Please watch the 9 second video below and then answer the question “Why should he have been watched every minute?”.
If you know what this clip is from, kindly refrain from spoiling it for others.
9 second social IQ test
04 Friday Oct 2019
Posted in Uncategorized
Pumpkin Person 
Mentally retarded/handicapped?
Very good. How did you know?
I didn’t know but the part about how he “should’ve been watched every minute” plus the way she said “he wasn’t a very good swimmer” implied that wasn’t quite the whole story.
If it was a skin-head type who said it I might’ve guessed it was about a black guy 🙂
the way she said “he wasn’t a very good swimmer” implied that wasn’t quite the whole story.
Yes, it was the way she said “HE WAS–” and then paused, calmed down, and said “he wasn’t a very good swimmer” made clear that bad swimmer was being used as a euphemism for mentally retarded.
Bravo!
But also he was a bad swimmer.
He was a bad swimmer because of his disability
flushton is the definition of pseudo-intellectual crap.
Oh, the nerves…
Yeah, that’s the correct answer.
It took me a minute but I realized this is from Friday the 13th or one of the Jason movies in general and he drowned in that series early on. He was mentally handicapped/retarded.
I have never watched the movies, btw, just know enough knowledge about the series.
Dang, so if the first sentence of the clip relates to the second, then I’m assuming he should’ve been watched because he was a child and could not swim properly…?
Stupid response. Clearly I was going to say mentally handicapped/retarded because this is an intelligence blog and clearly Pumpkin is a horror movie junkie, meaning the allusion to his favorite movie character would’ve been an easy one to make.
If the philosopher is an autist then what does that make Animekitty?
Shizo?
Oh!
Q: Why watch at all times
A: bottled water allergy
suicide by drowning
negligence = dissabled
HAHAHAHA
Puppy basically just moderates my clarifications to me being suggested to be an autistic. As I said I’ve been tested and I’m not autistic. And if you believe in the schizo autist manichean thing then I’m the exact opposite.
What specific tests did you take that showed you not autistic? And you show virtually none of the symptoms of schizophrenia other than your bizarre master theory, but that’s just as likely to be autistic misunderstanding as schizophrenic delusion.
I was tested by a psychologist but I cant remember the name of the test. I basically mentioned I liked playing video games and my psychiatrist suggested i get tested for autism. Idiot.
do you remember what the test involved? usually when diagnosing autism they don’t even give tests per se; more like questionnaires where you or your parents rate you on various behaviors.
Was a questionnaire with a likely scale on various behaviour interest and social questions.
Likert scale#
The likert scale is useless for an autist with your level of denial. They might as well have just asked you if you had autism.
If you email me I can give more appropriate tests.
In my opinion you have the most terrifying case of autism I have ever seen.
You even display the symptoms that were so horrific they were redacted from Dr. aspergers’s original paper, never to be mentioned again.
Symptoms like grim sadism & violent rage. If I were your therapist I would call for immediate institutionalization where you would remain for the rest of your entire life.
That’s nice puppy. You keep believing that.
“I basically mentioned I liked playing video games and my psychiatrist suggested i get tested for autism.”
And the psycho-logist racket continues.
I like playing video games too. But RPG fan. Currently playing the Trails in the Sky series. Really good story-driven series.
Big RPG fan **
Animekitty probably has this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_cognitive_tempo
Sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) is the term for a syndrome that may comprise a novel and distinct attention disorder from ADHD. Symptoms of it include dreaminess, mental fogginess, hypoactivity, sluggishness, staring frequently, inconsistent alertness and a slow working speed.
I am not super logical.
I am highly empathetic.
quiet agreeable.
My report says I am cognitively drained from low working memory.
I describe it as getting mentally stuck.
Anxiety has allot to do with it as well.
He’s a retard that’s why. I’ve seen all those movies though.
The whole “should’ve been watched every minute” thing makes it sort of obvious.
he might have to be watched because molester.
He wasn’t a very good person. The way the older woman restrained herself from answering her own question makes it seem like she wants to hide the real truth regarding the man’s incorrigible behavior. Instead, she switches to a more banal explanation as to why he should have been watched. I am probably wrong, but that is my reasoning.
I’d give you partial credit. You were acute enough to understand that she was switching to a banal explanation to hide a more difficult truth, but you misdiagnosed that more difficult truth.
Would you say then that I jumped to a completely unrelated conclusion (i.e. not a good person)?
Well you’re correct that the person had a flaw that the woman was unwilling to talk openly about, you just wrongly assumed it was a character flaw.
This is how puppys mother talked to people about puppy yesterday
You talks by own experience or you don’t get the euphemism, lol
New research on pheasants shows that there is no evidence for a “generall factor” across different test batteries. So these single factor explanations arise from test battery composition and variation in performance. Note how nonhuman animal research is much, much better than “human behavior genetics”, as environmens can truly be controlled. Weird how there are such stark differences here…
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.171919
What makes you so sure they can truly be controlled? Assuming you believe this, doesn’t that also mean one day we’ll be able to “completely” control for human environments whether that be through statistical or “less ethical” methodology?
Breeders have been doing this for hundreds of years. I do agree that if we were to do unethical studies on humans we would get good estimates, but is it ethical, could there be an argument that it is? What kind of statistical methodology could account for us not being able to fully control human environments along with the garbage methodology estimates are gleaned from?
Your link also refers to 16 studies that have found a g-factor for various animals:
“A ‘g’ factor has been reported in mammals: humans [7–10], non-human primates [11–13], mice, Mus musculus [14–19] and dogs [20]. It has also been reported in some studies of birds [21,22].”
But I suppose you consider pheasant chicks to generalize better to humans than other mammals do?
How does their conclusion on inferences of “general ability” not hold for other species?
Different species have evolved differently? Would insects or bacteria lacking g also have “disproven” g? And I’m sure there’s a lot to learn about human cognition by studying the cognitive abilities of plants.
Clearly the evidence is worth exponentially more the closer a species is to humans.
“erse range of cognitive abilities in pheasants. Instead, we reveal how single factor explanations of cognitive processes can be influenced by test battery composition and intra-individual variation in performance across tasks”
Are you implying all other findings of g in animals were intentionally manipulated? Because it looks like they really had to massage the data to get a g-factor in this pheasant study, so it’s not something that’s likely to happen by chance, certainly not in 16 studies.
So either they fudged 16 studies or the cognitive structure of 31 pheasant chicks doesn’t generalize to human?
The implication is what I’ve been saying for years—‘g’ is built into the test by including test batteries and items that get what they researcher wants. The same problems home for animal “g” studies too.
So it’s a conspiracy? I doubt the overwhelmingly left-wing/liberal psychologists and academics would conspire to uphold a construct as un-egalitarian as g/IQ.
How are to inferring a “conspiracy” from my comment?
You said: “‘g’ is built into the test by including test batteries and items that get what they researcher wants.”
If all the researchers who have found a g-factor purposefully rigged their studies to make people believe in the g-factor, that’s a conspiracy, no?
And my question is, why do the overwhelmingly liberal/leftwing academics want to fake an un-egalitarian concept like the g-factor?
“If all the researchers who have found a g-factor purposefully rigged their studies to make people believe in the g-factor, that’s a conspiracy, no?”
What? It’s due to how the tests are constructed in the first place—not the actual studies themselves—that give rise to the factor. By only including subtests and items that lead to the manifold. Many authors discuss this. This isn’t anything new and it’s not conspiratorial.
IQ tests are constructed to measure g, yes, but all mental ability tests correlate with g, such that any diverse battery of mental tests measures g. It seems like you don’t even know what g means or how it was discovered.
“The consistent finding of universally positive correlation matrices of mental test results (or the “positive manifold”), despite large differences in tests’ contents, has been described as “arguably the most replicated result in all psychology”.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Cognitive_ability_testing
Either you don’t understand g or you’re claiming all those replications are a conspiracy.
I know how IQ tests are constructed and that’s why I don’t believe “g” is real.
Forget IQ tests, g emerges from every diverse mental test battery. People who have specifically tried to disprove g by making ability tests they think won’t correlate with g find they always correlate with g. Howard Gardiner’s multiple intelligences for example.
Whether it’s reaction time, piagetian tests, memory tests, physical measurements like brain size, sense of rhythm, pitch discrimination, physical coordination, or grades on any school subject or test, it always correlates with g. None of these tests were designed to measure g.
You obviously spend a lot of time on this stuff, why don’t you try making a mental ability test battery that isn’t measuring g?
