In the following video Tulsi Gabbard warns America NOT to invade Iran.
However not even Oprah could stop the war with Iraq, despite hosting a series of anti-war shows to it in the few months before it began:
Why are these wars so hard to stop? And why do even Presidents like Trump , Obama, and George W. Bush, who campaigned against them, suddenly start supporting them once they get into office?
Commenter philosopher believes there’s a secret elite he calls “Master” who orders the Presidsent around once he gets into power. So why do people run for President if they’re just going to be bossed around once they get there? Perhaps they think that by getting elected President, they’ll be in charge, but only once they get there does Master reveal himself.
While this may sound like a psychotic delusion, there are similar theories to explain the Fermi Paradox. In the fabulous after-on pocast, it was suggested that the reason we’ve never been visited by aliens is that a Master species of aliens has ordered all advanced life in the galaxy to leave us alone, and if we too become technologically advanced enough to visit distant planets, these Master aliens will reveal themselves to us too, and tell us what the rules are.
It could work the same way in American society. You never find out about the secret elite running things until you gain enough power for Master to reveal himself to you.
Do I actually believe this? Not in the literal way philosopher does. I believe “Master” is better understood as a metaphor for the huge lobbying groups that buy politicians, but I don’t believe there are any independent individuals ordering most recent presidents around. But it would make a great horror film!
Pumpkin Person 
War with Iran now?? Hasn’t the USA fucked up enough when the government sent their army to the Middle East? They already fucked up in Afghanistan, fucked up in Iraq. America made things shittier. Vietnam was also a major fuck up!
About the master, I see the government itself as it. Democracy in my view is just an indirect oligarchy, the “ruling party” has the power. People have influence, but the decision is the government’s. I could be wrong.
Also, Pumpkin, what do you think about the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth dimensions?
Also, Pumpkin, would a below average verbal expression ability underestimate your similarities, comprehension, and vocabulary scores?
Part of what those tests are measuring is verbal expression, so if one’s verbal expression is genuinely low (as opposed to the effects of learning English as a second language) then it should lower one’s score. Of course a person’s score is NEVER to be penalized for bad grammar, but it is penalized for conceptual poverty, and those with poor verbal expression can’t access certain concepts.
“War with Iran now??”
It’s all for Greater Israel. Notice how “ISIS” hasn’t attacked Israel yet even when they’re in Syria which is right next door to Israel? Look. At how Assad is made out to be a bad guy. Same as Sadaam. Gadaffi et al. We destroy their homes then Israel moves in. And it’s all for Greater Israel.
http://www.unz.com/article/war-is-realizing-the-israelizing-of-the-world/
“I believe “Master” is better understood as a metaphor for the huge lobbying groups that buy politicians, but I don’t believe there are any independent individuals ordering most recent presidents around.”
Who does PP think makes up a majority of these “huge lobbying groups”?
Just so stories…
chomsky lost all credibility when he claimed:
1. american support for mongolia has nothing to do with american mongolians.
2. global warming will make “organized human life” impossible.
but he is 90 years old.
maybe he just needs a diaper change.
Never attribute to senility that which can be adequately explained by EGI
Puppy, what’s your opinion on the Murican oligarchy?
“”War with Iran now?? Hasn’t the USA fucked up enough when the government sent their army to the Middle East? They already fucked up in Afghanistan, fucked up in Iraq. America made things shittier. Vietnam was also a major fuck up!”
That’s a good point. Rather than attacking Iran, the way those countries were attacked, people in the govt who are responsible for the stuff should be removed. Also the nukes and necessary materials, technology for the nukes.
Nukes make no fucking sense to me. They are security measures, but if you want your country to prosper, you got to fucking survive. Even if you let out a single nuke, you fucked the planet. I don’t think attacking just for the sake of getting rid of nukes is going to do shit. Nukes are kind of a false sense of insecurity.
Iran wont actually use nukes for offensive purposes. No country except the United states can do that and get away with it. Except russia probably and that too small tactical nukes and on countries that don’t have nukes.
So they wont. But Iran can can use the nukes or its nuclear material for strategic defence purposes. It is being offensive in the M.E and because of that if another country threatens it,, then Iran threatens that country using that.
It still goes back to the point of it being a false sense of insecurity. Iran only threatens, the fear of it hold them back, but even if it didn’t hold back, Iran wouldn’t use it- you don’t want to exterminate yourself in the process.
Keep in mind, I’m just a 16 year old kid, I might be very wrong.
Please wash your mouth after you eat meals. The habit starts to give you more control over the words you want to choose to describe something. I am not criticising you, I too make errors. But I have been following this and I am doing better than earlier.
Also could you rephrase your point.
It would be very bad to use nukes, for both environmental and political purposes. Countries would not get away with using Nukes no matter what. So, I’d think that countries potentially being threatened by nukes have a false sense of insecurity.
Iran could use small tactical nukes over some of israeli city blocks if israel attacks iran because of iran having been using hezbollah to weaken israel.
I’d think that they couldn’t get away with it, even if they did use the very small nukes.
