Pumpkin Person rating 8 out of 10
I recently used an adapter to hook up my Apple ipad to my huge screen TV and watched Apple TV’s Defending Jacob. Fantastic show! About a district-attorney investigating the brutal murder of a 14-year-old kid, only to discover that his own 14-year-old son Jacob is the lead suspect. It’s about the conflicting emotions a family feels when a loved one is accused of something horrific, and that trauma being all the more acute in today’s age of cancel culture and twitter mobs. Great plot and great performances by the three leads! Riveting!
I especially enjoyed the part where they take Jacob to see a forensic psychologist who assesses his propensity for violence with DNA testing and psychometrics. She administers a psychopathy test to see how he reacts to images of violence . I’ve never taken a psychopathy test but my mother seems like the least psychopathic person I’ve ever known if this is what they’re like. She is disturbed by even the mildest images of suffering.
Jacob is also given an IQ test and found to be unusually bright. Like the woman who intelligence tested me as a kid, Jacob’s examiner is of South Asian ancestry but unlike the woman who tested me, she is cold and detached and is fully Westernized in her clothing and speaking style.
Jacob’s the kind of kid who you would never know was brilliant unless he took an IQ test. A lot of white kids are like that. I went to school with a red-headed freckled faced guy named Troy who got bad marks in school and never had anything interesting to say. Then one day the Indian woman who had tested me knocked on the classroom door and asked to see him. Knowing she had come to the school to give him the WISC-R I later asked him about it. “It was easy as all hell” was all he could say. The examiner would later meet with his parents to discuss why someone so bright was doing so poorly in school.
Pumpkin Person 
Puppy what are your thoughts on autists being the opposite of psychopaths and not schizos?
I think it’s absurd. Psychopaths lack emotional empathy, autistics lack cognitive empathy. The opposite of lacking emotional empathy is not lacking cognitive empathy, it’s having too much emotional empathy.
Pepe are you aware of any interesting literature about autistic criminals?
The only interesting literature is my blog & how dare you read anything else! 🙂
Sadly there are a lot of autistic criminals and this comes as a shock to people like pill who seem to associate autism with childlike innocence. Many autistics are like that but there’s another group that are terribly violent. But then as RR has noted, psychologists don’t really know what autism is or if it even is. Aspergers syndrome used to be considered a separate diagnosis from autism and now that’s all gone. Austism used to be considered childhood schizophrenia and that’s obsolete as well. Ten years from now the term autism might be replaced with several distinct disabilities with their own symptoms and etiology.
I’m aware that some autistics are violent, but from your phrasing, it seems to me that you’re referring to very low-functioning and frequently non-verbal autistics who basically spend their lives in a perpetual temper tantrum, punching people for not giving them ice cream. With that group, the only practical solution is institutionalization plus more tranquilizers than a human being should ever need. Involuntary euthanasia might well be the most compassionate option for those cases.
But what I’m more interested in is high-functioning “autistic” criminals. Many mass shooters, for instance, had Asperger’s, although I don’t recall the mainstream media ever focusing on that much except with the Sandy Hook shooter. Elliot Rodger had it too but, to my recollection, it was barely mentioned in the media frenzy surrounding his attack. Also, I suspect that Asperger’s occurs with hugely disproportionate frequency among cybercriminals, especially black-hat computer hackers, but possibly also with darknet market visitors and consumers of Internet child pornography.
Going cold turkey off my SSRIs must be triggering my autism. I’ve been super irritable. Yesterday I flipped off a 90-year-old man for not stopping at a crosswalk. I’m normally the most laid back person in the world
FYI weaning yourself off your meds is a much better option. I was going to, but I didn’t feel like dealing with the dumb broads at my pharmacy.
For the first 10 days I slept like 12 hours a day. I felt like I had chronic fatigue syndrome or AIDS. Now I’m just angry.
What’s it with austists and kiddie porn/hentai? You’re definitely right that there’s a connection, but why should there be?
Hell if I know, but the connection is clearly there for pretty much every other type of sexual fetish or disturbance as well. Homo- and trans-sexuality too, but it’s not PC to imply that those are “abnormalities” or “disturbances.” Maybe it relates to a “g factor” of mental disturbance.
Ball gag anime avatar is us, G. Homosexuality and transsexuality are maladaptive in the highest sense, but they’re not immoral. Interesting how leftists validate transsexuality by citing the reality of ‘male’ and ‘female’ brains. This undermines their argument that 100% of intergroup achievement gaps are imputable to the Man and not neuro-morphological or endocrinal differences.
“their argument”
That’s not “their” argument. That’s a strawman argument you cooked up in your delusional head.
Fax lol
Another self-contradiction is that trans activists usually justify themselves by an abstract notion of “gender,” yet in our society, or at least the strata in which trans acceptance is prevalent, males and females are supposed to be treated equally. This leaves only externally visible sexual characteristics like gynecomastia to distinguish between “genders,” hence negating intangible notions of gender identity in favor of the old-fashioned notion of transsexuality.