Just like the normal curve, ‘g’ is an artifact of test construction. They create this ‘factor’ by being specific with the items they remove and what they keep (those items that discriminate between good and bad test-takers). This creates the normal curve and, along with it, correlations within and between tests (like how most tests are validated against other—assumed to be valid—tests like the Stanford-Binet.
You didn’t answer anything I wrote. If g is just an artifact of test construction, why does it correlate to the following:
“Reaction time, piagetian tests, memory tests, physical measurements like brain size, sense of rhythm, pitch discrimination, physical coordination, and grades on any school subject or school test”
None of those “tests” were designed to correlate with g. They were not designed to be distributed on a bell curve either, except for school grades.
Imagine we lived in some strange world where for some reason we couldn’t measure people’s height directly, but we could measure the length of some parts of the body and we could tell whether they hit their heads on door frames. (Door frames in this world are evil and must be avoided!)
Most body parts by themselves probably don’t correlate too strongly with height, but if you factor analyze them you’ll get a “g-factor of height” that’ll be good predictor of whether they’ll hit heir head on door frames. Why? Because the narrow factors that only affect individual body parts will become less important over many body parts, while a general factor that affects the length of all or most bodyparts will become more salient.
Now, once we have this “g-factor of height”, we can see which body parts correlate most strongly to it, legs for example, and we can create a quicker height test that only measures those body parts, since it’s easier than measuring every single body part.
Then you’d come along and say our “g-factor of height” is “just an artifact of construction of our height test, because we just picked those body parts that correlated most with the g-factor of height”!
But the factor analysis that discovered the “g-factor of height” necessarily preceded the height test! Just like the factor analysis that discovered the g-factor necessarily preceded the first IQ test!
Picking subtests and items based on which are most informative of g is not rigging the test, it’s simply making it shorter and more efficient than it otherwise would be. Just like if a math teacher wants to test his students, he’s not going to include questions that he knows everyone will get wrong or everyone will get right, or that correlate poorly with math ability, because that doesn’t tell him anything! He picks questions that are challenging but doable to at least some part of the spectrum and that depend on math ability.
Leaving in test items that are too easy, too hard or poorly correlated with math ability on a math exam wouldn’t magically cause it to stop correlating with math ability, they’ll just add some extra noise and take longer to do and to grade.
Just like how leaving in test items that are too easy, too hard or poorly correlated with g on an IQ test wouldn’t magically cause it to stop correlating with the g-factor, they’ll just add some extra noise and take longer to do and to grade.
“Reaction time, piagetian tests, memory tests, physical measurements like brain size, sense of rhythm, pitch discrimination, physical coordination, and grades on any school subject or school test”
Low IQ subjects produce RTs equal to that of high IQ subjects but had less consistency over trials which reflects self-confidence and test anxiety which then affects, among other things, information processing.
What’s a “piagetian test”?
Since IQ tests are tests of middle class knowledge and skills, that “g” correlates with brain size isn’t out of the ordinary. Richardson 1998 addressed that.
What do you mean “sense of rhythm” and “pitch discrimination”? Sources? I’ve discussed physical coordination in the past. Grades and school tests, circular since IQ tests and those measures are different versions of each other.
“They were not designed to be distributed on a bell curve either, except for school grades”
IQ tests were. You’re obviously not familiar with the construction of tests.
“Then you’d come along and say our “g-factor of height” is “just an artifact of construction of our height test, because we just picked those body parts that correlated most with the g-factor of height”!”
Prospective IQ items are tested out, along with going by teacher ratings (there’s, in part, the circularity) and then items are excised until the constructors get what they want. The “g” factor is reified.
“But the factor analysis that discovered the “g-factor of height” necessarily preceded the height test! Just like the factor analysis that discovered the g-factor necessarily preceded the first IQ test!”
Unrelated factors can be factor analyzed and still produce something” general. ”
“Just like how leaving in test items that are too easy, too hard or poorly correlated with g on an IQ test wouldn’t magically cause it to stop correlating with the g-factor, they’ll just add some extra noise and take longer to do and to grade.”
Tests are constructed based on the presuppositions of the constructors. You’re assuming the “g factor” exists. That’s your error.
“Low IQ subjects produce RTs equal to that of high IQ subjects”
Source? Wikipedia says “Several studies have reported association between simple RT and intelligence of around (r=−.31), with a tendency for larger associations between choice RT and intelligence (r=−.49).[27]” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry#Cognitive_ability
“What’s a “piagetian test”? ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)#Piagetian_tasks
“What do you mean “sense of rhythm” and “pitch discrimination”? Sources? ”
“The association between intelligence and musical ability has been shown in two studies carried out by Lynn, Wilson, and Gault (1986). In the first, a sample of 217 10-year-olds were given a number of tests of reasoning, vocabulary, visualization, and perceptual speed abilities together with four musical ability tests (pitch, memory, chords, and rhythm). All the tests were positively intercorrelated and loaded on the first principal component as a measure of general intelligence (g). The loadings of the four musical tests lay between 0.45 (cords) and 0.59 (rhythm)…”
“Grades and school tests, circular since IQ tests and those measures are different versions of each other. ”
Nonsense. You can extract g from grades and school tests like you can from all diverse tests, which is proof there is a general factor, but grades and IQ tests are not different version of each other. Why is writing essays and physical education grades etc correlated with g if it’s just an artifact of IQ tests?
“IQ tests were. You’re obviously not familiar with the construction of tests. ”
I was not talking about IQ tests, I was talking about these other real-life measurements of g.
“Prospective IQ items are tested out, along with going by teacher ratings (there’s, in part, the circularity) and then items are excised until the constructors get what they want. ”
I already explained this. When you’ve already found the g-factor through unbiased factor analysis, then you design a test to measure g as well as possible. You think IQ tests define the g-factor, but they just measure it. The g-factor is found through factor analysis before the IQ test is designed. Just like how a height test wouldn’t define the general factor of height, it just designed to be a convenient measure of something that was already defined before the height test was created.
“Unrelated factors can be factor analyzed and still produce something ”general.””
Over and over again in different samples with different tests, including the mentioned real-life tests that are not designed to find g?
You didn’t answer why working memory tests like digit span correlate with g btw, how is that rigged?
G factor in all cognitive tests is patern recognition… in every test it’s implicit or more explicit as in raven..
PP,
Remember the difference between social and emotional intelligence. Emotionally stupid people can become powerful. Trump for example. Social intelligence is dependable of circumstances. . Emotional intelligence is more hardwire, of course, with some development horizon or possibilities. For sure, emotional intelligence is required to be socially succesful but considerably more to understand emotional states, powerful or not.
There is this thing on Cooijmans site about the dark aspect of Asperger. I strongly agree. I don’t know if Philo have it but I don’t think people should be preventively institutionalized only because they have very dark thoughts. At the same time, I am biased ….
« I have heard that some psychiatrists, who believe Asperger and autism are the same, more or less boycott the current diagnostic criteria and simply give everyone “autism”. This is bad because it makes research into the possible differences a priori impossible. It would be better to revise the Asperger criteria and make them more different from those for Autistic Disorder, for instance by including the less popular negative features that are missing from the current image of Asperger, but have been observed by Hans Asperger in his original study and are known from forensic psychiatry. These include motor clumsiness, insensitivity to another’s feelings, destructiveness, aggression, endlessly bottled-up anger, violent outbursts, and grim sadism. Some of these set Asperger apart from classical autism, and failing to include them in the criteria makes it appear as if Asperger and autism are really the same. »
If you think a social IQ exists and real IQ does not, you may be a retard.
Social intelligence is more culturally-dependent than any other trait on the planet. I don’t see how you could not comprehend that. Anybody!
Logic does not exist, abstract does not exist, etc. Magic rules all.
No such thing as real or fake, only drowning in a lake.
Logic exist, it’s the factor g for reality. Abstract in facto doesn’t exist. Abstract is for maps what given reality is for territory.
Magical thought is best expressed by certain groups of people because they have the ability to infect people’s minds with largely “magical” experiences, which can have little logic and be abstract, or are completely illogical and make sense only to the unconscious aspects of the human mind.
A good corollary to how magical thinking works is the movie “Inception.” They function as illusions that the mind mistakes as being real. Now certain groups are better at planting these magical thoughts into the minds of other groups of people.
Rarely does magical thinking act on an interpersonal level but it definitely can. This is usually done as a conspiracy.