You know another thing that they cannot get away with? Being attacked. So there is a strong possibility that Iran will use small tactical nukes against Israel if Israel attacks it. But if America attacks it it won’t be able to use those nukes against it .
In one of my earlier comments, I said only U.S and Russia could use nukes. Iran too will use tactical nukes if it is attacked by Israel. Iran if it develops tactical nukes, the nukes can reach Israel.
Just don’t attack the Iranians then. It also doesn’t seem like Israel will attack the Iranians, they fear they’ll be attacked first, so high alert is probably going in order.
Of course Israel won’t attack Iran. For the reasons that I mentioned . But Hezbollah and other Iranian regime backed forces are slowly encircling Israel on three sides. So America needs to do a surgical regime change in Iran and take its nuclear material at the same time.
From two sides. I don’t watch M.E news every day. But i think I have a good idea of this issue.
What if you can access the concept, but you can’t verbalize it, at least during the test, but you can verbalize it later in the day or on another day? Also, what do you think about democracy being an indirect oligarchy?
If Iran is building nukes and or has the intention to weaken Israel, it has to be attacked.
I think tulsi gabbard is lying about the possibility about the possibility nuclear war with Russia. Syria was Russia closest ally and no nuclear war happened between Russia and U.S. when Syria was attacked. Also Russia will also get attacked by nukes from U.S, if russia gets into a nuclear war with U.S.. I doubt Russia will take that chance for the sake of Iran.
U.S should use less soldiers but more technology this time and the attack should be surgical. The people in the regime and the materials and technology should be removed. Rather than bulldozing the entire country and killing civilians and U.S soldiers in the process. More like using james bond or special forces. The best I can describe this.
I don’t mean actual James bond, but a combination of weapons trained tech savvy spies and special forces.
Apparently nuclear weapons are a hoax, and have never actually existed.
They exist.
that’s NOT what pill believes. [redacted by pp, may 18, 2019]
when is the macho man IQ article? he was half mongolian, and his arms were yuge.
if the US were concerned to maintain its hegemony it would sanction the PRC (with the excuse of its multitude of human rights violations) and sanction all countries who didn’t follow its sanctions…but instead it does this with iran…which is NOT a threat to the US but a (possible) threat to mongolia.
this is an example of de jure vs de facto conspiracy. yet some still claim a de jure conspiracy…even though such a claim has no political weight…it only discredits the claimant…
if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck it doesn’t matter if it’s a de jure conspiracy.
pill would’ve made a horrible nazi.
do loa loa worms conspire to infect the eyes of humans? or is it IN THEIR NATURE to infect the eyes of humans?
Hey Pumpkin, long time no see, huh? How would one convert PSAT percentiles from 11th, 10th, 9th and 8th grade respectively in IQ percentiles? Would IQ percentiles be slightly higher?
Also, what do you think that the IQ equivalents would be for people who achieved an advanced level CTY John Hopkins talent search score? Here is a link to the website:
https://cty.jhu.edu/talent/eligibility/policy.html#levels
I mean, just look at the percentile scores, and compare it to an IQ to percentile conversion chart.
But the IQ percentiles are based on virtually the entire U.S. population (for a given age group) while PSAT’s are probably only taken by college bound kids.
The first thing I’d do is find out what percentage of each age group takes the PSAT. If say, only a third of 14-year-olds take the PSAT, I’d assume 100% of the most gifted 14-year-olds take it & then at the high end, I’d adjust the percentiles by 1/3 so that top 1% of PSAT 14-year-olds becomes top 0.33% of all U.S. 14-year-olds
Since 2016, the score reports contain percentiles from a nationally representative sample of high school students. No decimal points though, so a large range of scores are marked “99th percentile.”
To nemonous – For people in Grade 10 or younger, the user and national percentiles almost correspond to similar scores, which is odd to me.
At least in my state, the SAT is optional, but you are basically forced to take the PSAT whether you plan to go to college or not. And in many places you cannot easily drop out of high school before age 16, which I believe would be in grade 10. Also taking the PSAT in grade 11 or grade 12 instead of just taking the SAT seems a bit unusual to me, so I would expect it to be a different selection of students.
Also, regarding the assumption that the brightest students take the SAT, there are apparently now about a dozen states that require all students (non drop-outs) to take the SAT.
To nemonous – I think that SAT as a high school graduation requirement has been there since the early 2000’s, but don’t take my word for it. Also, at my school the PSAT and SAT is optional, but they recommend that “college-bound kids take it in sophomore year”.
Also, regarding your point that everyone takes it: at better schools, you might see a range of better scores, whereas at other schools all students may score low, so there shouldn’t be that much of a discrepancy.
“Master” is the same entity as “Lord of the Flies”
Pumpkin, that’s going to be difficult to do. While we probably have data on how many 9th graders (mix of 13-14 year olds) took the PSAT, we don’t know how many ninth graders or 13-14 year olds are in the U.S. (I’ve tried finding data, but haven’t located it.)