I have no problem with transsexuality insofar as it’s portrayed as a treatment for a mental illness resulting from, in a concrete biological sense, being born in the wrong body. In honest transsexuality cases, the brain receives an erroneous prenatal signal which tells it to develop as characteristic of one sex, whereas the rest of the body proceeds as the other. Why trans activists prefer an unverifiable and undefinable notion of gender over this easily comprehensible justification is beyond me. Maybe they just hate anything that’s objectively true.
Adaptation is significantly personal. But also there are some general trends.The levels of maladjustment among Lgbt population seems is correlated with how reverse you are to expected gender norms. My hypothesis is that more afeminate and bottom a gay or bi man is, included trans, more vulnerably sensible and easily targeted to criticism and specially lgbtghijphobia s’he will be. Even more if this individual has no support like a long term and stable relationship. Top and masculine homo and bi male and feminine lesbian seems easier to deal with daily basis homophobia because they (we) can understand from what these criticisms come. The same say mixing race individual deal better with racial and racism stuff the more phenotypically near to the socially dominant race s’he is. A very black person is consciously more affected by racism than a mixing race who are phenotypical whiter, for example.
Still about maladjustments, be not well fit with clearly parasitical trap performing as civil societies or shee idiocratic plutocapitalist conservism… like these $hit (thank you whitey) we live, seems unusually good if analysed by heterodoxic perspective because it’s may means you are not like that stupid cattle who are often harshly exploited to serve the personal interests of crap empowered people but like to be treated like inferior. With the pandemics situation and the ridiculous fake dilema of “save elderly and vulnerable or ‘economy'” mostly in “civilized” “pathologiical altruistic” western world, the real face of beautiful conserv capitalism was revealed while the most noble and virtuous covered your own with dignity, compassion and yes… intelligence… while “REALIST” conservs were and are distracted su…ing the trump’s balls…
Saint god
I’m writing like a drunk teenager…
Focus on content
I Just realize now peepee is a chronic IQist pseudo expert on intelligence. Another thing i noticed is that she is always remembering her childhood on her randomly constructed texts…
PeePee doesn’t understand we can’t perfectly define intelligence as if it is a geometrical shape she thought when she administered that test on me. [redacted by pp, dec 30, 2020]
My high school chemistry teacher perfectly defined intelligence:
ability to adapt: to take whatever situation you’re in and turn it around to your advantage
Perfection
Whats Santos iq?
So
Bolsonaro is a genius and Newton was a dumb??
What i’m saying
Multiple perspectives
I agree that astuteness is one way to express intelligence but it’s not the only one.
Bolsonero can be a (quasi) genius by his astuteness to manipulate already corrupted political brownzilian system to take advantage of it but at the same time be a complete retarded in intellectual terms. That’s why multiple “intelligences” theory make way more sense than exclusive IQ theory. IQism can’t explain the astuteness of right wing populists.
That’s why a SMART progressism is intelligence
My IQ ia lower than Oprah’s
I should hope so! I would jump off a bridge if it wasn’t.
??
Hahaha you are so deluded.
Excessive idolatry can be considered a pathology.
No he didn’t.
If you want to swallow the adaptability bull manure definition of intelligence at least refine it to something along the lines of the following: ‘Intelligence is the ability to envision adaptive strategies to differing environments” with the value of intelligence increasing as the number and difficulty of situations increase.
Your definition would classify someone who if they had the physical ability to would score however arbitrarily high on any cognitive test but can’t because of their locked in syndrome as unintelligent.
Intelligence isn’t the ability to adapt it is the ability to think about and to conclude how to adapt.
If you actually think about this for a second though, you’ll realize that adaptability lies at the periphery of intelligence, in other words – it is an consequence of the types of intelligence we are familiar with not the essence of intelligence itself –
A better and dare I say it, complete, definition of intelligence is the ability to build predictive models of one self and ones enviorment.
As an extention to my reply I’d like to ask you something if you don’t mind.
As a child(I’m afraid I don’t remember what age exactly) I scored 101 on an IQ test. I don’t know which type it was again I apologize for the lack of information here. I recently had one retaken as part of a psychiatric evaluation, it was the WAIS but I don’t know anything beyond that. I scored 144.
Which one of these scores reflects my ability best do you reckon? Am I supposed to take some middle ground because of the massive chasm that seperates the two scores? I also have ADD.
Your definition would classify someone who if they had the physical ability to would score however arbitrarily high on any cognitive test but can’t because of their locked in syndrome as unintelligent.
Having locked in syndrome does not mean YOU lack adaptability, it means you’re in a situation impossible to adapt to. The syndrome is not you. Once you get that, the definition is pure genius!
As for your IQ; I’d go with the WAIS because it’s known to be quite g loaded (unless you were familiar with it prior to testing). We don’t know what the other test was.
I’ve previously promulgated a definition of intelligence as the capacity to: (1) mentally construct and manipulate models of reality: (2) and thereby determine how to alter one’s environment to achieve one’s goals. The latter part of that definition is equivalent to pumpkin’s, but the former criterion adds a satisfying sense of adaequatio rei et intellectus. Still, the truncated version, isomorphic to pumpkinperson et al., is more elegant.
The definition excludes from consideration any circumstances which could contradict the definition. Like a Catch-22 in reverse. Yes, pure genius indeed.