Pill and Muggy don’t understand that they are the problem. To the human become sapiens, people as you must stop at least to have any power… at the best, stop to exist in the next generations.. but the super geniusssss whitey impose multiple demographic explosions and right now both left and right winkers are dancing with the madness overpolarization… how stupid you are…
pumpkinperson, might you know, or have some rough of approximation of, what percentage of the population might be expected to correctly determine the answer?
No idea. I’ve never tried norming it.
What would it mean?
LOL! RR can’t stand the fact that tests have credibility.
What would it mean?
It would allow to place one’s result in the context of the general population, which, given that the test is unlikely to be wholly orthogonal to social intelligence as a whole, would then be informative.
Right—and, take any example you want to make from this—in your given example, what would it mean?
I’ve just told you. Perhaps you can be a bit more specific as to what you what me to explain.
If, say, 25% got it wrong and 75% didn’t, what would it mean?
First and foremost, it would mean that 25% of people score below some arbitrary threshold, 75% score above.
If we wanted to, we could convert it to a standard score, and say that those who fail are scoring bellow ~-0.67 and those who succeed or scoring above ~-0.67. We could, using a standard deviation of 15, and mean of 100, say that those who fail score below ~89.9 and those who succeed score above ~89.9.
All of the above is very trivial.
Insofar as social intelligence is concerned, knowing the proportions doesn’t allow us to exactly infer social intelligence per say, since we don’t know to what extent it correlates with other measures/an underlying factor. It still provides some information however.
Say that Score = Social intelligence + Error, where Error is a generic term meaning everything not attributable to social intelligence, so luck, test specific skills, etc. We can notice then that unless one’s score is totally unrelated to social intelligence, the test, no matter how noisy, remains informative.
informative of what?
The test will give both information unique to the test itself and to anything the test happens to correlate with, which, since the score is unlikely to be orthogonal to social intelligence, likely includes social intelligence.
What would correlate?
Everything is a collection of points in high-dimensional space. The positions of points along the axis of said everything correlate to some extent or another with each other. The correlation between positions along different axis allows dimensionality to be reduced and structure to be found.
What should the test score correlate with? An uncountable myriad of things.
If you want an empirical answer, I don’t know, because I haven’t attempted to measure it. We could speculate for instance that it might correlated with one’s intelligence, one’s propensity towards autism, the cut of one’s boots, the fabric of one’s trousers, the quantity of sparkling water consumed on Mondays, the concentration of cadmium in one’s left femur, and so forth.
These examples might seem ridiculous (they aren’t), but so what? Everything is a collection of points in high-dimensional space; don’t expect the axis to be orthogonal.
So if someone doesn’t get some thing right from a movie it means…?
r/woooosh
Mayhap you ought to read again the previous responses. I’ve told you several times at this point.
I don’t see how not noticing something from a stupid movie would mean anything useful about an individual. You can speculate about anything. (Just-so stories.)
“Just so stories” That’s a mighty queer response. There is no “Just-so [story]”.
Less abstractly,
Say we have some simple binary test. Fail or pass, no other options. Say that we care about something we have called social intelligence. The social intelligence of the test-takers can be understood as being modeled by two probability distributions, one for those who fail, one for those who succeed. To the extent that there is a correlation
between test scores and social intelligence, we can expect the expected values of the distributions to differ. This model can be extended to a test with any number of possible results by increasing accordingly the quantity of distributions. (This could be for instance applied to IQ, where each score represents a probability distribution for g.)
We don’t know that the test has any correlation with social intelligence. But so long as that correlation isn’t 0, the test remains informative of social intelligence.
This is true also of anything else the test score happens to correlate with. Having seen the movie for instance, or having read the comments, and so on. If you want to posit that the test is in no way informative, you are positing that the test correlates with nothing.
“If you want to posit that the test is in no way informative, you are positing that the test correlates with nothing.”
Very well put if I may say so!
Arguing with this guy tends to be like pushing molasses up a hill though.
The only thing he’s doing is describing test construction and item analysis.
RR, If you were more forthright in actually explaining your objections, they might easier to address. I’ve told you how the information gleaned by such a test, and by knowing the relevant averages and such, might be useful. If I’m wrong, say how.
What does it mean for X to correlate with Y? Replace X and Y with your “social IQ test” from the movie and whatever else.
I said already that you’re describing an aspect of test construction and item analysis which I just described to Some Guy.
When I say correlation, I mean in the somewhat informal sense of X and Y failing to satisfy the criterion for independence. I can give you a more technical treatment of the issue, but not in the immediate future.
If you defend the elite who parasite you, you’re a complete loser
=
pill & gaybriel
Yup, got it wrong lol. I said it was because the guy was held hostage by this woman.
Lol!!
Hbd is an ideology. They pay little or not attention to this type of article… So dogmatic with their IQ beliefs, they can’t deal when we have more nuances than a flat bell curve…
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-mind-of-the-prodigy/
I have an alternative hypothesis that DNA codes for life experiences rather than just physical or mental attributes. This would mean that DNA is basically the thing that codes for all life itself.
In other words, the Universe also has DNA to it. That would be a billion dollar endeavor, finding the coding to the Universe and hacking it. I mean, the Universe has a physical component and may have a mental component to it as well, just like humans.
Empathy is the most pathetic and maladaptive trait there is, aside from maybe the cognitive aspect. Empathy makes people prone to receiving ineffective insight into what another person is thinking and tries to develop trust between people.
Aside from that, it’s a force towards manipulation and other negative aspects of daily human life.
You says: ”emotion is the strongest force of the universe”
and now, this…
You must choice what you want to think
Cognitive empathy is basically emotional intelligence… period.
Psychopaths and another foxes have expressive cognitive empathy, seems.
Those two frame of thought aren’t mutually exclusive. Emotion is the strongest force in the universe because it creates chaos, destruction, etc which are the most primal forces in not only a natural sense but a literal one as well (supernovae, black holes, etc)
Without emotions we become rational, expansive and create order. To sacrifice emotions is to sacrifice conceit and chaos.
Nope
Psychopaths are not more rational or ponderated than us. Emotion out of control is clearly a disadvantage , an expression of umbalance just see prejudice and fanaticism??
Rationality is the capacity to ponderate, to balance reasoning with emotions.
You didn’t really understand what I said. Emotions can be tied into objectivity yet lack rationality. There’s no such thing as an emotionally detached person, whether psychopath or not. Emotions are tied into the human mind and the ONLY way to experience things. Sometimes, being blunt or callous can mask emotions and make people appear emotionless but that is sincerely not the case, Santo.
Bluntness and callousness that come with psychopathy have underlying emotions as well. They’re not primary or secondary emotions, thus we can’t really detail them into how they function but are not completely rational either.
So here how it breaks down:
First IQ test I ever took was the Wonderlic, scored a 104 in 2014. Took it again, scored a 108 in 2015. Took it in 2018, scored a 132.
Then I take the Raven’s and score a 104 again.
Then I take the first test Billy gave me, a month or so ago, score a 110 verbal, 91 spatial, and a 71 working memory but let’s throw WM out because I was stoned.
Then I take the second test Billy had and I scored a 111.
And now I score an 88 on Mensa. I dunno but seems strange to me.
The mensa one Santo posted was way out of whack. Scored me 25 points below where I normally test.
What IQ tests do you think are most credible?
https://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/
And about this*
Santo, I’d definitely say all of them are mental endurance and speed-based rather than mental ability.
I used to play this back when I was 18 in 2014 and yes, it’s speed plus endurance, but essentially does not capture one’s intelligence whatsoever.
Yes. Read my links here and figure out more than one dimension of this IQ subject
One of the greatest opera singer of all time
Rip
Click to access Lohman_Gambrell_Lakin.pdf
This article is saying unleven cognitive profiles is not an exception but the rule among us and even more common among gifted people. It’s worth a good reading
peepee should let me explain pill’s theory of master in a guest post.
You’re projecting on pill’s theory what you believe, but pill literally believes the world is run by some secret Jewish guy. Master is NOT a metaphor for the system or whatever pseudointellual crap you believe.
Pumpkin, you clearly have issues letting creeps post weird stuff on your blog. Have more will power and say no to these mentally deranged, pervert types who’ll only destroy what took you so long to build up.
Pumpkin, do tests like picture concepts and picture completion also have a cultural bias?
Yes.
R&R,
Swedes and southern italians are cognitively the same*
Biggest sham in human history is that whites are superior in any thing.
They’re literally a peasant race.
Northwest Europe was the last region to develop civilization.
