I enjoyed the below interview with Bill Gates by NY Times journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin.
The interview begins with Sorkin praising Gates as “the most consequential individual of our generation”. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but it was refreshing to see Gates fully accepting praise of that magnitude without even feigning humility.
Aside from the erratic hand gestures and awkward foot tapping (which may be involuntary ticks), Gates showed good social IQ. He got laughs from the audience when he said people at bars feel comfortable talking to him so “I try to stay away”. When mocking other billionaires’ obsession with space travel, Gates admitted he’s read a lot of sci fi, but “not as much as them”: Audience laughter.
It was also interesting the way a super high IQ billionaire like Gates looks down on investment billionaires for engaging in zero sum parasitic behavior. Just as in every day life, criminals tend to be less intelligent than productive citizens, it could be that even among the smartest billionaires, (i.e. those that made their wealth in math related fields), the most productive math billionaires are smarter than the psychopathic math billionaires.
Gates’s thinly veiled criticism of Elizabeth Warrens wealth tax was also interesting. Warren wants people to pay 2% a year on every dollar of net worth over $50 million and 6% a year on every dollar over $1 billion. According to Warren’s wealth tax calculator, Gates would have to pay $6.4 billion a year on his $107.4 billion fortune (as of today). That really adds up over the decades and if she wins the nomination, a lot of rich folks will go absolutely ballistic.
Defenders of the wealth tax insist the rich would still get richer because simply putting all your money in the S&P 500 increases wealth by 9.8% a year on average, but if it were that simple, why do so many rich people fall off the Forbes 400 every year? Indeed of the 400 richest Americans in 1982, only two still rank among the 400 richest today.
The fact is few billionaires are liquid enough to put most of their fortune in the S&P 500. Their fortunes are typically stocks in the companies they built and selling them would cause them to lose value.
It seems unfair to tax people just because they are rich. If there must be a wealth tax, Warren should tax people with a high ratio of wealth to lifetime taxes already paid. So someone who has only paid $100 k in cumulative taxes, yet has a net worth of $1 million should perhaps be forced to pay a wealth tax, but someone worth $1 billion who has already paid $500 million in taxes, should not.
Better yet, skip the wealth tax and simply increase the estate tax and capital gains taxes as Gates suggests.
Pumpkin Person 
The government wastes money. If I was a billionaire why would I want to pay for the government’s mistakes? I am no saying billionaires should be allowed to avoid paying taxes. I am saying the way the government spends tax money of everyone taxed is wasteful. The government is going broke. Taxing billionaires won’t fix that.
Like said before, objectifying something as subjective as social interactions into a form of intelligence is a crime against humanity. That’s what psychopaths do, so it makes sense to call it as it is.
Huh, so you make no distinction or differentiation between types of social interaction/behavior? For example it would be wrong of me to consider someone unjustifiably and grossly overreacting to something I said, as perhaps momentarily or even possibly intrinsically socially challenged(assuming a pattern is observed)? Like it or not we ALL make distinctions and evaluate social behavior and acuity in others. Society would grind to a halt if we didn’t and we would likely regress back to the stone age. We may not all agree as to what we put more emphasis on and such(essentially the finer details) but my sense is that on the whole among intelligent people there is great agreement as to what constitutes high social intelligence.
Methinks you might have allowed your brain to be flooded with all the nonsense that is thrown around by social advocates(as per the so called subjectivity of value in a behavior, particularly when it comes to ethnic or even racial differences). At the crux of the issue and once you get past the superficial fluff there is always a way to discern, at the very least, a utilitarian value to a mode of thinking with regards to social interaction even on a greater societal level.
Nevertheless, simply put, I see no reason why we cannot devise a social intelligence test, assuming of course we can get everyone to agree what would constitute a good set of questions(easier said than done). This of course is not a sign of any inherent subjectivity to evaluating social intelligence but rather more revelatory of either people’s attempt to stack the game in their favor or a type of “sour grapes” syndrome. This issue arises because social interaction is much harder to gauge and in some ways more complex than even say physics which leaves ample wiggle room for the naysayers.
I could see how your evaluations could be considered an imminent threat, such as characterizing any type of analysis of an individual a crime since it happens to be intolerant of differences innately present in humans.
the key distinction between good and bad is that there’s pro-social behavior, that is objectively considered good and antisocial behavior that is bad. Unfortunately, multiple perspectives can be used so there’s no single wrong or right, thus confounding objectivity itself.
“I could see how your evaluations could be considered an imminent threat”
Not quite sure what you mean by the above. Why would my evaluations be considered an imminent threat? Are people not entitled to form their own opinion about other people, society in general and basically anything and everything. By virtue of existing in this world and functioning intelligently we invariably MUST differentiate, if we fail to do this nature will likely get the better of us. In fact the ability to differentiate(ie tell the difference between all things in life, tall, short, smart, stupid, good bad etc etc) is a fundamental part of intelligence if not the most important aspect of it.
An example of differentiating socially in a proactive way would be the following; Say I go to a bar one night and some random dude tries to befriend me. He seems harmless at first but then I sense something odd about him based on signals I pick up from the things he says. So i trust my instincts and basically find a way to cut the conversation short and I leave that bar in short order. Well I find out the next day that as it turns out this guy was a major drug dealer and a very dangerous guy to boot. I get told that I did the right thing by keeping my distance. This is but one of countless examples in everyday life where we use our social intelligence to get ourselves out of trouble and avoid it all together. If we went around blindly putting our faith in other people and failed to differentiate properly we would probably get ourselves in serious trouble very very quickly. There are all sorts of people out there mate, and I mean ALL sorts. Good, bad, smart not so smart, dumb even, kind, ruthless, normal, mentally ill and everything in between.
Now of course one could use the ability to differentiate to navigate the world in a proactive and positive way and one could use it to marginalize and oppress. It goes without saying that the latter is wrong but things are a lot more complicated than people think so I would suggest being very very careful before judging someone too harshly if they choose a way to apply themselves in the world that might not be as PC as you would like. Of course the devil is in the details but I would say that being tolerant generally is a good thing but knowing when to be tolerant with people whose general stance and ideology you disagree with is probably the highest form of tolerance. Personally I am about as liberal as they come, on a political compass I land somewhere in the middle(between left and right) but I’m about 70% towards liberal/libertarian on the line between authoritarian and /liberal/libertarian.
“such as characterizing any type of analysis of an individual a crime since it happens to be intolerant of differences innately present in humans.”