OK, I found something from the National Center for Education Statistics:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
“About 4.0 million public school students are expected to enroll in 9th grade in fall 2018 (source). Students typically enter American high schools in 9th grade.”
And from this Annual SAT report:
Click to access 2018-total-group-sat-suite-assessments-annual-report.pdf
It shows that 930,334 9th graders (couldn’t find 14 year olds) took the PSAT, or about 0.23%. So the top 1% of 9th grade test takers becomes the top 0.23% of the 9th grade?
It shows that 930,334 9th graders (couldn’t find 14 year olds) took the PSAT, or about 0.23%. So the top 1% of 9th grade test takers becomes the top 0.23% of the 9th grade?
That would be my guess.
So, would the 50th percentile then be in the top 11.5 percent of all Americans? Also, the national percentiles are not that much different from the ones who took the PSAT. So, that implies that that the ones who took the PSAT are the average Americans.
Pumpkin, there are cases of kids with expression disorders who do much better on the wisc process approach multiple choice than on the original test, except, how common is it to be able to access the concept and not be able to express it.
Well the elite isn’t secret. I’ve named members of it many many times here.
Secret in that if you asked most Americans who runs the country, less than 1% would name those names
Thats because americans are dumb. 55% of americans supported the iraq war on the eve of the war or sth like that. Americans have a track record of being gullible.
Majority of europeans and even British people were against the Iraq War as soon as they heard of it.
The neocons have less power in Europe so it’s harder to brainwash Europeans. They invest their energy brainwashing Americans since these are the people who matter.
Anyone that reads the NYT/WAPO or watches CNN/ABC/NBC etc etc on a regular basis is mentally disabled and cannot be trusted to make decisions in their own interest.
i remember the german UN ambassador saying he did NOT believe iraq had any WMD, and then powell’s presentation was so obviously bullshit i knew it then. saddam couldn’t disarm because he had no WMD. i mean did he even have chemical weapons? he had used those in the iran-iraq war.
and even if he had WMD that’s a stupid reason for a war. israel has nukes. why don’t they have to disarm?
the interesting thing is how INCOMPETENT the liars are. and russia-gate was even more incompetent than WMD. if there were a de jure conspiracy it would’ve been much less OBVIOUS. “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight” is the de facto gang? no! pill is a really bad [redacted by pp, may 19, 2019]
It was Powell’s UN presentation that really changed public opinion in favor of the war. After his presentation, support for war suddenly jumped in the polls, and it was largely because virtually the entire U.S. media praised his presentation, with the exception of Oprah, who did a TWO DAY anti-war show the day after Powell’s speech. Bush & Powell were so concerned they held a press conference trying to block the show in some markets but because Oprah’s syndicated, she’s on at different times at different places so couldn’t be blocked:
“the gang that couldn’t shoot straight” isn’t a de jure gang.
malaria is not a conspiracy among mosquitoes.
Also the mongolians/danes REALLY hate tulsi gabbard. Someone posted a video with joe rogan talking to a danish nyt journalist who called tulsi satanic for opposing the syrian war.
I’m having a hard time comprehending this. Like literally what the hell?
1). Mongolian/danes?
2). Are danish people this badly brainwashed??
I just tried out a new game called project cars 2. If real life driving is this unresponsive to your steering then fair play to real life race drivers. This game is unplayable.
I remember GTA tried to make the driving more realistic in part 4 and the result was that everyone hated how the cars handled. It was like the cars were on an ice rink.
The last 2 gtas have been personally disappointing.
They made it more realistic and it actually sucks for being like that.
Modern games nowadays are starting to suck.
Jesus fuck, that comment came out very wrong.
Pumpkin, on the similarities subtest, most people lose or gain points because of their abstract reasoning right, and not because they can’t express anything. Is the similarities subtest designed for people who have low average to average verbal expression?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160809-why-it-pays-to-be-grumpy-and-bad-tempered
I’m both, very positive and very negative tempered
God is the ownself projected to out. It’s the/your mirror of self-awareness in the altar of church
the voice qua physical trait isn’t just about pitch or resonance.
white bread
whole grain bread
sprouted grain bread
laim’s voice is whiny but noel’s voice is bland.
brando had a RIDICULOUS voice, but it was also very DISTINCT. same with aldo ray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR4kY8LGx7M
my voice is HORRIBLE, but DISTINCT.
i’m only “soft spoken” because i can’t “speak” any louder without screaming.
but the ENT said there was nothing wrong with my vocal chords.
when i have a chest cold i have a great voice. fantastic. no trouble.
my voice is…
i’m only “soft spoken” because i can’t “speak” any louder without screaming
You makeup for it by screaming in print
it’s interesting how aldo ray didn’t have narrow shoulders but a yuge neck and head.
compare and contrast the head and face hair.
this has a right answer.
Wow. Pumpkin’s blog brings back memories of March 2019. Crazy how much things change in the anthropological world in such a short amount of time.
It’s like we discovered fire yesterday, built the wheel today, and then invented the number zero tomorrow.
We’re honestly geniuses compared to our ancestors.