Whites are only in their place of power because of:
a) the false myth that white women are a superior being
b) the false reality that whites are the gatekeepers of technology
c) because whites are the most family oriented race and it’s getting worse (or better for them)
“Recalculating the twin study correlations of Bouchard (e.g., Bouchard & McGue (1981), Bronfenbrenner (1975, 1986) found that although adoptive twins reared apart have different home environments, some share similar community environments. For example, in two samples of 35 and 38 pairs of twins, the mean Binet I.Q. correlation for twins living in the same community and attending the same school was .83 and .87, respectively, while for those reared in different towns it was .67 and .66. When localities were compared on the basis of economics and size, the mean I.Q. correlation of separated adoptive twins residing in similar towns was .86, while for those residing in highly dissimilar communities it was .26.”
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203887882.ch3
When localities were compared on the basis of economics and size, the mean I.Q. correlation of separated adoptive twins residing in similar towns was .86, while for those residing in highly dissimilar communities it was .26.”
Fascinating statistic! If that holds up I must admit it’s quite damning for HBD, but I suspect the sample size was very small.
You mean like all twin studies that HBDers draw sweeping conclusions from? Are you serious right now?
Shalizi discusses Bronfenbrenner’s reanalysis:
The importance of degree of environmental variation in influencing the correlation between identical twins reared apart, and hence the estimate of heritability based on this statistic, is revealed by the following examples.
a. Among 35 pairs of separated twins for whom information was available about the community in which they lived, the correlation in Binet IQ for those raised in the same town was .83; for those brought up in different towns, the figure was .67.
b. In another sample of 38 separated twins, tested with a combination of verbal and non-verbal intelligence scales, the correlation for those attending the same school in the same town was .87; for those attending schools in different towns, the coefficient was .66. In the same sample, separated twins raised by relatives showed a correlation of .82; for those brought up by unrelated persons, the coefficient was .63.
c. When the communities in the preceding sample were classified as similar vs. dissimilar on the basis of size and economic base (e.g. mining vs. agricultural), the correlation for separated twins living in similar communities was .86; for those residing in dissimilar localities the coefficient was .26.
d. In the Newman, Holzinger, and Freeman study, ratings are reported of the degree of similarity between the environments into which the twins were separated. When these ratings were divided at the median, the twins reared in the more similar environments showed a correlation of .91 between their IQ’s; for those brought up in less similar environments, the coefficient was .42.
http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html
In any case, you’re aware that the model from Ceci and Bronfenbrenner has been empirically validated, right?
who can walk the fastest?
who can whisper the loudest?
the world’s tallest midget and the world’s shortest giant are identical twins.
and shalizi is an afghan-american, and afghans are the dumbest breed of dog, and afghanistan is the ultimate shithole country…
so this explains his motivation to expose the pseudo-intellectual crap that is IQ.
notice rr has matured so much intellectually in just a few years.
italians are late bloomers for the same reason 40+ italian women can still be hot.
RR works is basically create a strawman fallacy in every genetic-determinist mistakes or misunderstandings.
PP, how odious you are with sensible musgs!!
The word intelectual crap ressonate deeply in his demented mind
Italian women are the ugliest group of adult women in America, doofus and they age worst out of any ethnic group I can think of.
.
But I’ll give you some kudos….clearly you have such a strong inclinate to masturbate everywhere that you create these fantasies using your imagination that clearly raen’t real and delude your mind into thinking fallacies..or should I say phallacies….hahaha.
Ian, you’re a real dumbass who doesn’t know anything about women. Why would you post on this blog if you did?
“Italian women are the ugliest group of adult women in America, doofus and they age worst out of any ethnic group I can think of.”
Lmao. My early 50s mother looks like she’s in her mid 30s.
Claudia Cardinale feels
Avg italian woman is not such big deal but one of the most beautiful women you can find is in places as Italy. But, Italy is well know to be very attractive males.
When male is handsome in given population, female tend to look less attractive. But it’s not an absolute rule. In Brazil, because patrilinear lineage of population is overwhelming european, males tends to look better than females.
But, i still believe males are better looking than females because they has been in more selective pressure to survive.
when i was in high school there were some required classes which were just ‘tarded.
in this way too dark room i had to take a class called “personal finance”.
so some obese swarthy woman learned us to write checks.
but the worst part was having to sit behind this genetically superior person from hawaii who reeked of tobacco and pot.
he wore the same shirt very day. a megadeth t-shirt.
mugabe is a survivor!
𝐋𝐦𝐚𝐨. 𝐌𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝟓𝟎𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐞’𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐝 𝟑𝟎𝐬.
Wow. That was the most retarded thing I’ve ever seen a person say in my life.
RR, aren’t you always harping on about how you need peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to prove something….and then all of a sudden you use something about your own mother to prove a point that’s completely retarded????
Wow, RR, you’re a fucking moron for that. No way am I going to let myself be verbally assaulted by a man who has as little wit and a complete lack of respect for himself as much as you do, man.
Thanks for the laugh, RR. You probably couldn’t do it without making a complete fool out of yourself for me either.
No sir, I will not let you slide on your hypocrisy today. Especially from a guy that can’t take speculation the right way yet tries to provide an anecdote to bolster any point of view he’s never read about.
Lots of very attractive people from central europe due intrarracial mixing or it’s just 90’s porn…
in canada no man will stoop so low as to go out on one date with peepee…
because peepee looks like a monkey.
I look nothing like a monkey. I’m 50% German and 100% Aryan whether you like it or not. And despite not being gay, several men have tried to pick me up, though they weren’t all in Canada. A few were in San Francisco when I was in my early 20s. A ginger in his late twenties approached me and my friend and told me I was jail bait. It was only by using my verbal IQ to infer what jail bait meant did I realize he was hitting on me. This is why vocab is g loaded.
”100% Aryan”
Do you believe in aryan race, PP*
”because peepee looks like a monkey.”
mental age: 8 years old
Damn how triggered is LOADED right now?
So you have 38 pairs of twins, and the high correlation between them is driven by the fact that they live in similar environments. So most of them live in similar environments. That means the sample size for the twins living in different environments must be absolutely minuscule.
Secondly, at what age were the tested? Hereditarians already know about low heritability in youth.
I’m just kidding, RR! You know we’re good friends. I could never be mad at you!
Y’all know I was being sarcastic, right? I don’t care about shit in life. One of my major upsides and downsides, honestly.
Some Guy,
The correlations of twins “raised apart” (problematic phrasing, as Joseph pointed out, for instance one twin pair lived right next door to each other) was .87. But differentiating the twins according to the ecologies of their childhoods showed a different story. Twins raised in dissimilar environments, like urban/mining/agricultural, who also attained differenteveks of schooling and quality of schooling dropped the correlation to .27. (This was shown in Bronfenbrenner, 1974.)
Read the Bouchard papers – the data is in there. The point is that, using “HBDers'” own data refutes their “genetic hypotheses.”
How many twin pairs were used to get this 0.27 correlation?
Right, so why don’t you quote the sample sizes for those subsets of twins that were raised in different environments and what age they were tested at, if you have easy access to those papers?
It’s right there in (b) and (c) from Shalizi. In any case, I’ll try to find Bronfenbrenner’s paper on my uni access.
It’s so lovely that “HBD” is refuted with its own data, no?
In any case, even IF we accepted the conclusions from twin studies (we, logically, shouldn’t), twins aren’t representative of the general population so the “HBD” hypothesis still wouldn’t be “proved.”
Twin studies is not about how representative twins are…. it’s about how similar they are even when they are raised in different environments. What many people don’t understand is that is not all identical twins who are equally identical. The cases with full of weird coincidences of identical twins who were raised separately is very difficult to explained by sociology disfarced as neo lamarckism.
Which is why IQ-ists, using the (false) conclusions from twin studies, claim that IQ heritability is 80 percent for the general population.
Sure.
“What many people don’t understand is that is not all identical twins who are equally identical.”
Im well aware of this.
“The cases with full of weird coincidences of identical twins who were raised separately is very difficult to explained by sociology disfarced as neo lamarckism.”
What “weird coincidences”? What do you mean by “neo lamarckism”? (Daily reminder that Lamarck did nothing wrong.)
”Daily reminder that Lamarck did nothing wrong.”
—What do you mean by “neo lamarckism”?—
Lamarck: if i begin to study hard [like RR] i will become smart-er. Then, my future son will inherit my acquired repetitive effort.