Wtf? Once again I don’t quite know what you are talking about. Analyzing other people…is a crime? Are you serious man? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being aware of reality even if that reality is painful for yourself or others, in fact being in tune with reality is an absolute MUST. The question is how do you go about navigating that reality. My general philosophy is “live and let live” unless the threshold for a net harm out of someone or something has clearly been surpassed. Typically around the point were it causes serious suffering while the key word here is “net”, a lot of people fail to factor in enough variables correctly before they decide something is “harmful”. In any case I would never attack a weak or disadvantaged individual, EVER. In fact I would never attack anyone unless I think that person needs to be headed off because they stand to cause more harm to the world or to themselves if we leave them to their own devices. Of course debate is a special kind of social interaction where in some instances the gloves might come off( as long as I sense that the other person can take it). RR seems to be getting the worst out of me from time to time, but only because he frequently crosses the line with one of the only few things that I tend to be intolerant of, namely stupidity. Not the harmless kind of stupidity, or the “can’t help myself” kind of stupidity(these cases get nothing but sympathy from me) but rather the willfully ignorant kind of stupidity, or the obnoxiously defiant stupidity, or the stupidity motivated by selfish and egotistical machinations. I am all but certain that RR in part takes a particular stance in order to wind people up, or to push some poorly conceived nonsense that at the root of it has self serving motivations. You might ask, “so what, aren’t you a live and let live sort of person”, well yes I am but I think his stance is incredibly harmful for society in general and so ideas like his need to be dispatched with.
A little side note on my political compass test. I basically abhor authoritarianism, I think authoritarians are perhaps the most dangerous people in society today(or ever for that matter) and the least tolerant actually. What most people fail to realize is that even people on the left can be authoritarian. A perfect example of authoritarianism on the left being communism which took the lives of almost 100 million people in the 20th century(by some accounts). All in the name of a poorly thought out so called utopian ideology under ruthlessly authoritarian regimes. Want to know the main face of authoritarianism in today’s world? The idea that it is a “crime” for me to think negatively about someone or form a less than flattering idea of them. Let others judge me if I take a position on someone that is wrong, I welcome any criticism and will stand corrected and repentant if that is the case while i generally tend to give people the benefit of the doubt before anything else but don’t tell me I cannot or should not form negative opinions about someone if I know with certainty that I am right only because my stance is supposedly intolerant in your eyes. What am I a thought criminal now…? Who put this nonsense in your head man? You really aught to read 1984 by George Orwell and understand that the PC brigade, the thought policing kookoo so called progressive left are on a one way road to madness if they don’t wake up soon. Reality is complicated and it can be incredibly brutal and unforgiving if you pacify yourself too much in the name of political correctness. Logic must rule the day the truth must rule the day and sometimes these things must be fought for ferociously, not with guns or violence but with more logic and more truth.
Note that there is a difference between accepting some harsh realities of life and using those harsh realities to bring someone down. I am dead set against the latter but feel the former if done honestly tactfully and in a well meaning manner can do far more good than harm, particularly in the long run. The truth shall set you free as they say.
PS By attack I don’t mean physically or even socially I mean it through debate.
MY ideas are harmful to society and MY ideas need to be dispatched. Hahaha. IQ-ists are delusional.
RR
Well if you say that IQ tests are categorically not intelligence tests then I’m afraid it is YOU that is the delusional one here.
I am by no means an IQ absolutist, they do have their flaws but for the most part they are fairly accurate at gauging intelligence and are the best thing we’ve got at the moment. Of course there is far more that goes into predicting value in people, character, honesty, decency, work ethic etc. Some would argue those things are far more important and I would generally be inclined to agree with them but in as much as intelligence is concerned, IQ tests are it. Your failure to admit as much but then also take it to the absurd extreme and reject them as entirely invalid is utterly baffling to me. It is clear that either you are severely cognitively impaired or you are just getting a kick out of winding people up or – this last one is what I would place my bet on – you have ulterior motives and basically want to increase your stock in life by undermining something that you are simply not good at. Kind of like some towns north of Los Angels secretly hoping that the “Big One” might some day hit California and leave them with some brand new beach front property.
Bill gates is bad at poker for similar reasons he wears pink jumpers on tv interviews.
it’s the same satanism in canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada#Wealth_taxes
so every home owner must pay >= 2% on the value of his home, but gates must pay nothing on the value of his $100b.
peepee loves this because psychopath.
1) if Prince Andrew had seen this interview, he wouldn’t have bombed
2) BG moved his hands like Beto
3) he has high social skills , including humour, faux self deprecation and is very manipulative
peepee-tard and gates are so utterly retarded they don’t know that plenty of not rich people already pay a wealth tax every year.
why is financial wealth not taxed and real property wealth taxed?
because most of wealth of the wealthiest is financial not real and the rich are psychopaths.
if gates won’t pay a wealth tax then no one who owns a house he lives in should pay a property tax.
I know all about property tax & I don’t agree with that either. I do agree with the estate tax though because I see it as income tax on the inheritor not a wealth tax on the dead.
and rich people are already paying property tax on their many mansions.
if rich people bitch about how much they pay in taxes they’re either retarded or evil.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-us-has-flat-tax-in-effect.html
the above chart slopes down for the rich.
in general the rich in the US pay less in taxes as a % of their income than everyone except the very poor.
this is satanism.
in general the rich in the US pay less in taxes as a % of their income than everyone except the very poor.
In general yes, but why treat all rich people as though they are the same? People who get rich off selling labour have already paid a large percentage and should not be lumped in with people who got rich off capital gains.
the people who have a right to bitch are YUPies with no inherited wealth.
that is, young professionals with little in the way of investment income who live in high tax localities like NYC or cali.
if you’re a young doctor in nyc with no wealth who works 11 h a day and has to pay 50% total income tax you have a right to bitch.
[redacted by pp, nov 17, 2019]
gates lied to ibm and told them he had an operating system when he didn’t. so did he code an os for the new ibm pc? no. he bought from a professor for $30k.
that’s gates’s fortune. the whole thing.
plus gates engaged in anti-competitive business practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
all the real work was done by other people [redacted by pp, nov 17, 2019]
So he’s clearly good at bluffing when it really matters, poker be damned!
Social interactions require cooperation between more than one person anyways, meaning that if you’re interacting with a socially inept person, you’ll look socially inept too.
It’s all about how your mirror neurons work and a bunch of other neuroscientific things happening. Most social interactions depend more on how the “dominant” individual is dictating the situation and how the other, usually “submissive,” individual is reacting to it. So it’s not a fair game to begin with.
Scrutinizing people based on one social interaction is retarded but observing people in a variety of social situations gives a good impression of who they are. There are great euphemisms for these types of things that you’d need to pay attention to to truly understand how the human mind works.
Yo PP, what do you think the correlation is between extemporaneous speaking IQ and verbal IQ?
I have no doubt Gate’s reading comp/working vocab are off the charts, but I’ll bet 15+% of the U.S. is more articulate than he is.