This is r-Selection mixed with K-selection to a maximum degree. We have achieved societal complexity to levels that are so fascinatingly high, that even if aliens existed it wouldn’t be comparable.
I’m just saying, we can look on the bright side of the human race and say we were this accomplished. It’s just that there’s always a threat of a collapse because of our environment. We haven’t completely domesticated things.
This blog has had the brilliant scope of Gypsys to aliens to artificial intelligence to Frank Sinatra. Geez. I think if this blog died, it’d be an equivalent ot a supernova.
I think you need to comment more often when youre sober.
Tulsi Gabbard isn’t bad looking at all. Her and Ocasio Cortez should do a sex tape together. That would be super hot.
https://www.reckontalk.com/hottest-female-politicians-beautiful-photos-bikini-pics-facts/
Woah. The russian girl could be a victorias secret model.
I never found Sarah Palin that good looking. Shes ok. I’ve probably seen better walking around town.
I’ve always thought Theresa May was attractive. I don’t know why. Ive seen pictures of her when she was younger and she doesn’t look attractive. But for some weird reason shes attractive now.
I saw her in person at Wimbledon 2 years ago. She’s genuinely hideous: barely 5 feet tall, lizard skin, dark yellow teeth, frail, and physiognomically ugly. She looks nothing like she does on TV.
I keep hearing George Clooney is gay but the women hes associated with show very good taste in my opinion.
I have to say Ocasio Cortez is prob my favourite political flame. I wouldn’t mind her being president just to see her around more. I like Trump, but Cortez would be like nice furniture or a nice painting in the house.
she’s gross. politics is show business for ugly people.
iirc pierce is ranked america’s best looking president.
No, Oprah would be the first president to have actually won beauty contests (Miss Black Nashville, Miss Black Tennessee)
She would be the most intelligent president since Nixon, and the most charismatic president ever (with the best looking fans):
I think were getting to the stage where the NYT will call for random white men to be beheaded in the name of social justice. We are definitely getting to that point.
Who writes this stuff? I bet the NYT has a gorup of danes who pretend to be most of the ‘diverse’ cast of authors. They basically take profile pictures from a homeless shelter or prison and then assign a dane to each ‘identity’ to write thrash.
I don’t mean to pick on the NYT all the time. I never read it. The guardian is less offensive to me because I think most of the writers are ‘useful idiots’ for the danes. Not actually danes.
Obama would consider your hero trump a useful idiot for the Danes since he ripped up the Iran deal, moved the US embassy & is leaving his whole fortune to danish grandkids. So you have no credibility on that issue (or any issue for that matter)
Pumpkin, does this study reveal anything? https://aalfredoardila.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/2018-ardila-et-al-verbal-intelligence-in-bilinguals-when-measured-in-l1-and-l2.pdf
The people in the comments section here seem to be echoing robert about how identity politics is a distraction. So chomsky says russia-gate is also a distraction.
I guess when the media will call for beheading white straight men, this will also be a ‘distraction’ from corporate bonuses and offshore accounts.
When will it dawn on these people that the distraction ARE ACTUALLY THE FUCKIN TARGETS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT [redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]
As soon as chomsky said the middle eastern wars were for the millitary industrial complex I knew it was pointless to go on listening to the man. He was great in his time. And hes right about Iraq. But unless you talk about the root cause OPENLY, it is a waste of time pontificating about politics. All you will do is confuse simple people like Robert [redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]
robert has NEVER been confused by chomsky. only simple illiterate people like pill [redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]. robert has said many times chomsky has no credibility when it comes to mongolian power. robert has said many times that he has learned nothing from chomsky; it’s just that he and chomsky have similar opinions on lots of things. chomsky makes videos. robert doesn’t. chomsky is famous. robert isn’t.
chomsky does criticize mongolia. but not only is he a mongolian, he once lived on a collective farm in mongolia.
When will it dawn on these people that the distraction ARE ACTUALLY THE FUCKIN TARGETS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT
Because people don’t understand ethnic genetic interests & thus believe elites are only motivated by economic interests
they’re the same thing [redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]. ethnic interest is the interest in the economic power of one’s ethnie and thus of oneself. economic power is political power is survival. today the two are the same. [redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]
EGI = class interests because
economic power = power
Yes they can be the same thing, but they can also be very different. For example if Oprah started pushing for a billionaire tax cut, it would help her economic interests but would harm her EGI, since few blacks share her economic interests. By contrast when a Danish billionaire wants a billionaire tax cut, there’s no way to tell if it’s to advance EGI or advance individual wealth, since it does both. Most liberals assume it’s the latter.
yes russia-gate is also a distraction.
there are lots of legit things to criticize trump for, but he isn’t criticized for these because media owners and advertisers will fire anyone who makes these criticisms.
PLUS
trump is NOT the problem. he’s just a symptom of the problem. the fixation on trump for whatever reason is a distraction.
I believe if we all spoke about politics openly and without any confusing terms, especially high IQ people like Chomsky or hitchens…most sane people would agree that both Bernie Sanders and Trump are correct and a synthesis between them could be found.
