in respective domains- for law, a 175 verbal IQ vs 25 Spatial IQ will most likely not inhibit you from being a lawyer).
“we haven’t colonized anything in the last 10,000 years”
Greenland, Madagascar, Iceland and New Zealand (and the rest of Polynesia) are pretty significant. Colonizing Greenland in particular took time because of the need to adapt to the environment. Polynesia took time because of the distances. If Western civilization and globalization never happened, I guess some Inuit-Polynesian hybrid population would eventually colonize Antarctica as well.
I bet some pre colombian civilization would expand to south of current Chile or Argentina and entry to Antarctic, but… that continent is mostly incolonizable. Less white tra$$h to destroy the place and built church for jewsuis.
1. It’s not circular. The point isn’t to make them both test intelligence as that is proven by other aspects of the nomological network. It only matters if they are measuring something similar This is how I know you’re ignorant of trhe concept. You haven’t actually read upon the issue, you’re just regurgitating an opinion from someone equally ignorant. Who was it again that you read this from? If it’s who I think it is then it explains a lot. He has the reputation of consistently misusing psychological concepts.
So go ahead and explain to me how one is supposed to make a test without deselecting or selecting items?
2. So your argument is that social class does not fully encapsulate an individual’s experience? If not, then you agree with me. If intelligence is completely dependent upon social class aka cultural experience(which we both agree that it is) then a higher social class is necessarily indicative higher cognitive ability aka the actualization of the nervous systems predispositions. Therefore measures of social class are measures of intelligence.
“The point isn’t to make them both test intelligence as that is proven by other aspects of the nomological network”
What network?
“Who was it again that you read this from? If it’s who I think it is then it explains a lot. He has the reputation of consistently misusing psychological concepts.”
Richardson. What psych concept has he misused?
The “something similar” they are measuring is acclimation to middle class knowledge and skills.
How is “validating” new tests with old (non-construct valid tests) constitute construct validity if the other tests aren’t valid either?
Re (2):
How does this “IQ test scores are an index of an individual’s distance from cultural tools that make up the test and not cognitive ability,” mean that “measures of social class are measures of intelligence”? If access to specific cultural and psychological tools dictate how well one does on aspects of test-taking, then, necessarily, their scores dictate their distance from the tools used in the specific test in question.
Please use quotes in your future replies.
Melo should write Richardson an email (he responds to them. He’s responded to mine and others I converse with) and report back.
k.richardson@mac.com
They’re ordered 1:1 with your responses
1. It depends on which test we’re talking about.
Nerve conduction velocity
Glucose metabolism
IQ tests
Educational achievement tests
Neurodiagnostics.
I’ll write a blog post next weekend about it, where I won’t have to be so vague.
2. Well obviously this one.
3. Which I think is equivalent to intelligence
4. Because they are valid. None of the tests measure the same specific thing even if they claim to. IQ tests vary in item selection as do SATs and similar academic measures. They all indirectly measure intelligence aka social class knowledge which is why they correlate but none fully incapsulate it. Not even IQ(but it does the best job). Construct validity is a relative and continuous process.
5. Because cognitive ability is dependent upon social class. Lacking the appropriate cultural tools necessarily affects cognitive ability because of experience dependency. If you are measuring social class aka experience you are by extension measuring cognitive ability. I thought you were a holist? Why are you acting like a cultural determinist and implying cognitive ability is “innate”?
I await your article.
Yea, you should email Richardson about this and report back. I left his email in my other comment. He responds to emails.
k.richardson@mac.com
Seruously, if you’re going to disparage him then email him with your criticisms.
I think it isn’t equivalent.
“Because they are valid”, how is that evidence?
I am a holist; stating that access to cultural/psychological tools dictates test-scores isn’t reductionism. If you are measuring social class experience you’re measuring social class experience and exposure to the knowledge on the test. What do you mean by “innate”?
So the next time you see a marvelous and complex behavior—such as a border collie herding sheep or birds flying south for the winter—try to resist the temptation to label it as instinctive, hardwired, genetic, or innate. By foregoing a label and digging deeper, you will open yourself to consideration of the myriad of factors that shape who we are and why we behave the way we do.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1098/rstb.2012.0344
Over-used metaphors from engineering such as ‘‘hardwiring’’ and ‘‘pre-programming’’ applied globally to the outcome of development fail to capture the character of the processes and once again invite the mistaken view that they can be contrasted with their opposites. We believe that a thorough investigation of developmental processes has been hindered by indiscriminate use of the labels ‘‘innate’’ and ‘‘acquired.’’
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1002/dev.20277
I’ve been going on and on about experience-dependency for a long time now; what makes you believe that I hold to the discredited folk concept of “Innateness”?
You know I hold to DST, so I don’t know why you’re asking me these questions. It’s not about “cultural determinism”, as G and E ways interact (even Joseph who people decry as a “cultural determinist” outright states this in The Trouble with Twin Studies).
The argument I’m pushing is simple:
IQ tests are experience-dependent. If IQ tests are experience-dependent and there are items on the test not found on certain classes over others then those not exposed to the items on the test will score lower on virtue of their not being exposed to the knowledge structure and skills of these tests. So if this is the case, then IQ tests measure middle class knowledge and skills, not intelligence.
”IQ tests are experience-dependent.”
Almosthing humans learn is experience-dependent… And in almosthing humans learn have individual, sub-collective and collective different results also or fundamentally due innate competences. Why do you think i’m not capable to learn english in appropriate ways* Is because i’m not ”enough” in its learning*
A given group of humans is in the same class to learn the same rules/knowledges. But, they are very likely to learn in different levels, quantitative and qualitative. It’s not a ”just so stories”, it’s a everyday reality in 99,9% of schools and universities and family homes in whole world.
And, it’s uncommon BUT a latent reality the existence of individuals in inospit places, with little contact with western civilization, who exccel in ”eurocentric middle class cognitive tools” and people who are privileged with easy access to all these ”tools” and just can’t…
Only logical reason you can give to the very existence of sons of elite who are stupid, is
”they JUST OR ABSOLUTELY-ONLY lack willpower”. But, ”we” know it’s doesn’t happen.
So, blame the person to not be exceptionally equal to exceptional, though.
If you, RR, is capable to see the whole of this complex dynamics between the being and the environment so you can see better than me my own situation. Why, i’m not capable to learn english in most-correct ways** Because i was not well exposed to white anglophone middle class tools…
If you can see the whole you can see the particular