It depends how you define verbal IQ. Linguistic research suggests that verbal ability is composed of three relatively independent abilities: verbal knowledge, working memory & executive functioning. Gates would be super high at the first & likely the second, but dragged down by the third in my opinion
PP
Interesting assertion! What would you base his lack in executive functioning on and why do you think this is the case?
I have no reason to disagree with you, i’m just genuinely curious.
I’ll answer that question in an article later today
Looking forward to it!
Post my song, Pumpkin.
If you can find a way to weave it into a comment in a substantive way I’ll post it. Otherwise it’s just spam
Respectable. Thanks for being understanding, dawg.
0Thats your 3 for today.
I don’t know I find this picture of the journalist and his girlfriend funny but I do.
http://m.zimbio.com/Pilar+Queen+Andrew+Ross+Sorkin/pictures/pro
because they’re cartoonishly jewish
We all know that Willy has a high IQ, but what about pp’s IQ? Has s/he ever stated her/his results?
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/04/25/pumpkin-persons-childhood-iq-results/
Dunno how much each category is worth beforehand, but I will assume that it follows this pic:
If they are all equally weighed, then that is close to 120 for verbal, idk about the non-verbal since there is no upper limit for very superior and you scored well into that range for most of your non-verbal results. Do you have the associated SDs above the average value for verbal and non-verbal components from that test? If possible, I would rather see solid numbers instead of making inaccurate guesstimates on my own :p
a conservative reading of the chart puts my full-scale IQ at 135 after adjusting for old norms
135 overall would imply something like a 150 in the non-verbal then (assuming the verbal is ~120 after adjustment). That is quite a bit of a difference, what is your cephalic index like without going into the details of the exact values-which is to say dolicho, meso or brachycephalic in general? So far I know that Jordan Peterson has a higher verbal than non-verbal performance (based on his own statements) and he happens to have a tall kind of a cranium compared to his cranial width. On the other extreme, Sir Roger Penrose is known for his non-verbal/spatial approach and contributions to physics and he has a relatively broad skull with respect to the cranial height. I don’t know much about their cranial lengths but both of them seem to have above average cranial lengths.
Just to be clear I am not implying at these 2 examples are at a comparable level of intelligence overall, simply noticed different cranial traits that might correspond to their different types/distribution of intelligence. Though I do also realize that there is much more to intelligence than the type of cranium- it is influenced by brain pH (higher pH/more basic values seem to boost verbal intelligence) and neural connectivity as well which itself can be influenced by brain density- just to name 2 out of many factors.
0nly 1% of the population can average in the top 2% on both scales, so I didn’t need a 150 performance IQ to pull my full-scale up to 135. The full-scale IQ is more extreme than the average of the sub-scales, especially at the extremes
Don’t know my CI but my head circumference is only average for a man
>0nly 1% of the population can average in the top 2% on both scales, so I didn’t need a 150 performance IQ to pull my full-scale up to 135. The full-scale IQ is more extreme than the average of the sub-scales, especially at the extremes
Thanks for the info.
>Don’t know my CI but my head circumference is only average for a man
Interesting, I would imagine that the correlation between mere head circumference and IQ value would be weak (especially considering that on a living skull this includes stuff like living tissue which could influence the values in larger studies). One would need to incorporate several other other outer cranial measurements to account for a semi-decent portion of the full variance in intelligence in any given population, and even then, most of the variance would still be due to structural and other internal characteristics.
Well, I learned more than what I expected to when I made the post, thanks for that.
You’re welcome 🙂
Flaminhotcheetos
Head circumference is not enough for accurate ICV measurement(on an individual that is, for large sample cohorts the extremes tend to cancel out) as it does not account for head height which can vary up to an inch between extremes. Though I have to say that your theory sounds interesting, never thought that head shape could influence cognitive inclination. I find it interesting that JP has a very high verbal and is a dolichocephalic while Penrose is a mathematical/physics genius and is a brachy. I myself am a math/physics type person and am also a brachy. Would be interesting to find out what the CI of all the nobel laurettes is, perhaps we will find a correlatation of increasing CI as we move from literature to physics.
In any case I think ultimately what matters most is the size of the various regions in the brain and the connectivity(reliability and efficiency of neural signals) as well as metabolic rate of the brain. I read somewhere that mitochondrial DNA is what dictates the energy release rate in the brain(ie metabolic rate) which massively influences cognitive sharpness. Having said this I guess it would be possible to have a doli and a brachy both having the same size frontal lobe(all else equal) and as such perhaps have similar levels of cognitive output despite having a different brain shape.
PP
Btw you really should work out your head height as this can mean the difference of up to 2 SD in brain size. Not that it matters all that much anyway(there is much more at play) but you might not be doing yourself justice.
PP
“Btw you really should work out your head height as this can mean the difference of up to 2 SD in brain size”
I meant to say 2 SD variation in brain size for the same head circumference.
@pumpkinhead
Are you telepathic or something? You have mentioned some info that I was hesitating to bring up in my previous posts. Yeah the mtDNA thing does have an indirect effect. mtDNA U is associated with higher brain pH (more alkaline brains) and higher brain pH in turn is associated with better performance on certain subtests. IIRC, the performance gap is more so seen among the verbal (sans arithmetic) subtests and also has a relatively low impact on the non-verbal/performance IQ sub-tests.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Is-pH-a-biochemical-marker-of-IQ-Rae-Scott/ea39fc41b5d6d547237ab968cd95f477a4d06e27
So an average person with a more alkaline brain would be expected to do better in a purely verbal manner than an average person in general, but this better performance might not be significantly extended to arithmetic and spatial skills. There is a fairly small positive correlation with arithmetic/spatial skills and alkalinity of the brain as well but it simply isn’t nearly as large as the correlation between alkalinity and verbal IQ. So the average person with a more alkaline brain wouldn’t differ too much from the generic average person as far as arithmetic and spacial stuff is concerned.
I remember reading another more recent paper which looked at brain pathways associated with mathematical skills and they defined mathematical skills as arithmetic + spatial ability (this might be seen as basically like looking at overall intelligence sans all pure verbal ability), though the different types of abilities were more diverse than the basic definition. Here it is:
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/18/4909
Among mathematicians, the pathways associated with math ability are mostly located on the side, the rear and near the top of the head, while the front had very little involvement. The authors also comment that the verbal and non-verbal pathways were largely very distinct. So, the way I see it, the side and the rear are associated with mathematical (non-verbal + arithmetic) while the front would be associated with pure verbal skills, and the height would aid in both.
In my case I am ultra-brachycephalic due to craniosyntosis (perhaps as a result of this, my forehead happens to be completely dwarfed by the parietal regions), so IDK what my proper head shape should have been like. And why do I feel like I have already gone over the process of writing this before….you aren’t turning back time every now and then are you? :p
Flaminhotcheetos
“Are you telepathic or something?”