Unfortunately if we continue to obfuscate the debate by talking in really abstract terms like flocks of seagulls or basically inventing fake enemies we stay where we are.
Most people would agree with trump on immigration, Bernie on economic policy & tulsi on foreign policy
“we” aren’t obfuscating anything. it’s mass media, the organs of propaganda. that’s not “us”.
the alt-right agrees with trump on immigration, Bernie on economic policy & tulsi on foreign policy
you’d have to be a moron to think that the US or UK would be heaven on earth if it weren’t for the mongolian problem. how many robber barons were mongolians? none.
Would it be safe to assume my similarities score is 13, even though the first time I took, I lost out by a point because of bad verbalization (I got it later in the day, or the next day, and my vocab score shows that I should’ve been able to do it during the test). Would it just be error?
Go with your first score but if bilinguals are penalized on the test by x, give yourself a bonus of x.
Pumpkin, is it fair to say bilinguals are penalized because they can’t verbally express things as well? Also, what about the 13s on the other (completely different items) two tests I got after a couple of retries.
peepee and n/a don’t even know what they mean by EGI.
EGI exists in the following sense:
1. people have a lot in common with their fellow tribe members, including physical appearance. aesthetics don’t lie.
2. bostonians root for the red sox and the patriots even though they have nothing in common with the players and nothing in common with other bostonians except location.
[redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]
white basketball fans want to see another larry bird because some nebulous 8 syllable pseudo-technical term called EGI?
NO!
because they know dat dey is white demselves.
egi is just the genomic advantage that comes from helping genomically similar others. few people CONSCIOUSLY try to advance it.
[redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]
the proof that EGI is NOT some subconscious preference caused by genes is that it is much stronger for small minorities than for majorities irrespective of the particular ethnic identity.
I meant few people are consciously trying to help their genes
Yea Rushton based that on the selfish gene theory which is refuted by numerous authors. Eg:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/
How do you explain altruism among animals if there are no genomic interests?
How do genes “have interests”?
Well they don’t of course; it’s just a metaphor to describe the fact that if you help creatures that share your DNA, there will be more of your DNA in the world.
And the metaphor is false. Read Noble.
I’m guessing Nobel’s point is that the genes don’t directly cause behaviour as you’ve argued before? But in dawkin’s & rushton’s day that wasn’t known.
But the larger metaphor about DNA having interests still stands
That’s not Noble’s point. (Though that is one of my points.) Noble’s point is that Dawkins’ theory isn’t physiologically testable and that Dawkins admitted that no test could prove his theory. So Rushton used Dawkins’ theory, which was falsified by numerous authors, and so GST/EGIs is bunk by default.
P1: DNA makes certain behaviour more likely
P2: helping others who are like you, helps them spread their DNA
P3: people who are like you are more likely to share your DNA
C: DNA that makes you more likely to help those who are like you, helps your DNA spread
DNA is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause for behavior. Only in virtue of no DNA not organism it is.
It needn’t be sufficient nor necessary. That wasn’t one of my premises.
How does DNA “make certain behavior more likely”? How does that refute Noble and his argument against “selfish genes”? How can Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism be tested? How is it not ad hoc?
You deny that DNA affects behaviour?
What is behavior?
Do you deny that DNA affects what we do?
How does it? Give me an example.
LOL! Do you admit DNA affects anything at all? Do you admit DNA affects eye colour?
Just answer the question.
An example of DNA affecting what an organism does:
four regions of DNA that play a major role in telling a mouse how long a burrow to dig and whether to add an escape tunnel.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/science/mouse-study-discovers-dna-that-controls-behavior.amp.html
Now answer my question: do you admit DNA affects eye colour?
Genes are passive not active causes. Genes influence eye color but I fail to see how it’s analogous to behavior.
That article, haha. DNA is not a “code”, “recipe” or “blueprint.”
It’s not a recipe, but it’s the ingredients in the recipe. If every time I put butter in the pancake mix, people ordered more buttery pancakes, then butter is becoming more common in the restaraunt & thus advancing its interests metaphorically speaking.
DNA sequences don’t have interests. Dawkins was refuted by Noble. Rushton’s theory is bunk.
It’s a metaphor
A false one which Dawkins posited as a scientific hypothesis which he admitted that there is no experiment that can prove his claim.
You’re overthinking it. It’s a very simple concept
A concept refuted by Noble. Read the paper then quote it and point out the errors.
He didn’t refute anything. Any scientist would laugh at you for denying DNA affects behaviour
DNA “affects” behavior in the same way oxygen affects whether or not arson is committed.
Quote Noble and point out where he’s wrong.
So what’s the arsonist in your analogy if oxygen is DNA?
The physiological system.
In any case, quote Noble and show me where he’s wrong.
And the physiological system is itself caused largely by DNA or do you think the physiological system just arrives through immaculate conception?
DNA sequences are used by and for the system to carry out processes. My analogy with arson is fine.
Are you going to quote Noble and show how he’s wrong or not?
