As I was driving home from work tonight I managed to listen to a really great episode of Ideas on CBC radio. The show talked about how a study claiming psychic powers were real managed to get published in a reputable psychology journal because the results were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
This led to a crisis in the field and the realization that we can’t be 95% confident in the 95% confidence level because scientists cherry pick which way they’re going to analyze the data, so that 95% is a biased sample of what they’re trying to measure (a phenomenon known as p-hacking). Kind of reminds me of how people only report their highest ever score when telling their IQ.
It turns out that only about one third to one half of all psychological claims proven at the 95% confidence level can be replicated by independent researchers. In other words, there’s regression to the mean.
And it’s not just psychology but almost the entire field of science is afflicted by this replication crisis.
You can listen to the full episode here.
Pumpkin Person 
Maybe I’m just an anomaly but I usually end up reporting my WORST IQ scores, or at least all of them.
All of science has a replication crisis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
I blame capitalism.
Self-interest would be under the “capitalism” umbrella, right? Scientists and their pet theories would also be a problem.
What do you think of the claim that science does not occur Ina vacuum and is driven by politics and economics?
“Self-interest would be under the “capitalism” umbrella, right? Scientists and their pet theories would also be a problem.”
Well yes, I don’t necessarily blame capitalism’s existence but i believe at its core it does promote the causes of this “crisis”, like publication bias that increases the instances of false positives.
“What do you think of the claim that science does not occur Ina vacuum and is driven by politics and economics?”
Science’s “progress” and its primary subject of focus are heavily driven by politics and economics but i don’t believe the method itself is dependent upon them because it can still be utilized by individuals.
For example, it makes sense to prioritize the study of medicine, yet as an individual i can still use the scientific method when researching anthropology. Simultaneously, politics and economics decide what is accepted “truth” but that’s independent of the “real truth”
“The show talked about how a study claiming psychic powers were real managed to get published in a reputable psychology journal because the results were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.”
David Piffer? That clown thinks he has ESP.
“In other words, there’s regression to the mean.”
Do you mean this in the “HBD” sense? Have you read Flynn’s recent article in Psych where he discusses this (Reservations about Rushton)? Along with Cernovsky and Litman (2019)?
There is no hbd sense. HBDers sometimes make the mistake of talking about regression to the mean like it’s some uniquely genetic phenomenon.
what would be the genetic mechanism? none. the genetic true score of the chillens should have the same average as their parents’ following the many genes of small effect linear model, but P is farther from G at the extremes in absolute terms. that is, very low and very high scores have more points attributable to E on average.
Here’s Cernovsky and Litman on RtM:
“With respect to university educated immigrants from these regions, Rushton insisted that their children wouldbe far less intelligent due to the phenomenon of “regression toward the mean,” a widely used pseudo-scientific explanation popular in certain circles. As pointed out already a few decades ago by Nesselroade, Stigler, and Baltes [4] on the basis of statistical research, “Regression toward the mean is not a ubiquitous phenomenon, nor does it always continue across occasions.” For example, medical data indicate that untreated alcoholics or untreated patients with highly malignant cancer do not regress to the mean of their racial group: their illness usually progresses to adverse or terminal outcomes. It is a pseudoscientific practice to apply the concept of regression toward the mean to IQ scores of ethnic groups, see expert discussion by James Flynn [3] in 2019.
No not him. You should listen to the episode; you’d like it.
so assuming gene-gene interactions are unimportant…
the ONLY reason for regression to the mean is that IQ is not 100% determined by genes.
Oh but you’re missing the point
no you’re missing the point….as usual.
HBDers are so ‘tarded they think that two high IQ parents who find the best environment for their children…
children will still be dumber.
…
my dad’s friend who became the DA had a kid who did poorly in school even though wife was an MD…
dude claimed smart parents had dumb kids…not just regression.
my dad said to me…the problem with their theory is that they themselves are dumb.
baltimore catechism.
The point is HBDers think that regression to different racial means is evidence that racial differences are genetic. It’s not.