Well…I have been accused of that before LOL
Tbh I kind of clocked on to your inclinations/interest with regard to this topic and realized that you and I are basically on the same page wrt how we view intelligence and the brain. Don’t know whether it’s because I’m an engineer or whether I am a very practical minded person but basically I view the brain as a very sophisticated machine with various parts much like an engine has parts that contribute to it’s power output depending on their size configuration and qualitative make-up. I don’t mean to undermine the human mind or de-romanticize what makes us tick, what makes us human, but if we really want to break it down into constituent parts then there really is no other way to do it. Sure there is likely a whole lot more to it that we do not know yet but of what we do know it’s pretty clear that cognitive output is brought about by several main parameters. Tweak one a little this way and another the other way and you can create anything from the average joe to the next Stephen Hawking much like you could tweak a formula one car into becoming the fastest car on the track.
You and I hit the major ones, size(overall and regional), connectivity/circuitry(default circuit seems to matter a lot) and brain chemistry(mtDNA, neurotransmitters). There might be more but I think these cover over 90% of what dictates intelligence but keep in mind these parameters have virtually infinite variability. Which basically means that a large head/brain does not necessarily make someone smart however chances are that if this person also has ideal circuitry and brain chemistry to boot then high intelligence is virtually a given assuming of course that person is an otherwise normal healthy individual.
Also I think PP mentioned this before but there is something to having the right balance of white to grey matter ratio. Too much white matter vs grey matter can lead to schizophrenia while too much grey matter vs white matter can lead to autism. Also there seems to be a correlation with being left handed and having a higher performance IQ(math and visuo-spatial) and possibly creativity(see Mensa and math SAT left handed rates/scores, double the general population). Note this does not necessarily mean writing exclusively with your left hand but rather being more right brained than the general population(which is alarmingly left brained btw, unsurprising as this is the seat of language). This can mean that one is more left sided(right brained) than right sided, however this does not exclusively mean being left handed, you can be right handed and still be a right brained individual overall. If you ask me like the white/grey matter ratio, a more balanced brain is better than a very one sided brain. Most strong righties are very one sided, the same is not true for strong lefties as language still tends to reside on the left side of the brain and is used on a daily basis by everyone which means that strong lefties have more balanced/symmetrical brains than strong righties.
Which brings us to,
“Among mathematicians, the pathways associated with math ability are mostly located on the side, the rear and near the top of the head, while the front had very little involvement.”
Yes that definitely corroborates the research I have done on the topic, it may well be that math types are more brachycephalic(Einstein was quite the brachy, huge parietals). Come to think of it an exceptionally gifted mathematician friend of mine fits the description you gave of yourself(even more wide headed than myself). Maybe there is something to this, not as a rule written in stone but rather a slight tendency. As for being a brachy with a head on the large side, well, it used to bother me as a kid particularly when contrasted against a skinny 14 year old body but as I grew older and bulked up it became less of an issue while now it no longer bothers me as I realize that good looks come in all sorts of shapes and sizes 😉 not bragging but I reckon I’m a comfortable 7(or more when I look after myself). So If I were you I wouldn’t worry about the shape, it’s what’s inside that shape that matters and I don’t just mean the size, circuitry, or chemistry either but most importantly the ideas. Fill your head with the right sort of ideas and anything is possible.
Also an interesting but perhaps controversial hypothesis I have developed recently is that what might explain the difference in cultural technological and scientific advancement between Europeans vs East Asians may come down to executive functioning. It turns out that despite East Asians having overall larger brains and a higher IQ, Europeans have larger frontal lobes and better executive functioning. My theory is that for consistent and reliable cognitive and thereby scientific output EF is key(something IQ tests fail to evaluate). It is what allows us to organize our thoughts and is the seat of planning. Even a slight edge in this regard may in the long run produce significant gains. Of course I mean no disrespect to East Asians I have tremendous respect for their other gifts while of course this is a population wide study and says next to nothing on an individual basis.
Finally On a little side note(I think I mentioned this before), it is perfectly feasible for a doli to have large parietals and be a math genius, I think the shape might allow for some regions to grow larger than others but at the end of the day the brain is detached from the skull and develops fairly independently so large perietals or indeed any other region(temporal, frontal occipital) can come in all sorts of shapes. Would be interesting to find out to what degree the shape of the brain vault influences brain region development.
Pardon my lack of citations, I have included them in the past and I am in a bit of a hurry at the moment but if you want some links do let me know and I will provide them.
@pumpkinghead
Yeah, it would make sense if the mathematical pathways could come in other forms, and as long as there is enough parietal rawpower along with efficient biochemistry + optimal information pathways, there would be good mathematical ability in a given person. As far as I can tell Terence Tao does not have a very broad cranium, but it generally tends to look considerably longer than that of other people in the same frame as him. Perhaps a more lateral and vertical arrangement instead of outward and horizontal. Makes me wonder how different parietal shapes would rank if biocehmistry is controlled for, like what if brachycephals are typically better at math than dolicocephals however there is a certain dolicocephalic subclass of configuration which does better than most other subclasses.
Your EF hypothesis sounds interesting, that might be the case. Regarding the left vs right hand thing, I know of this Turkish study where the left handers on average had a lower cranial capacity but higher cerebral surface area than the right handed test subjects. This might be an important point towards understanding peculiar differences between left and right handed people. The left handers also specifically had a larger posterior surface area than right handers (I would imagine that this would come in various ways like a larger high-long arrangement or a larger broad arrangement). It is an old source and some things might be outdated but the point regarding left and right hander brain difference is still interesting to note, and it goes well with your mention of left handers being better non-verbal minds than right handers are on average.
Click to access IQTAN2.pdf
A great example of a brachycephalic mathematician (well at least he looks brachycephalic) would be David Hilbert
I know that this post isn’t in order, but that is just how things turn out when I am involved. Regarding the talk about the brain and the self. I think that everything that we can experience is within the physical realm, or else the proof for the non-physical would be self evident. Since things other than the physical cannot be quantified it is currently futile to talk about any non-physical aspect of the self. I wouldn’t say that this is all that is, and that an abstract existence isn’t true, but no one seems to have access to the supposed non-physical. So given what humans can work with, I think that it is pragmatic to approach it physically without being too concerned about the non-physical. If there is a super physical realm then it would probably become clear eventually.