Genes, that is, are servants, not masters, of the development of form and individual differences. Genes do serve as templates for proteins: but not under their own direction. And, as entirely passive strings of chemicals, it is logically impossible for them to initiate and steer development in any sense. Instead, attention has shifted to the “system” – the cells, their physiology, cognition and behavior and (in humans) complex social cognition: a vast, interacting, multi-level locus of control, responding to environmental changes and using genes accordingly.
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/so-what-gene
I can do without your “immaculate conception” BS. You need to read some physiology.
but the system itself is largely caused by DNA & genes don’t need to initiate development to help cause it
So that’s two ways DNA causes behaviour
DNA is passive in development. Read Oyama, Richardson, Noble.
“B iff G” (behavior B is possible if and only if a specific genotype G is instantiated) or “if G, then necessarily B” (genotype G is a sufficient cause for behavior B). Both claims are false as genes are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for behavior. Genes are, of course, a necessary pre-condition for behavior, but they are not needed for a specific behavior to be instantiated.
Are you going to quote Noble and show how he’s wrong or not?
He didn’t refute anything. You simply don’t grasp the concept & don’t understand what DNA is
Eye color is a behavior too… After the ”voluntary’ behaviors we have involuntary ones…
Before the voluntary be have…
grrrrrr
“He didn’t refute anything. You simply don’t grasp the concept & don’t understand what DNA is”
Are you going to quote Noble and show how he’s wrong or not?
What is DNA? Enlighten me.
“Eye color is a behavior too…”
Hahaha
That’s one of your worst blog posts. How could a fellow east coast American deny that there is no disposition to our intentionality?
DNA “affects” behavior in the same way oxygen affects whether or not arson is committed.
[redacted by pp, may 21, 2019]
genes for certain behaviors makes no sense in humans, at least. but dumb people insist on phenotype corresponding to genotype even in the case of behavior.
all that can really be said for humans is that: within a very narrow range of environments, some genes have a very small association with certain behaviors/psychological traits.
humans speak and dogs don’t because DNA.
dogs smell better than humans and see worse because DNA…
and dogs do smell better than humans. my dog thinks i’m just a stinky monkey even right after my once a year shower.
no. rr is getting lost in the weeds as usual.
DNA does CAUSE various traits. but rr wants to argue over the meaning of “CAUSE” because 12 year old girl.
phenomenologically speaking…
“cause” and “effect” mean a state of affairs which is invariably associated with another state of affairs.
“cause” is the case prior to “effect”.
the genome of the fertilized egg precedes the various traits of the organism.
anal-lingus philosophy claims not to argue over the meaning of words but does nothing but argue over the meaning of words.
Everything pertaining to what’s happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I’m in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.
if peepee didn’t know she was black she wouldn’t worship oprah.
Both claims are false as genes are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for behavior. Genes are, of course, a necessary pre-condition for behavior…
so a “pre-condition” is not a “condition”.
italy isn’t sending its best.
“How could a fellow east coast American deny that there is no disposition to our intentionality?”
Intentional states are normative, therefore they are irreducible to the dispositional.
It doesn’t matter if it’s normative. You and I share very similar cultures. Therefore, we will share a similar disposition of intentionality.
I feel like you’re conflating dispositions with genes.
How can something dispositional also be normative?
Why are they mutually exclusive? Are you getting this from kripke?
When I say disposition I mean a tendency. Humans have varying tendencies in the way they think.
To have a belief about something is to be disposed to behave in a certain way towards it, for instance. And to intend to do P is to assume that one can P (even if P is something that cannot in reality be done) but also that it is possible not to P (one does not intend what is unavoidable). Likewise, normativity also employs the dispositional modality. That one ought to Q entails that one can Q but also that one can prevent or refrain from Q. If any of the three selection functions that have been discussed is basic, therefore, it is dispositionality.
It might be that RR has dyslexia or some sort of learning disability. Its very strange someone putting 2+2 together and always getting 5 or 6. It could be some sort of neurological problem. RR you should go to see a dentist.
RR believe words are more important than their meanings, it’s sad..
Behavior is, in its conceptual essence, everything/ that exist. Existence is a behavior itself.
RR believes a rock no have a behavior in its constitution [general and specific features], if to be is not a behavior itself.
People who pay more attention to words than to their meanings often over-circunscribe them in very specific concepts or designations. For example, people who say ”capitalism just appeared ~XVII century” while feudalism and Roman Empire already had lot of its characteristics. Or, those who say ”no have racism against ‘whites”.
Behavior is anything wich obey a set of specific rules. And it’s not ”animalism”.
Behavior is one of the most basic concepts.
Thinking is an action so it’s irreducible to dispitions. Intentional refers to contentful mental states. Beliefs and desires are causes of action, an intentional state, which is also irreducible.
Why are they irreducible to dispositions? How am I “reducing it to a disposition” exactly? How you’re defining these terms is equivalent to how I conceptualized them originally, so what exactly am I missing here? As far as I’m aware, I wasn’t making any causal claim.