Of course your dad’s friend was dumb. Birds of a feather…
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/02/george-soros-brexit-hurts-both-sides-money-educate-british-public
Good article about Soros.
regression to the mean is NOT a “genetic phenomenon” as low IQ peepee has referred to it. it’s just a mathematical phenomenon.
i explicitly denied it was a genetic phenomenon. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Unrelated.
About Michael Jackson, i have just read that he used to live in Trumps tower, and Donald Trump and Ivana would let him watch TV and play video games with Eric and Donald Jr for hours. They told the story to show Donald wasn’t a racist. But the two kids weren’t molested despite spending hours for days with him.
So MJ must have been good at not touching the merchandise. His self control is a sign of a good IQ . The two kids resemble the one he likes, cute white kids.
Haha he was hardly going to touch them while he was living in trumps tower.
Sadly pill thought MJ was innocent until I convinced him otherwise with this article:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2019/03/11/was-michael-jackson-a-child-molester/
About conspirations, Scott Adams had a good insight but with wrong math and consequences, about China human harvesting allegation.
My analysis is this one : given the body parts price, a human is worth 750 K in china for its parts. I would guess that only 1% of the population is able and willing to pay for a transplant. Thats 15M people. If I compare to french data, the need of organs would be 6K a year. As foreigners seem to represent 40% of transplants, the need is of 10K transplant.
So if they use prisoners sentenced to death (just harvesting them before they are killed), with a 120% coverage, they would need to have 12K sentenced to death, or 40 people a day. Thats a 9 billion business. In 2005, the communist party reported 10K executions but now Amnesty internatinal says its 1K. If this analysis is to be believed, it must be around 20K because they wouldn’t havest all people sentenced to death for logistics reasons.
In a culture that is not christian, takin the parts of asocial people to sell them to the best fraction of society is perfectly normal.
I would say it’s only if there is a market – with no set price for organs – that the prisoners who are waiting their sentences, could be evaluate depending on the desirability of their organs, and a system of corrupt judges and prison directors, could benefit from it. If the price is fixed and there is a “China Wall” between the two process, the death sentencing, and the harvesting, there is no risk of killing people for their organs; They are killed. And the state and society benefits from their debt by using and selling their body parts.
I guess Romans or Greeks wouldn’t have any problem with such a trade. But it is awfull for christian society who think the body is sacred and made to the image of god.
Even 20K people condemned to death in a 1,5 billion population (20 million per year) is a 1 in thousand chances of being killed by government. Thats not a genocide. But thats not occidental compatible. Thats why it would be good for occident to decorrelate from China for at least 50 years ….
like it’s some uniquely genetic phenomenon.
means it’s a genetic phenomenon among other phenomena.
like it’s some genetic phenomenon.
means it’s not a genetic phenomenon.
LEARN ENGLISH OR GO BACK TO YOUR SHITHOLE.
means it’s a genetic phenomenon among other phenomena.
It happens for both genetic and environmental reasons so it’s not uniquely genetic.
Duh!
Your confusion over basic English is caused by an all pervasive developmental disability.
So then how does regression to the mean happen genetically? I’ve always assumed that it’s just a statistical concept.
PP, exactly how much do you make off this blog?
Possibly anywhere from 19k to 79k, at least that’s what google says. He is probably making less than 19k because it’s an HBD blog and will by extension be less popular.
He doesn’t even make 2k off this blog.
Just talked to Donald Trump on the phone…he said he’ll release his tax returns as soon as Pumpkin tells us how much he makes off this blog, hahahah!
Intelligence seems to be an adaptation for the efficient use of heuristics in solving problems. Everything else would qualify as divergent thought, incorporating the ability to associate between different things and make connections that are important.
Most people are able to act intelligently but not think divergently.
The idea that there are infinite universes where a person exists, living out different scenarios, is justifiably false because of phenomenon such as the butterfly effect. This can be validated by the fact that it’s arbitrary how a person will be born, what genetic recombinations that person will go through, when he or she is born, etc.
the basic question in all this is what makes you “you.” Basically, all these issues with what makes you, the individual, unique and adapted to your bubble also creates the contradiction that you will also incorporate inside your multidimensional persona an infinite amount of people who would be very similar to you but would not be you.