Lastly, regarding my head shape, it seems to be very off, my description thus far hasn’t mentioned a ridge on the top of the head, which is strange because I thought
that those were associated with scaphocephaly. Would be strange if I was born with scaphocephaly which changed to brachycephaly + plagiocephaly due to
positional plagiocephaly. Oh and the occipital region is bent inwards with the 2 halves surrounding the central vertical line it not being as restrained.
the property tax is especially regressive when a neighborhood gentrifies and retirees have to leave because they can’t afford the property tax on the newly jacked up price of their houses.
in my state at least retirees can opt put of paying property tax, but when they die the state takes it back at 6% interest from their estate.
i too am 100% opposed to taxing people on property they use themselves. but this doesn’t extend to ginormous mansions.
my state is one of the few without a sales tax, but its income tax is regressive.
new hampshire has no sales tax and no income tax, but it has the highest property taxes of any state.
sales tax is yugely regressive.
the reason for property taxes other than corrupt politicians and psychopathic rich people is…
property taxes are much easier to “administrate”.
that is, the locality sends you a bill.
there’s no “figurin'”. there’s no tax experts.
yes.
1. it is possible and should be possible to become rich via doing good, creating wealth.
2. even honestly made fortunes or income from honestly made fortunes should be taxed at a higher % rate than the income of a 7-11 janitor.
3. that is, the tax system should be punitive for some types of “success” (including inherited “success”), but…
4. even for the good type of success, which benefits everyone by creating wealth, the wealth creators should be taxed at a higher rate than a 7-11 janitor.
and then the idea that an individual may create wealth by himself and all credit for this wealth creation is his is absurd.
so the tax code which is moral in one way may be immoral in another.
that is, some inequality is good so far as it makes everyone better off.
even though the market value of one’s talents are not under his control.
again this is why the small homogeneous nation state is the best for happiness and “flourishing”…
icelandic men are hulking beasts…yet they’re the world’s longest lived men.
and iceland is the world’s oldest democracy…not les etats unis.
in case peepee thinks i’m boosting iceland because bobby fisher is buried there…
iceland is right behind switzerland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
it’s remark-able how the fact that women live longer is NEVER a thing for feminists/lesbians or (((mass media))).
“that’s biology” they might say.
but it’s NOT biology that women aren’t interested in coding?
and if you suggested such you’re a “racist”…actually a “misogynist”.
white men are 30% of the US population and 70% of its suicides…
(((no one))) cares.
all these contradictions vanish instantly when [redacted by pp, nov 20, 2019].
the best country is NOT a country where…
rich and poor tolerate one another.
where black and white tolerate one another.
where straight and gay tolerate one another.
where men and women tolerate one another.
the best country is iceland.
basically no rich and no poor.
homogeneous.
perverts are too few to form a “community”.
greatest gender equality in the world.
peepee faces something, and she asks herself, how can i adapt?
adapting is good, she thinks.
what this world requires of its players (to stay in the game)…
food, sleep, (in the cold) clothing (fake fur) and shelter…
stop the idolatry (of this world and its ten thousand things) already.
Adapt just means goal directed behaviour. If your goal is not to adapt that itself becomes the goal you’re adapting to. There’s no escape
This statement makes no sense.
I was a janitor for 2 years on a military base. I made $11 an hour 20 hours a week. I was on SSDI, lived in a small apartment and was lonely allot.
the corporate income tax is an IQ test question, because a listed corporation is owned by millions of people and such corporation may elect to pay less than its earnings in dividends.
it’s like the local property tax.
it’s selected (in the Darwinian sense) because it’s easy to “administ-er/administ-rate”
my solution (which lion copied from me among other steals):
1. dividends are 100% tax deductible for the corporation.
2. 100% tax on “retained earnings” which exceed capex.
What makes you think that one professor talking about schizophrenia (open thread) has low/average performance iq?
Most peoples’ claimed IQ scores are inflated by 10-15 points anyways and the maximum biological score someone can get is 160 anyways, so there’s no way that these guys aren’t just lying to make themselves feel better.
I legitimately believe my IQ is between 110-115. You’d be a simpleton not to believe it based on my thinking ability and demonstration of knowledge.
None of this is true.
Here’s a good article though about polymaths…apparently Noble prize-winners in science are several times more likely to be polymaths than scientists who are non-prize winners.
Interesting….
Of course i left out the link:
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191118-what-shapes-a-polymath—and-do-we-need-them-more-than-ever
Okay, Gondwana, what’s your take on the maximum IQ a human can possibly have? 180? 190? 220? What’s your position on this and what evidence do you have for the circumstances?
Also, that Waqas Ahmed guy seems like a very pretentious and egotistical sort of dude, like many Indians and Pakistanis in academics. It’s almost as if their influence is null because they add too much subjectivity to the process of science when science is almost a completely objective form of thought.
LOADED
160 is a test limit/ceiling not a human limit.
Psychologists prefer not to devise tests above this limit because the accuracy is greatly reduced. It would require a large, city sized, test population to devise such a test but also if you ask me because they are not smart enough to create such a test. If there is a hard limit on human intelligence it is probably around 195 since that denotes 1 in 8 billion, roughly the population of the earth. Though if you ask me there is no rule that says an anomaly cannot exist. I reckon that if we normalize a test based on the entire planet’s average IQ then scores of more than 200 definitely exist today. However if we norm a test based on the US population, and assuming we devise a test accurate and sophisticated enough I think a score above 200 would simply be unrealistic. Simply for the fact that the increase is exponential, meaning that for every 1 point increase above 200 the rarity increase is astronomical. So for all intents and purposes IMO the theoretical absolute limit is 200(based on US norms) and this would leave room for all sorts of extreme anomalies.
Interesting. And what do you think the lowest IQ possible is then? I mean, what IQ does it take to actually survive as a human and be capable of breathing?
you have to understand that even an unconscious thought creates a necessity for intelligent behavior and can denote abstract thought and imagination anyways.
First of all breathing occurs automatically, in other words it requires no thought and its a good thing too since given how forgetful I can be sometimes I would have been a goner a long time ago 😉 So there likely is a whole class of neural activity that it would be a stretch to consider it intelligence by the conventional notion of intelligence.
So, in theory an IQ of zero is possible assuming we restrict intelligence to consciously expressed thoughts and actions. As such someone in a coma should qualify for a 0 IQ assuming the coma is irreversible and severe. Now it may well be there is neural activity but it would be next to impossible to discern whether this activity produced any kind of intelligence. Like I said IMO intelligence requires a conscious actor with purpose, dreaming basically falls outside the scope of consciousness and purpose.
Regardless even if we were willing to grant some level of intelligence to people in a comatose state, in theory they could suffer enough brain damage that their body could not sustain itself let alone produce intelligent brain signals and thus require mechanical assistance to stay alive, so even then their IQ would be zero or near zero.
You don’t think that in some way, the ability to conceive things, even if minuscule in nature, expresses intelligence? In terms of the cornerstone of intelligence, it seems that all neuronal activity displays higher-order thinking in a sense because your mind is doing infinite calculations in its head and one thing its calculating is how much energy expenditure is necessary to survive. This shows that all living things are capable of conducting complex reasoning and calculations, basically imitating human intelligence in one way or another.