You’re using rigidly pre determined short sentences just like if you are copying them . Cognitive flexibility is related with our capacity to explain things with our own words. . Explain a same thing in many different ways..
Pattern and behavior is basically the same thing.
RR belief on behaviorism is related with his own work.
Behavioral dispositiona are distinct from mental events (intentional states) in that mental events are intentional states—propositional attitudes.
Can one intend to behave?
Here’s the link to an IQ test I just took from an open source psychometrics website:
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/FSIQ/
It scored me within one point of where I was measured in Kindergarten, so you can probably take it seriously.
On the other hand, according to all the comments , you probably shouldn’t, with all the highly inflated scores being reported. Also, I have doubts about the verbal part of it
According to this I’m a near genius at 140. Wouldn’t that be great…damn how good my life would be.
Also did this one https://www.free-iq-test.net/ and got 143. Wow…I might actually be smart!
Or this is all a game =/
No one tries to start it anyways.
Where does israel/america benefit from fighting iran face to face, when all of the benefit lies in the obfuscation of truth and political propaganda? Iran has an GDP of 1,4 trillion, population of almost 80 million, harsh terrain and many supporters througout the middle east, a war would also tarnish israeli-russian relations.
I think the Palestinian crisis will end in like 18 years, then there will be an slow attempt to convert muslims to homosexuality. The plan is to elevate china and india while denegrating MENA and Europe so that the entire world becomes an big soop for them to scoop in. Unless im underestimating the chinese moral charachter (im agnostic regarding their calibre).
If the israelies wanted to conquer the levant (spare syria and lebanon) they could have done so much earlier, much easier and with more empathy from the west. Palestinian lands cant therefore be the concern of the “elites”. And yes the “elites” would have known that its harder to do land claims today than in the past when they planned their long term strategies.
Many prominent neocons implicitly admit that the iraq war was an mistake. But i suspect the iraq war was about money laundering and about spurring islamophobia by making muslims look bad through taking away their opportunity to succes.
Iran just wants clout from America, fighting only leads to more international speculation if it is a superpower. People are easily captivated by this phenomenon and fail to see what implications it might have on the individual.
It is not about benefit as I have mentioned. Plus as I have implied U.s and not Israel should take on Iran
Also countries like India and China will actually get losses if Iran gets attacked. They get cheap oil and India gets to even pay in rupees to Iran. They had to stop buying oil from Iran now. And if war breaks out, oil for them will get even more expensive. Plus Pakistan will get stronger. India also has to rely more upon Saudi oil.
So its not a positive for India or China.
Iran should be attacked because 50 years later they will still be talking about attacking Iran. Iraq should have been attacked in 2003.They might as well get it over with rather than wait for Iran to make large nukes with the nuke material they have.
I meant to say Iran rather than Iraq should have been attacked in 2003.
Weakening your enemies could be considered a benefit, especially if permanently.
The losses would be minor becuase There substitutes in Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the south China sea (so an attack on Iran could make China more aggressive down there) that can be used for long times until Iran gets economy back to relative peace, and looking at Iraq, it doesn’t take that long to boot up the oil industry, and becuase of the profits and higher prices, that’s the first thing they’d start to do.
The chinese government could artificially decrease the demand for oil with government through expanding alternative sources of electricity like nuclear, coal, and garbage flaming. Pakistan will follow any big power with enough guns close by. Pakistan is now testing the waters.
Having Asia buy most of the oil from the mideast is a double edged sword becuase to much influence from Asia will make parts of mean change their alliances.
The last paragraph just sounds crazy, sorry.
oprah would score below average on any IQ test.
Nixon not only kept his scholarship but was elected president of the Duke Bar Association,[28] inducted into the Order of the Coif,[29] and graduated third in his class in June 1937.[25]
oprah would score below average on any IQ test.
she would score around 140, just like nixon.
Nixon not only kept his scholarship but was elected president of the Duke Bar Association,[28] inducted into the Order of the Coif,[29] and graduated third in his class in June 1937.[25]
And Ben Shapiro graduated top of his class at harvard law. What’s your point?
”she would score around 140, just like nixon.”
Any consistent evidence about it**
She skipped 2 grades and was still the best reader in her class
Yes puppy but she went to a black school in alabama. Dome of the kids in her class were clinically retarded so thats not an achievement.
But she spent the 4th grade in a white school in Nashville & oprah would always read to the class because she the best reader, despite being younger than her classmates.
I dont have much knowledge of iq testing. But if oprah was tested i wouldnt be surprised if it turned out like muhammed ali. Ali was very eloquent and charismatic and people assumed hos iq was much higher than it was based on his social intelligence.
-Ali was illiterate & oprah learned to read at age 3.
-oprah has a far bigger bank account and hat size & worked in a far more mental field
Thinking oprah’s dumb because she’s black is about as logical as thinking Yao Ming is short because he’s Asian.
Ben Carson IQ > Oprah IQ.