Fundamentally, your existence is so unique because of the extraordinary circumstances, environmental and genetic, that have happened to you cannot exist in another Universe, thus giving you the significance of relying only on this version of yourself to make do with what you have.
You cannot use a different model of yourself somewhere in a different realm to place yourself somewhere special. However, I do think dreams are a way to connect yourself to other possible scenarios a distinctly similar individual might be playing out for you…but it wouldn’t give you complete access to the experiences that other individual whom you’re related to would have.
Even when we dream, we can’t experience things in the first-person, usually morphing our subjective reality into something of a third-person, video game like character. This person whom he assume is us in our dreams usually is communicating things in our subconscious that we may not entirely possess ourselves, like borrowing the characteristics of other individuals and morphing into who we are.
Another interesting thing that would happen if multiverses actually exist is how closely “related” we are to those who come close to being “us” but are not really “us,” meaning they have the same genes as us but were maybe born a month later or had a different prenatal environment. this individual could be me but would not really be me, if you get what i’m saying.
Anyways, the whole thing is a very fascinating topic and I think should be discussed in further detail to bring a resolution to how increase utility not only in this world but also in others as well.
What are you talking about? I always dream in the first person.
Hahah, Melo, what I’m trying to say is that most people morph their perceptions of who they are with the qualities of others and consequently make a dreamworld for themselves that does not reflect who they really are.
I understand what you mean, though; from a general perspective of dreaming in the first person, but if you think about it, there are events and actions that happen in dreams that you think to yourself you would never actually do in real life, meaning the entity dreaming will have little control over what emotions, actions, behaviors, anything are being expressed but will garner those experiences anyways because it is a projection of not only your thoughts and ideas of yourself but the thoughts and ideas of others.
You’re playing into the trap of thinking intelligently and not divergently, Melo.
All cognitive abilities are part of intelligence, Loaded, including divergent thinking, though admittedly IQ tests tend to be biased in favor of convergent thinking since it’s easier to score.
Dreaming in first person view is still dreaming in a first person view, even if the agent in said dream isn’t you or doesn’t take actions you would in real life.
“You’re playing into the trap of thinking intelligently and not divergently, Melo.”
LOL. That’s a distinction without a difference. It’s not my fault if you can’t coherently express yourself.
And that’s not a bad thing because divergent thought will only lead to abstract truths while intelligent thoughts will bring about fundamental truths.
However, dreams occur in the first person but what I was trying to get at was that there is a lag between what a person actually wants to do and what actually happens in a dream. There is a lack of “agency,” as one would say, meaning there is little to no control over the situation you place yourself in, even though it’s your mind. That is because your dreams are not only reflections of your experiences but the experiences of others, simple as that.
Understanding the collective unconscious and the mechanisms of dreaming as well as the actions of the subconscious make all this apparent, everything I’m talking about. Especially the conceptual reality where we have little control of how we behave. We can have beliefs, ideas, innate qualities that we are aware of having but our actions will not reflect that…how come?
If we were truly experiencing reality in the first-person then our perceptions and thoughts would be manifested immediately. That’s not the case, though, giving credence to the idea that we are not in control of anything, that we are not the byproducts of our own perceptions of who we are but the byproduct of the perception of others.
Most IQ scores are false. There’s no way someone can score more than 4 standard deviations away from the mean in terms of intelligence. This is probably true because there is a maximum capacity of knowledge the human brain can store as well as a ceiling for how much output one can have mentally, how much a person can comprehend, etc.
So in theory, some people perform significantly higher than that on IQ tests but it’s usually because the difficulty of those problems have a ceiling as well.
People can be more than 4+ SD in height, weight, running speed, strength, brain size, etc. Why not intelligence?