It’s not that breathing requires intelligence to be done but think about the processes that go into breathing and if that’s the case then intelligence is required to be able to calculate how many breaths are necessary to sustain your life as well as calculations to maximize oxygen input, CO2 output, etc. Emotions are also an unconscious thing that takes up more energy than necessary, thus making intelligence a necessary part of all these things would work out.
“intelligence
noun: intelligence
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.”
You really aught to stop conflating subconscious processes(which occur among all living things even those we would hardly attribute one iota of intelligence to) with the very conscious process of exhibiting intelligence. Having said this, had you asked me what the lowest possible IQ is for a conscious person(ie non comatose) I would have to say that given the earth’s population the lowest possible score is an IQ of 4. However this does not consider extreme brain trauma which in theory can with the right tinkering reduce a person’t IQ to near zero or lets just say 1. Unfortunately we cannot do the reverse and tinker with someone’s brain so that we can increase their IQ beyond the human limit…yet. Having said this an IQ of 1 would probably allow for only the most basic level of consciousness, see, feel, hear but virtually no discernible ability to make any sense of what you see, feel, hear outside of perhaps feeling pain and knowing on some level that this pain is bad for you and should be avoided(though an IQ of 1 would not allow you to avoid that pain very successfully).
that’s a way better definition than any I’ve ever heard. Can you link me to where you got it. pumpkinhead?
google 🙂
You are right, it is in fact the best definition i have run into as well.
And y’know, it’s easy to tell that IQ scores max out at 160 because the brain has a theoretical knowledge limit and we never hit it, meaning that there’s so much capacity to learn but it’s never gonna reach the ceiling of how much input our brain can take.
I mean, the best indicators of intelligence are MRIs and other brain-scans and stuff and there’s no way that there’s a biologically possible way of someone having a 4+ SD on how a person’s brain functions and how much blood flow, etc. There’s just no way…there’s gotta be limitations and restrictions to this shit, blood flow being a very potent indicator of that.
Also, doesn’t reaction time have a maximum anyways too….and works in the opposite direction as well, no less, meaning that people can’t have a naturally slower reaction time than a certain maximum too. Intelligence is most strongly related to reaction times anyways, so we’d most certainly see a strong link between an individual’s reaction times and their intelligence.
Finally, brain size? Anyone have any good brain size data with SDs? If anyone can figure that out, we’d be able to find out the maximum threshold for performance IQ rather than just pure IQ.
Reaction times seem to be the best correlate for verbal and brain size for performance IQs. That’s how I see it, at least.
I always think about this when someone talks about Bill Gates.
I don’t even know what to think after watching that.
Emotional intelligence is not the same as social intelligence. The two are almost entirely separate functions.
Social intelligence is simply crystallized knowledge of how people behave and fluid understanding of interaction with people to adopt more understanding.
Emotional intelligence is self-regulation, self-monitoring, self-control and delayed gratification. It is the entire reason people look to meditation practices. Resilence to stress. Self-awareness. Handling information as in the inner self.
The first one is theory of mind. The second is balancing out your system.
Two different things.
Bill gates like Animekitty have trouble regulating himself. The similarity both have is in the ability to be fluid. This is different from Social intelligence being low. Gates understands people well to get what he wants. But he looks like he is in a crippled body. His emotional intelligence is high given that he looks like he is stuck.
Animekitty was in psychosis for some time.
Animekitty was stuck. and still is stuck
Animekitty has high resilience. can self-monitor. is socially aware.
There are many ways of being stuck and fluid, both emotional and social.
Nothing is wrong that can’t be fixed. I will try to be less stuck in the future.
Emotional intelligence as you define it is almost not intelligence at all but a personality trait
A personality trait is regulated by cognitive processes similar to sentience and intelligence, right?
pumpkin once defined EQ as the motivation to get what you want and IQ as how to get it. This is wrong because waning something is a desire. Buddha goes into depth on desires being the root of suffering because duka means disappointment (dissatisfaction). PP’s definition means a person suffering from high desire is high in EQ relative with those who have a small desire.
PP’s definition is a burning desire.
EQ is controlling desire. controlling one’s self. one’s emotions
Emotional intelligence is like Crystalized intelligence. It increases with practice.
The more control over emotions you have, the greater the extent you can adapt.
control theory is best describing Intelligence in a regulatory manner.
It is why feral kids need parents or they will never speak any language ever.
a self-regulated system has more control, intelligence is control
When I was depressed for 4 years I was shut down.
I felt I had no control over my life like nothing mattered anymore.
Increasing EQ increases density of perception and parallelism of brain matter.
High EQ expands control over the mind allowing the mind to hold and do more.
In my opinion emotions tell us what we want & intelligence figures out how to get it.
So the concept of emotional intelligence blurs the line between this division which is why I don’t like it
Yes some people are more intelligent at managing their emotions but it’s hard to tell the difference between good emotional intelligence vs good emotions
shutting down made me act more autistic than I actually am.
0nly 1% of the population can average in the top 2% on both scales
What does this mean?
It’s easier to score in the 2% of one scale than it is in two, making the percentage of people scoring that well on both scales dramatically less than someone who would score in that percentile in just one scale. An analogous situation would be where you can score a 130 in one test but the ability. to duplicate that score is much harder.
I dunno if that’s a good explanation but at least I tried.
Yes.
Notice it works both ways. For example if 10 tests are available and you only ask a top 132 in one test (like Mensa), you are probably recruiting starting at 120 ….
But if they asked 5 scores at 132, they would be recruiting at 140 ….
Makes sense. Thanks, Bruno.
Not sure I followed that logic of that statement
Only 2% can score 130+ on verbal, and only 2% can score 130+ on performance, but only 1% can score 260+ on verbal + performance. Hence a sum of 260+ = 135+
Pumpkin person what’s the fastest way to raise verbal iq? (And maybe the ceiling considering my 98 verbal iq and 120 fluid reasoning)
Please answer I really think you can offer the best advice on the fastest way.
I would actually like to hear your thoughts on the “fastest way” pumpkin.
You can raise certain verbal skills by reading more, studying vocabulary & joining a debate team. Raising verbal skills is not quite the same as raising verbal intelligence though
Why?
So only vocabulary and Information section is increasable and maybe a bit of similarities due to increased vocabulary?
What’s the best source to start drastically learning commonly used words?
90 vocabulary/105similarities/120 fluid
What’s the highest I can raise the verbal components based off fluid reasoning 120.(not the best memory but high processing speed as well)
So what’s the best test of verbal fluidity?
How malleable (specific profiles) or how increasable (specific numbers) is verbal iq?