Interestingly how Lamarck sound… genetic-determinist…
”What “weird coincidences”? ”
https://theweek.com/articles/469040/9-incredible-stories-about-identical-twins
Lamarckism, a theory of evolution based on the principle that physical changes in organisms during their lifetime—such as greater development of an organ or a part through increased use—could be transmitted to their offspring.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Lamarckism
”Which is why IQ-ists, using the (false) conclusions from twin studies, claim that IQ heritability is 80 percent for the general population.”
It’s based on similarities of IQ scores among identical twins. It’s not a false conclusion if you understand what heritability means [ =/= inheritance]. What i don’t understand is if these similarities were found in all IQ subtests
“Lamarck: if i begin to study hard [like RR] i will become smart-er. Then, my future son will inherit my acquired repetitive effort.”
Lamarck’s dictum is: Environmental change; change in behavior; change in phenotype. I will, again, claim that “Lamarck did nothing wrong.” Lamarck is, in fact, vidicated. See:
“https://theweek.com/articles/469040/9-incredible-stories-about-identical-twins”
What’s this prove?
“It’s not a false conclusion”
That h2 is high means that genes contribute to X amount of variation in a trait. We shouldn’t accept that conclusion as twin studies are flawed and, again Bronfenbrenner showed the different correlations in different environments in Bouchard’s studies.
“Sample size!!” Same to HBders who use these studies as “evidence” for genetic conclusions.
rr just keeps repeating shit i’ve already said.
a trait may be difficult or impossible to change and not genetic. MZTs share a womb. they’re born in the same place when they’re born and thus usually aren’t separated much. dichorionic MZTs have much lower h^2.
the definitive study is either gestational surrogates from random locations around the developed world (unethical) or PGS h^2s much better than 10% in populations much less similar than britain and the US.
the balance of the evidence is HBD is a pseudoscience for dumb people, like psychology in general.
“It’s so lovely that “HBD” is refuted with its own data, no?”
Yeah, just keep gloating instead of actually checking whether that glorious study of yours is about heritability of IQ in CHILDHOOD, in which environment is known to play a larger role, or whether the sample size is even in the double-digits.
The sample size was 38. That’s still not very reliable though. The point of the correlation was to show that genetically “identical” people can have vastly different scores. This of course implies an environmental role in the observed discrepancies. However, from a DST perspective this is redundant. As under this model hereditarianism and “blank slatism” are both a crock of shit. It doesn’t make sense to say that the development of a trait is either due to genetic differences or environmental ones in any specific individual. It only makes sense to say a trait is robust or has plasticity. I think it’s clear RR is more interested in telling people he told them so at this point.
Heritability is usually lower at younger ages but this may not necessarily be because of higher plasticity as the heritability is only a crude proxy of a trait’s malleability. Plus I think there’s is newer showing the neural plasticity doesn’t diminish is age. Maybe I can dig them up if you’re interested.
38 was the total sample but it was divided into 2 subsamples, one of which only includes twins raised in dissimilar communities. What was the size of this subssmple?:
b. In another sample of 38 separated twins, tested with a combination of verbal and non-verbal intelligence scales, the correlation for those attending the same school in the same town was .87; for those attending schools in different towns, the coefficient was .66. In the same sample, separated twins raised by relatives showed a correlation of .82; for those brought up by unrelated persons, the coefficient was .63.
c. When the communities in the preceding sample were classified as similar vs. dissimilar on the basis of size and economic base (e.g. mining vs. agricultural), the correlation for separated twins living in similar communities was .86; for those residing in dissimilar localities the coefficient was .26.
”Lamarck’s dictum is: Environmental change; change in behavior; change in phenotype. I will, again, claim that “Lamarck did nothing wrong.” Lamarck is, in fact, vidicated. See:”
I will not read your boring texts again, sorry.
No… Lamarck’s hypothesis was exactly what i said. What is the problem of honesty* It’s… ethically correct*
”again Bronfenbrenner showed the different correlations in different environments in Bouchard’s studies.”
You’re only here who neve talk by yourself…
Your absolute lack of self knowledge made you believe you’re an environmental puppet… If you believe every behavior is a product of environment, so why your behaviors would not be**
Would it be erroneous to assume that it was 10 and 9 twin sets? 38 twins equals 19 sets. Anyway, I found Bronfenbrenner 1974 at my library (it’s in Ashley Montagu’s Race and IQ) this morning and the quote from Shalizi is in his article.
More later.
Also, why doesn’t Bouchard release the results of the other test in the MISTRA to critical investigators? How weird…
“heritability is only a crude proxy of a trait’s malleability.”
What do you mean?
I am not sure that works out. The environmental difference between a given set of twins follows some arbitrary probability distribution. If you pick twins pairs from one tail, you get lower heritability, from the other, higher (to the extend that exiting differences actually affect the trait in questions). In any case, the study needs to repeated in adulthood with a larger sample.
The data was recalculated from, for example, Bouchard & McGue (1981).
What’s the biggest twin study? The 2014 meta analysis? I wonder what it’d look like recalculated like how Bronfenbrenner did.
Why are the correlations so low in different environments? Because it’s about development, i.e., in a specific environment and exposure to information (schooling). The different environments looked at were already stated.
The correlations are lower in different environments, but probably not 0.26. The sample size is so low that the correlation is not reliable.
A better estimate is probably 0.45:
“Norms of reaction, GxE interactions, and other (conceptually trivial but potentially obfuscatory)”
Hsu is a joke.
What data did Farber use? What does “highly separated” mean here?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2012/01/identical-twins-science-dna-portraits/
Just by these pictures we can see that it’s not all identical twins who are equally identical…
Yea it’s due to development. Twins are similar at the epigenetic level, too.
(I’ve seen one ‘hereditarian’ try to argue about this study but, of course, it all comes down to development and what occurs in the womb [an environment]).
Identical twins are not identical; this, also, throws a wrench into BG/HBDer claims.
Again: Even if we were to accept the conclusions from twin studies (we shouldn’t, logically), it still would not hold for the general population—this is a fact.
”Yea it’s due to development. Twins are similar at the epigenetic level, too.”
Too vague. What’s mean* They born exactly similar so they grew up differently*
”Identical twins are not identical.”
You may mean
”It´s not all identical twins who are quasi-clones” i hope.
The whole sample was 38 twins, but what we’re asking is how many were in the “disimilar environment”-sample from which the 0.26 correlation was drawn.
“heritability is only a crude proxy of a trait’s malleability.”
How come?
Before treat twins as IDENTICAL or as ”fundamentally defined by environmental circumstances” is very important analyse every outcome
Twins raised in different places
Analyse before their similarity levels, for example. But, these people is ideologue.
Who “is ideologue”?
”Who “is ideologue”?”
https://media1.tenor.com/images/e280bd07df7eefe9d1d4197ddf4c8bf4/tenor.gif?itemid=10171209
This “ideologue”—what’s his ideology?
“The analysis leads to the conclusion that standard psychometric methodology cannot yield tests appropriate for measurement of evolutionary fitness characters.”
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1023/A:1018337915759
“Therefore this study shows minority-group test bias as a psychometric artifact in a model with a general factor and thereby throws into question arguments that appeal to g as a ground for denying applicability of animal models to problems of human intelligence.”
“Tests are biased because items are biased. Items are biased because they are initially prepared by testers on the basis of their experience with subjects, and they are further selected on the basis of responses of a sample of subjects. The result is a test biased in favor of those most prevalent in the experience of the tester or in the sample of subjects”
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1037/0735-7036.102.4.400
This, along with Fagan and Holland, make the item bias point wayyy stronger.
when i interviewed/visited one top 10 uni in o-chem i was told one of the profs had the oed in his office and hated it when people used “method-ology” instead of just “method”.
it’s the same reason i have sometimes used “techne” rather than “technology”.
people use “methodology” and “technology” to mean “method” and “techne” respectively. so it’s legit because that’s what so many of the prestige speakers actually speak.
and no one uses “techne” except me and commenters on heidegger’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Question_Concerning_Technology
the point is when you add the “-ology” ideally this should mean “study of (the thing)” and not the thing itself.
so psychology studies the “psyche”. the phenomena which psychology studies are therefore “psych-ic-al” not “psychological”.
but today “psychical phenomena” connotes bullshit ghostbusters shit.
I’ve always appreciated the power of media; hence my fascination with oprah
You appreciate a big trump inside you
Heidegger is watching you
And when pill says “master” he’s not referring to media owners. He means the secret Jewish guy who orders all the media owners what to do. The same secret Jewish guy who pill thinks tells presidents what to do. Mug of Pee is too autistic to realize pill literally believes we’re living in Oz, so he imagines pill is being subtle or metaphorical. Mug of Pee thinks psychologists are dumb because he knows they think he’s socially dumb and he’s to narcissistic to admit he has an all pervasive developmental disability.