There’s a maximum amount of height and weight a human can have until it becomes unhealthy, meaning there’s an optimal range for those traits. Speed and strength are going to have diminishing returns as well.
Those traits also have a range where the majority of the population are a part of but outliers exist in the right end of the tail and are just that, outliers. I doubt that you can create outliers with most traits other than intelligence as well.
also, there are ceilings for strength, height, speed, weight, etc. as well. this would mean that there’s a ceiling for intelligence but maybe that ceiling is lower. I mean, there must be a lot of traits out there that we can quantify that would have 4 standard deviations or lower even.
Finally, one must consider the floor and not just the ceilings of these traits. A person can be a lot more than 4 standard deviations shorter, lighter, slower, and weaker, but not more than 4 SDs stupider.
What defines or regulates the inherent limits of these “ceilings”?
Neuronal density or any other neuroscience-based phenomenon. I guess the computer analogy can always be used, like speed of processing and amount of output a computer can generate are going to be standard models for how the brain thinks too. There’s a maximum storage of knowledge our brain has, which has been computed and you can Google it, but overall, the ceiling would be affected by how dense the thought-pattern is and what the human mind can comprehend and perceive, in one way or another.
Like with all perceptual traits, sight, sound, taste….they all depend on the physiological mechanisms that support them. The same goes for the brain. though-patterns that we have are molded into our mind and cause us to use heuristics to think certain ways. it all depends on how many heuristics we have, how many we can synthesize together to create new ones etc.
And what controls the ceilings of Neurophysical systems?
Sorry, meant to say you can’t create 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘴 in traits aside from intelligence not outliers. Second paragraph, second sentence.
Bell curves do not exist for most traits, at least not to my knowledge. I
Correct. The bell curve for IQ is an artifact of test construction.
I joke an awful lot on this blog and make a lot of sarcastic comments sometimes. But jesus christ, loaded is killing the threads. Tell him to restrict his ‘intellectual’ output to 1 paragraph a day or you will lose people puppy.
You are guilty of the same shit.
Spamming dumbshit ad nauseasm.
well then, I’d say comment more yourself, Pill. No one stops you from commenting when you want to. I just have a lot on my mind and let it be known. And they’re all related to the blog somehow or another. So I think I’m fine, man. But thanks for the suggestion.
Well the point is that you are shitting all over the comment section. Most of these ‘posts’ are just rambling. Even worse than animes stuff.
Ok, so what do you think a good compromise would be, Pill? Please tell me you have the skills to set up a good compromise. Everyone in the financial world should.
Nvm, I’ll set up the compromise. PP tells me what he estimates my IQ to be and I will limit myself to one paragraph a day. Deal?
Based on the fact that your parents both found work as U.S. scientists, they probably average IQ 120, but given the 0.6 correlation between parent and offspring IQ, you’d likely regress to the Pakistani mean of 80, but add 12 points because you were raised with First World environment. Thus your IQ is:
0.6(120 – 80) + 80 + 12 = 116
This is also consistent with your test scores: IQ 135+ on the SAT; IQ 88 online testing. Assuming a 0.7 correlation between both tests gives a composite score of 113
Hahahahah thos is puppys way of saying he agrees with .me.
“Given free rein, I can supply an evolutionary scenario for almost any pattern of current IQ scores. If blacks had a mean IQ above other races, I could posit something like this: they benefited from exposure to the most rigorous environmental conditions possible, namely, competition from other people. Thanks to greater population pressures on resources, blacks would have benefited more from this than any of those who left at least for a long time. Those who left eventually became Europeans and East Asians.”
Flynn showing the ridiculousness of just-so stories.
If blacks had a mean IQ above other races, I could posit something like this: they benefited from exposure to the most rigorous environmental conditions possible, namely, competition from other people.
Despite being an hbder I must admit he has a point.
Actually you don’t even have to imagine, you could cite the example of modern humans evolving in Africa yet being more intelligent than the European Neanderthals
The obvious point is that no matter the data, one can craft a story to “align with” the data and that “coherence with” the data is irrelevant as a story can be crafted for any and all observations.