Puppy I have a question related to this. Is verbal IQ related at all to how quick a person acquires a new language? Would a person with a higher VIQ find it easier to learn Sanskrit or Russian?
Yes, on average, but there would be lots of exceptions.
So Bruno speaking Finnish (or claiming to) shows he has a super high VIQ?
Not Finnish. Swedish. Wich is one of the easiest one, while Finnish is one of the most difficult one.
The difficult ones I learn are basque, japonese and Arabic … and I don’t know 14 but 11 only
Puppy are you ever going to let me publish the bog new finding about autism being a lack of specific gut bacteria? People like [redacted by pp, nov 20, 2019] would really benefit!
I suppose it was people like * and me. I love PP expression « data from Star Trek vibe » because I feel closer to this one than to Spoke.
If i could change, I d love to get imagination, memories and familiarity feelings on try for one year and then being allowed to decide if I keep it or drop it.
I take manganese capsules.
and I try to eat probiotic foods when I can.
Yea I’ve read that too. Another I’ve seen is that it’s linked to taking antibiotics. I’ll explain later.
i’ve read that 79% of italian immigrants to the US were feeble minded.
i’ve read that on your blog.
i learned it by watching you alright.
did you know that archimedes was a sicilian?
but he was a greek colonist.
the indigenes of sicily still lived on a diet of raw onions.
indigene is from latin.
autochthones is greek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthon_(ancient_Greece)
Athenians of 5th and 4th century, during the age of Athenian Empire, claimed with pride of being an autochthonous nation, that had never changed their place of habitation.
even wikipedia agrees that jew master is lying.
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196150274852872197&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Farticle%2Fthe-groyper-wars-on-immigration-are-the-debate-that-american-nationalism-needs%2F
but i’m just a powerless midget effeminate jew.
Autism has many causes working together, not one or two.
On another matter. If a person had super low social IQ like Bill Gates, and was put in a foreign country with feeble rule of law (e.g. Pakistan, somalia etc), how long would it take before he/she would end up dead and/or raped?
Gates’s social IQ is not that low & he can compensate for it by having such a high overall IQ
That’s not how foreign countries work, pumpkin, hahaha
I’ve got a really annoying OCD thing going on now. Unlike most people with it, I don’t have any repetitive behaviours. I have this really annoying thing where I have to keep convincing myself about something. Sometimes it means saying a certain phrase or sentence or holding a particular image or ‘connection’ in my mind repetitively until it ‘feels right’. Its called pure OCD. Pretty nasty and uncomfortable.
I was talking to a friend about stress management. And he explained that its best to get things off your chest with someone. Then I told him about the above and how his advice doesn’t really help me at all.
I have found that alcohol is really good at stopping it.
The advantage of my mental state of mind is that I never have unwanted thoughts. It’s like a was a narrator of everything I think about and this narrator is choosing what to remember.
Until recently I would see a wound in my hands, head or body without ever knowing where it came from. My sister thought I had analgesia wich I Know I haven’t. I then discovered that if I don’t think about the wound when it happens – wich i never did – I have no way of remembering it. Then I decided to pay attention to it when it happened : now I always know where it comes from and it happens quite a lot. So it’s like something wich would be automatic for other has to be monitored for me.
That’s the same for many things. That’s why I like to know what people mind ontology is, even pathological people, because it helps my internal monologue to build up some tools.
Ps : it’s not a joke comment at all …
Bruno, your comment just tells me how completely unaware you are because people who don’t have unwanted thoughts would never write a post-scriptum like you did, in which you basically say you weren’t joking but failing to understand that no one would think you were joking unless you thought that other people were affecting the way you thought.
What I’m trying to say is this…if you actually thought that you couldn’t be affected by unwanted thoughts then you probably would engage in a type of thought-pattern where you wouldn’t become susceptible to considering the assertions of others unless explicitly told to you otherwise.
If someone doesn’t mention something to you about yourself then how would you come to the conclusion that you need to fix it? Understand what I mean?
if you actually thought that you couldn’t be affected by unwanted thoughts then you probably would engage in a type of thought-pattern where you wouldn’t become susceptible to considering the assertions of others unless explicitly told to you otherwise.
—->
I say I am not. Not I couldn’t. And unwanted thought is too large a packet. It’s the combination of episodic memory (stocking moments experiences) and memory (remembering those). And such process can yield to un-voluntarily – popping up in ones mind – thoughts
If someone doesn’t mention something to you about yourself then how would you come to the conclusion that you need to fix it? Understand what I mean?
—>
Nobody mention anything about myself. They mention things about them that helps me infer if there is a kind of mind experienxe that I lack and trying to analyze the thing.
My PS is linked to the fact that most people are dubious to extreme differences in mind ontology wich is normal. As I spoke about Data, people could have assume that I was just joking …
Okay, you’re off the hook for today, Bruno. As soon as you said that they mention things about 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 and not about you, I realized that that was sensible and a good way of approaching the situation, though it doesn’t completely absolve you since inferring things about how people would react to a situation and then applying to yourself would function somewhat like how an unwanted thought represents something that has to do with adjusting your own behavior at the mercy of others, though I dunno, maybe not.
Anyways, good work and I apologize if I roughed you up a bit much. It’s all in good sport.
Oh no, on the contrary, i would love yin to point out to me every contradiction, error or approximation you find in my statement. It’s free psy exchange. I would be the debtor.
For the second aspect, an automatic adjustment that would be the result of an inference of other people reaction could be unwanted , but it’s not the process at all.
First, I don’t rely on peoples reaction but on people subjective report about their state of mind categories. I can question to try to discover. When like I discover that people attach to things and other people when they are « familiar » émotion load , and this process it’s called familiarity. Then I understood that people who have suddenly a strangeness feeling towards either people or things have just been through lacking familiarity. It helps me understand how strong is this familiarity to have such a consequence that extremelly qualifies people – university professors, hospital consultants etc – could think that their wife or kid has been kidnapped and replaced by someone identical just because they miss the emotional load attached to them. Then I infer for many experiences in life how the familiarity would play its part and what would be the consequences of the lack of familzarity, the state of mind where I am. And I can see if my predictions are accurate . That helps me understand others better and also myself better.
So it’s all a very active and diligent process. Nothing like an unwanted thought. It’s completely done with my internal conscious monologue. I can stop the process when I want to. The chance of my state of mind is that I can create total void when I want to. If I stop my internal monologue, I have no thought at all !
Yes, I can see how you could distinguish between the two because one is active (the ability to rationalize what other people are thinking) and the other is passive (expressing unwanted thoughts). That’s very interesting.
This process is going to have much more predominance in your mind because you are letting your dialogue control the framework of your beliefs rather than letting the subconscious signals of other people dictate what you’re thinking. That’s a style of thinking I want to and need to adapt myself, tbh.