SERIOUSLY!
rr is on brain-roids.
TELL US WHAT THEY ARE RR!
Creatine, fish oil, vitamin D, vitamin C, multivitamin, BCAA, tons of steak, chicken, turkey, potatoes, and cereal and of course: lifting heavy ass shit off the ground and putting it back down again.
by “cereal” i assume you mean HAART.
you know that both bart giamatti and james gandolfini died from a heart attack at 51, right?
Imagine him without all of it!!!
I’m eating Count Chocula right now.
RR is commenting exclusively by quotes here since 2013??
I’ve been commenting here since 2016 I think. I’m showing papers and their conclusions that are the opposite of “HBD.” I know people don’t read papers so….. That’s why you quote them.
The matter is understand the papers
The matter is you think I don’t.
Your self awareness is nonexistent. Common place among incompetent whitey
I no have no self-awareness yet you read and respond to my comments.
Makes sense.
”I no have no self-awareness yet you read and respond to my comments”.
Self awareness =/= human language, period. You can’t be self-reflexive. Eveything your mind decide is absolutely correct for you, that’s your lack on self awareness.
Yet you still respond to my comments.
Yea, they’re called “beliefs” and you have “reasons” for these things called “beliefs.” Maybe it would do you some good to read:
Click to access The-Power-of-Critical-Thinking-Effective-Reasoning-about-Ordinary-and-Extraordinary-Claims.pdf
LOL!!!
You’re a caricature of yourself
Haha you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read that reasoning book.
”Haha you don’t know what you’re talking about. ”
Say this looking at the mirror
You obviously know nothing about having beliefs and reasons for having those beliefs.
Educate yourself, read that book and stop pontificating.
Hehehe
Ok….
My psychological profile is a very interesting one, Santo. I have medicine-induced akathisia so its nothing like it used to be, in a bad way for sure. I’m heavily neurotic, callous, feel a lot of emotions deeply or none at all, and highly sensitive to outside stimuli.
I don’t know how to describe myself better because I’ve always assumed my perception of myself was not important and that it was only other peoples’ perceptions that mattered but I’ve come to realize that’s unlikely because I can change the way people see me by acting the way I want to act and not being forced to act like others want me to.
I’m a very resilient individual and am very emotionally intelligent, though I may lack social intelligence. I know when emotions and words and thoughts are supposed to be cued or queued and I do so accordingly.
Anyways, working on becoming a better person but it’ll take some time. Come back in a year and I’ll let you know how things are going. Jk. Probably won’t make it another year at this rate….
Do you have any professional diagnosis, autism or other??
I was diagnosed as maniacal depressive aka bipolar, first time i was in psychologist, an incompetent. I was ~13 years old. She tried to medicate me with anti depressive without a proper evaluation. I was unlikable to take pills then coincidentally had a tv show talking about bipolar disorder. The person in this tv varieties must take pills to stabilize his mood. I concluded i ‘m not bipolar because i don’t need it to stabilize my own mood.
The second time i was in psychologist she said i cannot be autist because i was looking to her face all the time during the consult . I know i have some psychological issues but i’m define myself as disordered even because i see lots of truly provlematic people without a oficial diagnosis not so surprinsingly occupying fundamental places as country presidency. I believe more in relative maladaptatiion in my case .
I dislike to define myself as disordered.
Nope, no autism, very little chance of that, possibly Asperger’s but even that’s unlikely. Funny enough, I was diagnosed with bipolar as well, type II if I remember correctly. That’s all I’ve been diagnosed with, actually.
The medication, haldol, an antipsychotic that can be use to treat instances of mania, had debilitating effects on my body, annihilating my testosterone levels and other things that developed, like a complete malfunctioning of my dopamine receptors, etc.
I actually am a lot more schiz than I am autistic, if I were to quantify myself on that scale, especially under drug use.
”possibly Asperger’s but even that’s unlikely”
huumm
So stop to use the wrong medication. Are you caucasian or like PP*
I mean, I dunno, I might have Asperger’s but I’ve never been diagnosed.
I mean, I think it’s like ADHD where they over-diagnose it, tbh. Most people aren’t aspie who are labelled as such.
I am half-Pakistani, half-Indian.
I uploaded a pic of me to this very site, Santo. It was on the article about the Indian subcontinent, etc.
But yeah, I’m subcontinental.
Nice!
media owners aren’t master peepee.
Who or what do you think pill means when he says “master”?
Puppy keeps saying I literally mean 1 man ruling things like a king. I never said that. Puppy likes making up stuff because his head would explode trying to grasp the truth.
You’ve said our elite are like concentric circles. On the periphery you have the politicians & media. On the inside you have deep state types & people like Rubin. Then finally at the core you have a single secret Jewish man you call Master.
Master is an actual man in your theory, not a metaphor for the system as mug of pee believes.
Be honest.
Hahahah I never said there was a king or evil emperor a la star wars and the Sith. Puppy is bringing his love of star wars into political conversations . I use master is a somewhat similar way as Marx uses the capitalised Capitalist as a representative of the ruling elite. The elite is different in different societies. I’ve talked at length about the China example and how xi jumping and his cadre really are ruling China unlike in the west where our (((elites))) are hidden from the people.
But you believe there’s a very tiny group at the core of this ruling elite. Perhaps not one man, but a very tiny group of men like Bob Rubin and Michael Froman. And of course if that were the case one man would tend dominate the group because humans are hierarchical creatures.
Ive always said In the west there are groups of these powerful people with slightily different priorities. The elites that support trump are different to the group that supplanted Nixon. I can name a few of the later group and some of trump’s backers. And even within jews there seems to be a split over the Iran issue (but both jewish groups agree on Iran as a threat and therefore all the media will say iran is evil never mentioning this is based on its threats to jews rather than america I.e same with russia).
All of academia and other channels of mind control like media and courts and so on are tools used by Master to perpetuate their power. The fact there is some disagreements among elites in america shouldn’t mean they dont agree on a lot – e.g open borders, general globalism, normalising gays and perverts etc.
I believe in Marx’s economic superstructure to a point but I disagree that the only motivation for elites is economic. This is the part where i disagree with Robert. These media companies have been run at a loss for years. They exist solely for mind control purposes. A lot of the elites aims are ethnically motivated because they’re jews.
Well now you’re just watering down your theory to the point where it’s virtually indistinguishable from what I believe.
One of the main criteria for who is Master is who tells the us army and police what to do and especially who controls the secret police e.g NSA CIA and that. They call this the monopoly on violence in the textbooks.
Pills believes white elites are the victims…
and believes virtually 90% of white people are pathologically altruistic… isn’t*
Puppy your belief is that the us is run by Congress and the courts and the president. Now and then you might jazz it up and say a talk show host or some other usually black celebrity cos you cant stand blacks not having any power independent of jewish power.
no i believe the U.S. essentially run by those members of the Forbes 400/Fortune 500 who use their wealth or status to buy political or media power, combined with people in the Deep State.
I do believe the president and congress have power, but since they were largely elected by the Forbes 400 (and or blackmailed/thwarted by the deep state) and depend on the Forbes 400/Fortune 500 for post-political income, they seldom act independently.
This is where you and me are deeply divided. I think the Forbes list is at best a partial list of the USA s most wealthiest. Whereas you think its definitive. I dont see buffet or gates as elites. I’ve said that 100 times since I’ve been here.
They’re economic super elites, but they choose to be politically irrelevant for whatever reason
What’s so hard to understand?
… I disagree that the only motivation for elites is economic. This is the part where i disagree with Robert…
stop repeating that lie over and over like peepee. i’ve said the opposite 1,000 times, and i’m way more hard core anti-semite than you’ll ever be.
I actually fell asleep in work today. It’s the meds I think. I’m always very tired.
Trump is doing well on foreign policy. The deep state hate Erdogan and tried to remove him in a coup to make israel happy. Being friendly with Erdogan and Putin is an example of why trump is far better than an establishment figure like Hillary or Jeb Bush.
Also like McCain was, I strongly suspect Lindsey Graham is being blackmailed based on his true sexuality.
Graham isn’t gay. He’s just an opportunist.
He is 100% gay. Its very obvious.
He’s flamboyant and a bit fem, but we’d know about it if he were gay. It would’ve been dug up or leaked to the press when gay marriage was a big issue.