Lmao that’s not true. If the hypothesis is falsifiable then it can’t fit all observations.
The hypothesis that trait T is an adaptation is falsifiable iff there’s an observation that verifies T moved to fixation in virtue of its contribution to reproductive success rather than in virtue of being a byproduct of a trait. But there is no such observation.
In any case, Flynn is right: if blacks had higher mean IQs, one could create a just-so story to justify the observation. Just like with Aristotle and his observation of those from the northern lands.
“The hypothesis that trait T is an adaptation is falsifiable iff there’s an observation that verifies T moved to fixation in virtue of its contribution to reproductive success rather than in virtue of being a byproduct of a trait.”
False. We’ve been through this before.
1. The inquiry on a trait’s fitness and fixation in the OEE is independent on whether it’s a spandrel or not. They’re not mutually exclusive.
2. Fodor’s argument has nothing to do with what we can know. We can in fact makes those observations and differentiate between coextensive traits.
“In any case, Flynn is right: if blacks had higher mean IQs, one could create a just-so story to justify the observation.”
And that hypothesis is falsifiable by many potential pieces of data.
For example if the genes associated with a particular phenotype don’t show any signs of selection, or if the proposed exogenous factor does not actually match up with the OEE on further scrutiny like when Anthropologists realized that our chimp like ancestors were originally in wet wooded areas not open grasslands when the anatomical characteristics of bipedalism first emerged.
PP what do you think of this article on “Asian intellectual superiority”?
https://developmentalsystem.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/asian-intelligence-superiority-or-is-it/
This book gulag archipelago is very grim reading. I’ll finish it but it’s not something I’ll note as a positive experience unless one would argue that no matter how bad life gets under a future president Bloomberg or [redacted by pp, nov 4, 2019] majority supreme court at least they cant bring back gulags again…..or can they?
I cant think of a more disgusting candidate to vote for than hilary. It appears the corporate dems want to bring her in to get rid of warren and Sanders….why dont these people just call themselves the [redacted by pp, nov 4, 2019]
Anyways if she runs again, my full and total attention will be to helping trump win again.And of course i will help puppy in the den primaries with his chosen progressive candidate
Pumpkin, are Ivan Ivec’s IQ tests accurate, specifically the numerus basic one? https://free.ultimaiq.net/numerus_basic.htm
I don’t know
Rushton and Templer’s melanocortin paper dissected and burned:
Cool. I guess I’ll have to limit myself to one paragraph per day. Whatever. It was nice commenting freely when I had the opportunity. But since I don’t anymore, I won’t.
Looking forward to posting that one comment tomorrow. Until then, have fun bullshitting with each other, guys!
You can do 3 comments a day. Ideally one in the morning, one in the afternoon and one in the evening.
Fair enough, 3 comments per day it is. Hope you’re happy, Pill, you autistic schizo-fuck.
Though I’m not going to do them in a scheduled time-frame like you suggested, Pumpkin. Might as well go ham and post 3 in a row like how I’m about to do right now.
First comment: People are evil and psychopathic. Empathy is a dead language and was useless anyways because it made predators even more predatory.
Second comment: Everything is situated in comfort. Humans thrive and survive for comfort and feelings resembling comfort. There is no other need for survival than to find peace of mind.
Third and final comment for the day: The superego is a mirror of the Universe…the id is a mirror of the natural world…and the ego is the convergence of those two features of our human mind. The Superego reflects on the Universal thought process and brings order and structure, just like the cosmos, the id brings chaos like nature, and the ego is there to view it all.
*takes bow*
Now I’m done for the day. Enjoy yourself while you can, Pill. See you tomorrow, asshole.
because it’s not our fault.
that we were first.
because the white people religion is the religion of love.
we exploited “a little bit”.
but we’re hated because…
???
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Is that Jeremy Irons. He did such a good job in Die Hard 3 that I was surprised to find out he was british.
Ok now lion is banning my comments on jews again.
In the end the jews always protect each other even if they’re nominally nationalists.