That’s what conscious. But I don’t know if stuff I don’t have access to are influencing me in the background.
For example, I can’t figure out a picture in my mind. But I recognize things (else i wouldn’t be able to read ! ). Do something equivalent to those images must be stored somewhere. I can’t rule out that the rumination that people are bothered by is not actually occurring without me knowing it …
But obviously, the way my mind works is much more dry than for normal people. It would be difficult to impress me by pushing realistic images in my mind (like someone telling a dramatic history) because i wouldn’t be able to perceive it.
But when I see a movie , i am touched by emotions and feelings ….
Bruno, do you dream at all? If so, how’re your dreams comprised and how do you react to them? If you’ve commented on this in the past, feel free to link me because I am quite curious to know how that works for you since dreams are the most important determinant of a person’s disposition in life.
If you can’t access your subconscious/unconscious, it might be difficult to create an accurate worldview of yourself or of others. But that would entirely depend on how engaged you are consciously in daily life.
I rarely (remember) dreams. And when I do, I don’t remember seeing anything. It’s just a story. But that’s uncommon because most people without access to imagery do dream.
Maybe, I don’t know what do you mean by access to the unconscious, except if you refer to just dreaming. The big part about self knowledge is a lack of episodic memories. I can’t really reflect – based on knowledge or insight – on a previous situation based on storing the feelings and impressions of the moment. And I don’t build all the stories that give a tchickness to human experience …. when I have lost something dear, I now I have done so much with the person, but I can’t conjure it . It’s more a knowledge about myself.
Well, for me, and this may be purely anecdotal but I find it that dreaming allows me to empathize better and understand the perspectives of others because not only do I dream in the first-person perspective but my subconscious, to make it more realistic, will influence the dialogue and actions of the other people in the dream by applying hypersensitive ways of extracting as much realism for me as possible, making the dream feel like actual events in reality if that makes sense.
Specifically, what I am able to do is practice and apply my skills in empathizing and then create a fictional world where I can alter the actions of those around me to fit the setting appropriately. It’s rather cool and would recommend everyone to try it.
I’ve noticed investment bankers tend to even look quite similar. Particularly those hired in the last 10 years. A lot of them are much taller than the average population and cleancut.
I’ve heard that Goldman Sachs loves hiring Germans in particular.
I’ve always suspected Germany might be collectively a bit further on the spectrum towards autism than say, pakistan.
This is also quite ironic considering how the financial industry is basically a community utility in Germany.
I spent 4 hours doing Gambit mode in Destiny 2 last night. Good times. I’m thinking about quitting my job and doing it full time.
I knew a guy who started off with me in the financial regulator and ended up becoming an IBD analyst midway the scheme. He was basically a stereotype of the person investment banks hire – hard working, reliable, honest, intelligent.
In the introduction day, everyone voted him as the person they would most trust despite having only met him the same day.
As you all know, I got sacked when I went into banking. And I was never given an explanation.
The new age of empires 2 definitive edition is great. Just 1 bug with my game in relation to audio when units get killed…i.e. there is none. Sadly my computer can’t run the game in full enhanced HD.
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/mind-mathematician
He got 760 on the math SAT at age 9. Terry Tao is an example of how environment in some cases is not 50:50 on a particular case by case basis with genetics.
I find Greta Thunberg endlessly amusing.
I watched an interview with Jeremy Corbyn from the early 90s where he was saying to the media that its ok to dress up like a homeless person as long you are serving the people. It seemed very autistic. I’ll find the link later. But he struck me as on the spectrum.
Of course that would be impossible, because a politican would never become a party leader if he even had mild aspergers.
This may be a leftist piece of symbolism actually. There is a politician in this country who wears his street clothes into parliament and he represents a very small left wing party.
Corbyn has the same vibe going. Social justice warrior. But at least corbyn is focusing on economics and not the (((identity stuff))) like modern ‘leftists’.
I disagree. In fact in the right political climate, an aspie might be considered refreshingly honest and frank.
The economics stuff is basically what gentile leftists want if theyre not brainwashed. If they are brainwashed, then theyll start rioting about black lives and gay trans rights.
Steve Sailer writes a lot about how black women always right about their hair.
What Steve won’t explicitly say is that blacks are VERY narcissistic compared to other races. Even though theres an argument to be made they are the ugliest race.
My prediction is eventually the neoliberal identity politics faction (controlled by you know who) will clash with the economic leftist faction. It will probably be over foreign policy though. i.e. tony blair likes fighting for Master in the middle east, but not corbyn.
You’re confusing neoliberal with neocon. Blair is both
Redacted by pp, nov 21, 2019]If you read the book ‘Treasure Islands’ by Nicholas Shaxton, you would totally laugh at the Forbes list every year. The number one thing really rich people do is hide their wealth and income from the taxman, not publish themselves in a fucking magazine.
If shaxton can find out about all this secret wealth, why can’t Forbes, whose been at it for 37 years and has a huge staff? Forbes has been sued by people who did not want their fortunes publicized so they know how to look for hidden wealth.
Are they 100% accurate? No one could be, but they’re the best score card we have.
Puppy you just dont get basic psychology. Imagine if you were rich. Would you put that info out there?
Only someone with a very low social IQ could think that hundreds of americans could become multi-billionaires without the media finding out.
And you don’t get the psychology of wealth as a status symbol & the Forbes list as free publicity attracting investors. Many billionaires want to be found
Verbal intelligence is the ability to conceptualize and access visual components of the mind and illustrate them to people or even conceptualize things that work outside a visual framework, like an archetype or something. It has nothing to do with learning new languages. That’s more memory anyways.
I don’t even feel in control of my own mind…what makes you think you suckers would?
my feminist theory is: women are just as shallow as men.
my theory predicts that if trump looked and sounded like sean connery…
women would hate him MUCH less.
Trump is like oprah in that both are super influential billionaire populist TV hosts who make the opposite sex cringe while being worshipped by their own sex
scottish nationalism vs trump, what’s the difference?
answer: scottish nationalism is more racist.
pp have you heard of success academy in NYC? It looks like a jew operation to fill the college pipeline with NAMs. founded and funded by hedgie finance jews…they’re relentless
Smart strategy on their part.
yes and very depressing…they control the college board too…i wonder how Ivy league schools (and probably more to follow) nominally dropping the SAT/ACT requirement plays into all of this
the idea that all that matters is ideas is ethnic.
the US constitution was written by men, obviously…
but those men were all BRITISH.
the “enlightenment” was UN-enlightening…or was enlightening for a homogeneous society…
specifically a homogeneous PROTESTANT society.
Pumpkin, do you know what percent of the people normed in WISC V were bilingual?