This is kinda funny though:
You don’t understand. The media is completely controlled. If they dont want something out there it doesn’t get out. The people that blackmail him are the same people that tell the editors what is allowable to be printed.
^see Mug of Pee. Pill really does believe in a literal Master: A single unified secret government that runs everything like a well coordinated dictatorship.
No puppy you’re taking me too literally. I believe there is a group of (((elites))) blackmailing Graham to get the foreign policy they want but this is just one circle of many concentric circles we would call the establishment.
So just one circle blackmails politicians & also controls the entire U.S. media? Wow that doesn’t leave much for the other circles to do.
How do they control the media? Are you accusing bob iger,Jeff zucker, Rupert Murdoch the NY Times, Washington post etc of blackmailing politicians or conspiring with people who do, or are all these media entities themselves being blackmailed by this “one circle of many”?
Yes these people sit on information that’s very shall we say interesting without publishing because theres an agreement among them. I’m not saying all media companies are aware of Graham’s sexuality but the main establishment ones are. And the ones not in the loop cant publish scandalous info like this without being sued anyway or losing access to politicians.
Politicians often have affairs with women or directorships in foreign companies or family members lobbying government but the media never mentions everything. Rupert Murdoch is extremely powerful even thou hes not as rich as say Bill Gates hes way more powerful. I guarantee murdoch knew the wmd in Iraq was fake but was asked to promote it anyway but other key members of the elites as a favour or to let him have some other advantage.
In the concentric circle model some people are ‘more insiderish’ than others but nobody knows every single deal and behaviour of everyone single other person in the elite . As I said often times they disagree e.g. iran deal.
Yes these people sit on information that’s very shall we say interesting without publishing because theres an agreement among them.
Maybe they cover for him because he’s pushing an agenda they support. That’s more likely that some secret agreement among the entire establishment media and the blackmailers.
I’m not saying all media companies are aware of Graham’s sexuality but the main establishment ones are.
You think someone took a photo of him kissing a guy and then texted it to CNN, Fox News, NY Times, etc, with a note “turns out he’s gay, but as long as he keeps supporting war with Iran, don’t tell anyone”? A more likely scenario is that they only text the photo to Graham, threatening to tell the media, and only if he steps out of line.
And the ones not in the loop cant publish scandalous info like this without being sued anyway or losing access to politicians.
Actually it’s virtually impossible for a public figure to successfully sue for libel in the United States. He’d not only have to prove the accusation was false but that the person publishing knew or should have known it was false too. And non-establishment media doesn’t have much access to politicians so they have little to lose. The prestige media often sucks up to politicians to maintain access, allowing a less respected outlet like The National Enquirer to break the story that John Edwards was having an affair while his wife had cancer.
Rupert Murdoch is extremely powerful even thou hes not as rich as say Bill Gates hes way more powerful. I guarantee murdoch knew the wmd in Iraq was fake but was asked to promote it anyway but other key members of the elites as a favour or to let him have some other advantage.
There’s no doubt that powerful people lobby the media to advance certain narratives. On that we agree.
Pilltard can’t think in abstract ways, so he can’t be able to differentiate such associations, for example, the CORRECT moral universal values and a bunch of sociopath politicians pretend to be progressists. He can’t and it’s shows how primitive, cognitively limited he is.
Jews and progressive allies create [NEW] narratives, antithesis of countserfdom…
Pills, following his instincts, accept passively jewish machinations. And he is not alone. Millions of megalomaniacal heterotrash men follows the jewish machinations as if jewish peple were a kind of King Seth.
Pills literalize ”jewish narratives” as RR literalize ”post modern neo lamarckian just so hypothesis”.
And he must repeat his thinking in his head, obsessively, due insecurity about these beliefs… Every day he must believe that jews are all-only-one-evils; trump is the true heroe; all progressive agenda is wrong.. and so on
You’re forgetting these people socialise with each other. There are probably rumours among these elite groups of Graham’s real sexuality. I can tell graham is gay just from his physiognomy and the way he talks for instance. The blackmailer may well be a media editor or producer like jeff zucker. People at the top in media know a lot of things they cant publish because they’ve been directed not to do so in the same way they are directed to publish obvious bullshit like the russia hacking election crap.
My sense is that if you strapped zucker to a chair and forcred him to tell the truth he would eventually tell you stuff about paedophile rings and gay closeted politicians or illegal spying and surveillance of people. You just dont get the role of the media as a concept at all puppy. It’s not there to inform people. Its function is to protect the elite and promote their power.
However I will say that not EVERY single media outlet is ‘in on it’. Especially things like unz or foreign outlets like russia today who have a different elites agenda in mind. I doubt oprah is considered important enough to direct either if you’re wondering.
You’re forgetting these people socialise with each other. There are probably rumours among these elite groups of Graham’s real sexuality. I can tell graham is gay just from his physiognomy and the way he talks for instance. The blackmailer may well be a media editor or producer like jeff zucker.
No a Zucker type has too much to lose to try a scheme that risky. It’s probably an intelligence agent Epstein type, assuming Graham is being blackmailed. He may simply be a moron who believes the neocon propaganda.
People at the top in media know a lot of things they cant publish because they’ve been directed not to do so in the same way they are directed to publish obvious bullshit like the russia hacking election crap.
You don’t get how U.S. media works. It’s actually the New York Times that sets the agenda and the rest of the establishment media just regurgitates whatever the NY Times says. They do this because a) they generally share the same politics as the NY Times, b) they’re too cheap to hire real journalist, and c) if they don’t follow the leader, they risk being exiled from the club.
My sense is that if you strapped zucker to a chair and forcred him to tell the truth he would eventually tell you stuff about paedophile rings and gay closeted politicians or illegal spying and surveillance of people.
I wouldn’t be surprised but I think he largely decides for himself what stories to bury and what stories to publish.
You just dont get the role of the media as a concept at all puppy. It’s not there to inform people. Its function is to protect the elite and promote their power.
WTF? When did I say or imply it was there to inform people. Just the opposite, I explicitly said they cover for people who support their agenda. You don’t get Occam’s razor at all. If most of the elite media is neocon, then neocon puppets will be protected. Duh. You don’t need to posit more complex explanations.
I doubt oprah is considered important enough to direct either if you’re wondering.
Ben Shapiro disagrees with you, writing:
Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman in America. She decides what makes the New York Times best-seller lists. Her touchy-feely style sucks in audiences at the rate of 14 million viewers per day. But Oprah is far more than a cultural force — she’s a dangerous political force as well, a woman with unpredictable and mercurial attitudes toward the major issues of the day. Her ignorant views and wacky reasoning shape the views of millions.
You simply don’t know enough about American culture to understand how powerful a force Oprah was at her peak.
By the way on the Enquirer I’ve read that paparazzi and some media outlets actually ask celebs for money not to print certain photos.
My guess is that if the paparazzi started following robert Rubin around they would be told to back off or their whole family gets executed in a mysterious car crash and the fake news calls it a car crash.
“the Enquirer”
I’m sorry puppy but you just dont get it. I think this argument is now over. Why are you supposing these media owners are independent actors that never talk to people. Has it ever dawned on you the reason editors are neo cons is because they were selected to be. Puppy has this idea a person can start off as a janitor in the New York times and then someday be editor through independent hard work lol. Poor puppy. They ARE IN ON IT. Why is that so fucking complicated?!!
Why are you supposing these media owners are independent actors that never talk to people.
I’m sure they conspire sometimes but I see no reason why that should always be the default hypothesis.
If you stuff the media with neocons you’ll get pro-neocon news just like if you stuffed the media with arabs you’d get pro-Arab coverage. Duh!
Saying neocons need instructions to push the neocon agenda just strikes me as redundant
Lion’s been pushing the neocon line that Trump should expand in Syria, is lion in on it? Of course not.
As for why there are so many neocons in media in the first place; I think it’s a combination of high verbal IQ, high psychopathy & in-group favouritism
Phil, I’d never deny that mass media does what it can to set the (((narrative))), but circa 2012 the risk of gay marriage not getting passed was much higher than the U.S. abandoning zio foreign policy.
Most people, especially Graham’s retarded constituents, support the latter.
Countserfs who give money to shepherds [to become richer] is the dumbest of all… beyond the stupidity
Strong beliefs due rampant irrational prejudice
Maybe i’m an agent gaysmith for pill
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-religious-ethnic-minorities-uighur-muslim-harvest-organs-un-human-rights-a9117911.html%3famp
Horrifiling!!!
c j hopkins and chomsky agree with pill. this is what chomsky means when he descries himself as an “anarchist”.