Being very interested in genetics, especially my own, I have the very basic background knowledge of how to interpret my DNA using the raw data they’ve given me. Learning about SNPs and stuff has been very enlightening.
There are two heavily-studied SNPs that increase IQ in response to being breastfed in early life. I am heterozygous for both, meaning they are effective in boosting my IQ by a couple points, but could’ve been doubled if I had been homozygous for those SNPs.
Anyways, I was never breastfed, always carrying a baby bottle with me and causing me to hurt my facial development, ruin my teeth for a long time before I got braces, and apparently making me lose out on precious IQ points.
Also, I’ve been a pescatarian for about 13 years, since the age of 10, meaning I haven’t had a sufficient protein source in my diet that would help my brain develop well. I dunno how many IQ points I missed out on here but it’s probably sufficient enough to criticize my decisions in early life, something that I take responsibility for and something my parents reinforce, a heavy criticism of self.
If anyone wants to find out more, the SNPs are rs1535 and rs174575. Check them out, there’s a lot of interesting assumptions that can be made about IQ in general because of these two SNPs that exist.
One bone I have to pick is the fact that my parents never parented by example. I have a lot of very good qualities (maybe I don’t show them here but I definitely exhibit them in real life) such as respect, cooperativeness, forgiveness, etc. Everyone always assumes that I must have taught by my parents but I never was. It was kind of reinforced in the back of my head by following my natural instinct and doing what I thought would be best for me.
Never did I come to the conclusion until way later in my life that these traits have to be taught instead of manifested by the individual. If anything, my parents always acted more selfishly than me, were always more immature than me, and definitely put me in dangerous situations. That’s where I probably realized that that is not the way to live life and put aside my biological impulses and said to myself I gotta act different.
I guess what I’m trying to say is some people need to be taught by example, and others, knowing from first-hand experience, will take the higher road and do the opposite of the evils and injustices that the parents usually end up doing. This is what distinguishes the ordinary from the great, imo.
Since aspergers people can’t act and always tell the truth, it would be surprising to me that they appreciated acting, because clearly they can’t comprehend what it takes to pretend to be something you’re not.
The Lib Dems must be the most annoying party in the UK. Although to be fair they seem more about defending upper middle class voters rather than a straight out globalist elite. It just so happens all their policies benefit the globalists.
it’s funny how no one knows anything about history and thinks the current danish social democrats are something new.
but in fact they’re what all leftist parties used to be like before taken over by blair-clinton types and other (((types))).
Under Frederiksen’s leadership starting after the 2015 general election in which the Social Democrats returned to first place and gained three seats in the Folketing, the party has moved back to the left on economics while becoming more sceptical of globalization, neoliberalism and immigration.[8][9]
Pumpkin, can you do an article on the accuracy of Ivan Ivec’s tests or high range IQ tests in general?
The jewish interpretation of history and one that robert always makes about whites being the most destructive and ‘cruelest’ as judged by what happened in the colonial era and 20th century is totally bogus. It so happened that when arabs were leading the world in commerce and science, for a brief period in the middle ages, they also set forth to conquer the known world and enslave people (including whites) and force their religion on people. The fact that whites were technologically advanced enough to later do this only shows that whites were technologically advanced, not something unique about the human condition and certainly not the white one. This is why Santo belongs in a creche with all the other kids when he screams straight white Murder! I guarantee if blacks were somehow able to conceive of the various technologies and weapons the west used, they would have invaded countries and subjugated people too. The fact whites are held to some sort of abstract universal standard after the fact is more jewish original sin propaganda.
As we all know even east asians went around the world and looted and pillaged when they had the means to do so e.g. mongols, huns, imperial Japan.