Don’t be silly
Ben Carson is a worlwide famous brain surgeon lol! Thats a much more mentally demanding field than daytime talkshow tv for women hahahahaha
I agree brain surgery is more cognitively demanding, but don’t underestimate the amount of verbal skill, wit & improvisational humour needed to host the most profitable talk show in the history of broadcasting
Add to that the business savvy to keep most of the profits & market yourself into the world’s most worshipped billionaire
Add to that a hat big enough for 3 heads!
the ways that people can be like other people in order of oomph:
1. blood…(including) eye color, language…
2. interests…religion, profession…
distant…
3. location…the fake (new world) state has lots of propaganda for location as most oomph-i-est.
bugmen and other autists are confused by mass media as to what categories they might range themselves in…that is, mass media suppresses some categories…but bugmen don’t unnuhstan dis.
Would verbal expression be underestimated in bilinguals (in both L1 and L2)- also, when people say L2, what do they mean?
There are no inflated scores, retards. This is the 21st century where everyone gets a really high IQ score to compensate for their lack of attention-span. Dumbasses.
Lol, attention spans are like two seconds for most people.
I had like vivid dreams where these Gypsy people try to steal my soul. It’s honestly not even worth posting but whatever.
Lol, I don’t think you really need to have dreams about your soul being stolen. It probably already is. Welcome to the real world!
Loaded, what’s your age?
I’m 23.
I was reading a book on philosiohy by luc ferry and it dedicated 1 paragraph in the whole book to analytic philosophy. I think that showed good judgement. Basically if autistic people could do philosoohy they ask why it isnt similar to computer programming hahaha good ol autists. Very amusing in their own ways.
in addition to selection for harmless autists by master, analytic “philosophy” is a result of envy. it’s the same in economics. they’re both cargo cults. they pretend to be professional and technical imitating science and math.
they’re like the new guinea savage who asks the mongolian professor: Why you white man have so much cargo and we New Guineans have so little?
or as kant said: I should think that the examples of mathematics and natural science, Bxvi which have become what they now are through a revolution brought about all at once, were remarkable enough that we might reflect on the essential element in the change in the ways of thinking that has been so advantageous to them, and, at least as an experiment, imitate it insofar as their analogy with metaphysics, as rational cognition, might permit.
As badcock brilliantly pointed out autism is a lack of a gender. Not a neutral in between man and woman. Hence no sex drive, sense of humour or any taste in aesthetics like fashion or art. [redacted by pp, may 20, 2019]
No the theory is autism is masculine brain. Schiz is female brain. You’re schiz & have female interests like gossip magazines, psychology, alpha males & spray tanning.
Norman bates was Schiz & dressed up like his mother
Schiz = female brain (highly intuitive but lacking logic)
Autism is male brain, hence interest in logical, mathematical & technological subjects, but lacking social & intuitive abilities
His most feminine interest is his music taste. I think music taste has to do with ones aggregate genetic and environmental traits, ones nature, and thus can tell a lot about a person once corroborated with other info (preferably). He listens to stuff like Radiohead and whatnot. I don’t know if thats normal for alpha men who fist fought during their youth. I’m not begrudging him becuase I think European bisexuality is fascinating, and it might be the next step in progress. Santos proposal to change gender roles (trough environment and eugenics) as a way to change our motivations as acclimated to modern socities as possible seems interesting. And it might be an large part of what’s needed to create “balance” (as he likes to put it) and less strife for the future.
Do you guys agree with my view on music taste? I think pp might agree with me.
Nah music taste is arbitrary. Think about it, music is listened to make someone feel a certain way so they can act that way consistently. Music is listened to as a sort of ritualistic act where someone can relate to the singer’s lyrics or voice and find comfort in them. i don’t know if it ritualism is just a conditioned trait though. most traits seem to be conditioned onto people, or at least that’s been my life experience.
we live in a very gender dimorphic society, not a genderless one. men are characteristically different than women in so many ways, though to feel empowered a woman must act like a man to feel any sense of power. that’s how deep-rooted the impact it has on mental health. there are literally different strategies to everything associated with being a man and a woman, at least here in america.
How explain talented painters who are autists or in the spectrum???
Schizotypal painters are often those on the abstract and post modern style though
Autism just means you have a male-dependent thinking style so your field of reference will be heavily pattern-based and have a visual-spatial component that is rigid. Schizophrenics usually don’t have that, knowing how to naturally use colors to create things that aren’t pattern-based and rigid, if all that makes sense.
Schizophrenic often confuse abstract and metaphoric with real world.
Do you mean asperger or autism?
this was a question to philosopher
I ask this because asperger people can have incredibly good taste in aesthetics, sense of humour. Also normal sex drive.
”Also normal sex drive.”
Quite variable.
”Do you mean asperger or autism?”
Both.
”this was a question to philosopher”
There is only one philosopher here… it’s me.
People are so simplistic when it comes to judging peoples’ worth or value, especially assessing intelligence and stuff. Someone might be the smartest guy in the world but he’ll think some average Joe is more competent than him. It goes beyond race, too. You’ll see a lot of rednecks feigning success as well. Not to mention how loopy everyone is nowadays.