“master” also refers to a form of social organization which isn’t necessary and tends to place psychopaths [redacted by pp, oct 7, 2019].
Psychotrashes as you
Yes everyone & their mother knows the elites are parasitic psychopaths. That’s not the defining feature of pill’s model
The difference is Chomsky thinks the idea of a conspiring elite is idiotic.
By contrast Pill has claimed that the elite are a secret organization with a chain of command that holds meetings & barks out orders to media & academia
Chomsky is a fraud. If it’s true he said the us government tells the Israeli government what to do he is lying on purpose. Nobody with even minimal geopolitical knowledge would conclude that.
Here’s what he says:
Yes there is method to the madness. Countries aren’t just picked randomly to be invaded. Who decides who our enemy is is a carefully doctored process. For example you may have noticed earlier in Obama’s presidency they tried to reach out to Russia. The media talked about a ‘reset’. In my opinion this was the elite offering Putin and his cronies an olive branch. Then once putin intervened in Syria, Russia was the enemy again.
You only have to listen to certain establishment people like max boot or that jewish journalist that called Tulsi gabbard a traitor and puppet of Assad to see there is something psychopathic about these people. Their bosses report to people you will never see on tv.
But robert is correct that the system selects for psychopathic personality types. People that dont give a damn if many people die. Indeed they hope many people die and lie continuously.
But the real feature of the way humans organise in so called civilised societies is that there is a tendency towards feudalism always. No matter if the economic system is centrall planned, capitalist or mixed. This is why it’s common for nepotism to happen. If you believe psychopathy is genetic then psychopaths select their offspring to perpetuate certain parasitic and malignant behaviours.
Actually mainstream academic studies have show lower class people to be more altruistic then people of a higher class. Whether this behaviour is encouraged by the system to keep some down and keep some up is a good question.
The secret weapon of elites is
stupidity
pills & musg are little piece of frankensteins
they dance the wallz of divide and conquer and make the defense of white race immoral because white people is behaving like savage stupid sociopaths trumpist retarded mythological trashes.. in internet.
Why PILL think he’s not a psychopath*** weird
atheists and HBDers are like birds…
an irish setter chases them and they fly away.
they look behind, if they do, and laugh.
but what if they look behind them and…
flying dog!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49968126
Persuasiv
Look at these IQ test questions. The first is from the Army Alpha test (in Heine, 2017: 187, DNA is not Destiny):
1. The Percheron is a kind of
(a) goat, (b) horse, (c) cow, (d) sheep.
2. The most prominent industry of Gloucester is
(a) fishing, (b) packing, (c) brewing, (d) automobiles.
3. “There’s a reason” is an advertisement for
(a) drink, (b) revolver, (c) flour, (d) cleanser.
4. The Knight engine is used in the
(a) drink, (b) Stearns, (c) Lozier, (d) Pierce Arrow.
5. The Stanchion is used in
(a) fishing, (b) hunting, (c) farming, (d) motoring.
And this is from Castles (2013: 150, Inventing Intelligence) who writes about examples from the WAIS-III (she can’t legally give out questions since she’s a licensed psychologist):
One section of the WAIS-III, for example, consists of arithmetic problems that the respondent must solve in his or her head. Others require test-takers to define a series of vocabulary words (many of which would be familiar only to skilled-readers), to answer school-related factual questions (e.g., “Who was the first president of the United States?” or “Who wrote the Canterbury Tales?”), and to recognize and endorse common cultural norms and values (e.g., “What should you do it a sale clerk accidentally gives you too much change?” or “Why does our Constitution call for division of powers?”). True, respondents are also given a few opportunities to solve novel problems (e.g., copying a series of abstract designs with colored blocks). But even these supposedly culture-fair items require an understanding of social conventions, familiarity with objects specific to American culture, and/or experience working with geometric shapes or symbols.
those alpha test questions are from 1917 rr. that’s why you don’t know them.
culture varies over time.
the “stanchion” question is wrong, but the gloucester question is the only question someone today might be expected to know.
Yea, that’s the point.
How co.e you let him insult me and I’m not allowed to insult him?
Your existence is an insult itself
Pills believes after the only-malignant jews, white elites were angels, absolutely devoting to promote justice, peace and harmony.
Conserfs were and are all perfectly reasonable creatures before horrible comunist social warriors begin to desconstruct golden propaganda western civilization built to itself.
And the conserf morality is absolutely superior…
But, the truth of historical facts is basically opposite of what pills instincts feel…
Beforeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I’ve always had a fascination with low-trust groups. Like Eastern Europeans, blacks, etc. I’ve always wanted to be around low-trust people.
You’re crazy!!
”I’ve always wanted to be around low-trust people”
Said the rat to cat
Pumpkin, day for instance on an IQ test, that you fumble on a question you normally would be able to answer, would that count as an underestimate?
I don’t think the ten thousand hours of practice bullshit is accurate…BUT I do think that if you try something 10000 times, you’ll do it at least once.
At least about introspection it is
Autists ritualize the most. That’s literally what an autist is, someone who ritualizes excessively.
So pills attemps to marry a white woman…
Does Mugabe remember this game?
maybe.
baseball is a sport where whites and china people can compete, because “athleticism” doesn’t matter much.
lots of practice and hand-eye coordination are more important.
Oh, the sports
the opium of masses, as muggyoogy
Anyways moving away from explaining basic points about how ‘systema’ works that I’ve repeated 300 times already….
I noticed robert is not hot on climate change as a problem. But unlike robert I see it as a risk management problem more than a discrete event plus can we handle the reaction/risk capacity thing.
I’m not a scientist. I assume many scientist are even a bit aspergery. I just dont see how they would male up random shit like this to scare people “for research money”. So I believe them enough to at least say – let’s mitigate the risk of something really bad happening even if the risk turns out to be small when we have better data instruments etc. Because right now all we have are a bunch of really complicated models that give us various scenarios and the experts dont agree on what will happen for definite.
I see it much like the ozone problem we had in the 80s. I think well have to develop renewable energy technologies even without climate change being a risk anyways.
Like Krugman said let’s pretend theres an alien invasion so we have an excuse to give scientists more projects and money and jobs. God knows we spend government on useless thrash like wars for israel and bailing out professional gamblers on wall st.
i do have more experience with natsci than any hbd commenter i know of.
I just don’t see how they would male up random shit like this to scare people “for research money”.
then you don’t see very well. natsci funding is ultra-competitive.
i’ll say it again. fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are NOT a problem. deforestation IS. species extinction IS. the proximal and ultimate problem is too many people on a finite planet. but (((can’t))) say this because the people with tfr > 2 are almost all non-white.
higher CO2 is not a problem because even if it causes global warming, global warming is NOT a problem. the climate in the tropics won’t change at all. global warming doesn’t warm the whole earth. it just makes the earth’s temperature more uniform, warms the cold parts.
the earth is now in an ice age. for most of its history there have been no glaciers anywhere except atop the tallest mountains.
from the beginning of serious CO2 emissions to now sea level has risen only about what? according to (((ultra gay))) wikipedia. not much at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Mugabe gets it.
Overpopulation is behind EVERY major environmental problem, global warming included. The developed world will NOT be the primary producer of CO2 from here on out.
I think it’s the religious right that first made talk about overpopulation a no-no, though. It was a mainstream left-wing talking point through the ’70s. But the woke crowd has certainly embraced the taboo.
”Mugabe gets it.”
coffeine’s retard…
Even a plant can understand this, jr..
mugy would do like to be part of sociopath elites…
What?
He understands that overpopulation underlies every serious environmental problem and that climate activists refuse to mention this.
I think global warming is a legitimate issue btw.
”he said”
Everybody knows this… climate activists are mostly white and OR stupid.
You just dont get the role of the media as a concept at all puppy. It’s not there to inform people. Its function is to protect the elite and promote their power.
ala chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent.
so yes! because the ethnic composition of the power elite has changed chomsky’s talk has changed.
but not as much as peepee might think.
that is, chomsky’s ethnic motivation may be fairly obfuscated even for him.
This retard post dog images since… 2013…
so in the US, and it’s even worse in japan…
the way natsci works is there’s a professor and his “graduate students” in a group of at most 40 people, usually about 6…
and the professor writes long grant proposals and is rejected 90+% of the time.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS:
NATSCI IS TOTALLY DIS-ORGANZIED AND DyS-ORAGANIZED.
”Stupidity”
something you understand very well