If you want to understand Santo youll have to read his long posts and contrast them with his old posts to see the perspective hes developed. But the conclusion of his views is that he wants people to understand that life is a losing game that it needs to be ended by benevolent people. Getting people to realise that requires a lot of steps becuase the people have to be altered in such a way where they could be receptive to such things/ideas, and some psychos or mundane people just cant get what hes talking about. Such views could probably be unhealthy for the way a person conciously or subconciously evaluates how to handle problems, pain and rewards but he might say that he doesnt care becuase he litteraly has a end goal to life. He also has some descriptive statements about how people relate and things and can name the successes and faults of various groups without implying a universial superior way of living, and thusly will insult and praise everyone. But he will mostly praise people close to his archetype as he think those people need help to raise themselves.
I dont think i get it entierly still.
you need to stop lying about “robert”. he has never said anything you have claimed he’s said because schizo.
jews and other non-europeans resent europeans for their accomplishments. it’s envy.
what robert actually said was:
1. the ‘genocide’ of native americans was not intentional. it was european diseases spread unintentionally.
2. the developing world might be better off if its countries didn’t have artificial borders drawn by colonial powers and thus much greater diversity than the developed world. and if it weren’t for western medicine there wouldn’t’ve been the population explosion in the developing world.
3. take your thorazine.
Santo was the only commenter here with some intellectual integrity. honestly.
Surely the purpose of society now should be to be a bit more epicurean and maximise total social welfare and minimise social pain.
And not the ‘free market’ stuff by giving all the gains to someone living in the caymans and dumping all the pain on normal people via illegal immigrants like loaded and still coming out ‘net plus’ on welfare.
What we would need is a tiered system where the maximum number of people at various levels get net gains. This may involve executing psychopaths or exiling drug abusers to ‘re-education’ schemes in siberia as much as soaking the wealthy with taxes.
I don’t intend on becoming rich. If I do, it certainly won’t be because of working hard. I can have a very nice lifestyle on a 20k salary. This is what Freud called the benefit of the intellectual class – books, video games, socialising with smart people, meeting women and other educational or leisurely pursuits don’t require giant incomes.
The one exception to this is of course raising a family. That might require a bigger house, helping your wife and kids consume rubbish and so on. I would like to think my kids would not be high maintenance like I was.
You couldn’t become rich. You don’t have the social IQ, nor do you have any market valued talents.
Pill is such a prima donna. He does like half a day’s worth of thinking and then tells himself he can reward himself with like 5 straight hours of binging on video games and junk food.
What a complete prick.
Why not? I didn’t say junk food by the way. A person should obviously eat well, work out and try to keep healthy but beyond that I dont see why people should work to put bread on the table with today’s technology.
Universal income is a great idea. People who want to become a pilot or an astronaut or whatever can still do so. If people dont want to be serfs the wage will increase to attract waiters and cleaners (keeping in mind my ideal society would ban immigrants like loaded from crossing the picket line so to speak)
Anyone see Keane Reeves new girlfriend?
Good for him I say.
Man, I miss Santo and his stupid ass…
Santo was a hypocrite. He was against transgender people but said that homosexual people were normal just because he himself is homosexual. He couldn’t even argue properly without going into an emotional meltdown.
“Japanese mixed with brazilian, all my hoes be mixed tho”
LONG LIVE SANTO.
do you actually enjoy that music loaded?
very much so.
Wheres my story on the psychology class? How did you find that offensive?
I did not appreciate the gratuitous reference to a commenter who has been nothing but kind to you
??? Just delete his name then.
If I keep cleaning up your messes, you’ll never improve.
It was quite interesting the other day. I was reading this article on why fake news is so dangerous, and I was expecting some dumb anti-Russia nonsense from Robert Rubin until it listed a bias in human decision making that I found interesting.
Apparently we always assume people tell the truth more than weigh up its content. i.e. its evolutionary disadvantageous to do due diligence on everything a person says so we err on the side of truth.
I thought this was only something aspergers people had, but when I reflect on myself and my countless job interviews, its true that you can lie pretty much even in a job interview and get away with it.
This shows that the world is suprisingly easy to navigate if you were to lie all the time. I think the movie Catch Me If You Can with Dicaprio as a conman is a good example of this as it was based on a true story of a guy who lied about being a commerical airline pilot, attorney etc among other things.