The New Oxford American Dictionary defines intelligence as “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” That concisely describes what’s measured by IQ, but I think resilience and adherence to logic and objectivity when dealing with charged, real-world subject matter is another component of intelligence that isn’t really tapped by such tests. Plenty of very intelligent people IQ-wise who are ineffectual or believe in unmitigated bunk.
Plenty of very intelligent people IQ-wise who are ineffectual or believe in unmitigated bunk.
1) Just because you have a high overall IQ doesn’t mean you have a high logical-mathematical IQ which is essential to be rational.
2) Just because you have a high IQ doesn’t mean you understand statistics & Occam’s razor. People who haven’t learned these skills have what Steve Hsu might have called “bounded cognition”.
3) Intelligence is just a tool to get you what you want & not everyone wants the truth.
PP can’t accept when she is wrong.
Rationality is not mathematics, honey
I remember when i correct you about your equivoc “abstract thinking is mathematics”.
One of the most irreasonable, instinctive, emotionally umbalanced, biased persons often guys in the room are mathematically capable…
Have a Psychopathic personality also doesn’t make you more rational, someone who can evaluate their own actions and consequences and differentiate what is the truer and what is fallatious.
I guess prioritization/preference could be its own aspect? I think Langan said something about intentionality being a component in his theory of intelligence. IQ might be the ability to get what you want, but intelligence could encompass identifying what’s worthwhile to want. I find it satisfactory that the person who’s at least nominally the smartest is obsessed with identifying ultimate truth. That’s a fitting preoccupation, and pursuit of truth generally I think is an important indicator of true ‘intelligence.’
^ Teffec P is the only commenter on here with whom I think I could have an intelligent discussion without having to carefully and slowly explain everything I say
You are defining human intelligence which is a complex one. I agree with PP that intelligence also can be defined as ability to adapt because basically all living beings must have some knowledge or understanding of what they are doing to adapt. What make humans comparatively superior is “OUR” capacity to REadapt accumulating knowledge or frames of reality without the restrict necessity to change deeply our biology to do so. That’s why culture is fundamental to human intelligence. Instincts are simple expression of adaptativeness which is a conceptual facet of intelligence but not describe what intelligence is in its conceptual core. Adaptation is a RESULT and not what it is. It’s like i say “humans are… those who can think in abstract way”. I’m not saying what humans are but what humans do that make them unique and comparatively superior.
The conceptual core of intelligence is the capacity to catch patterns and thus similarities and differences. If a hypoyhetical human being cannot differentiate what is cold and what is hot. This very basic and thus fundamental capacity is directly associated with adaptativeness. Every knowledge we have is structurallly based on set of differences and similarities patterns we named with specific labels.
Funnily enough, I was about to agree with you except for the fact that the definition is ambiguous. However I suddenly realised that there is a massive flaw in it. A flaw that once again is the result of the fact that its basis is an inductive one rooted in the types of intelligences we observe in our lives, and lacking in hypothetical exploration of the nature of intelligence; quite myopic and not exactly what could be referred to as genius.
The problem, then, is however you define “you’re, you”(the source of ambiguity in the argument) you are going to include motivations or goals in that definition.
You can have an entity that has a self and no goals/motivations, which denies any adaptability for that entity irrespective of the enviorment it exists in.
This entity could still deduce all correct answers to any arbitrarily difficult test, it just wouldn’t answer the questions even if it could. To wrap up, you have an entity that has a subjective reality, a self, a predictive model of the world and cannot adapt to any scnerario yet is clearly intelligent.
– You could find me guilty of begging the question with the above sentence, just keep in mind that we are designing a definition that fits our intuitive definition of intelligence and thus is capable of molding itself into all the spaces that our intuitive one can reach. So yes the above statement is more an expression of my personal intuitive definition of intelligence, I’d say most people would agree to the above edge case and therefore if you ignore it in formulating your definition you will produce absurdity. –
The problem, then, is however you define “you’re, you”(the source of ambiguity in the argument) you are going to include motivations or goals in that definition.
If you have no goals then you are not a you because the pronoun “you” only applies to minds or sentient beings. If you have no mind, then by definition you have no intelligence.
Something does not have to have goals or motivations to be a mind and sentient, as I explained.
If I took your brain performed some theoretical surgical procedure to remove the hypothetical part that produces motivations, perhaps emotions would you still be sentient? Yes most definetely, by most commonly accepted definitions of sentience.
That also cuts to another problem with your definition, which is that there are intelligences that are non sentient, think the current state of artifical *intelligence* research.
But that is just a side note to the major problem, as outlined.
Something does not have to have goals or motivations to be a mind and sentient, as I explained.
Yes it does. Not having goals or motivations means not having feelings (because all motivation is pleasure seeking and pain avoiding), and the mind is defined as the part of a person that thinks, reasons, feels, and remembers. A sentient being is one that is finely sensitive in perception or feeling.
If I took your brain performed some theoretical surgical procedure to remove the hypothetical part that produces motivations, perhaps emotions would you still be sentient? Yes most definetely, by most commonly accepted definitions of sentience.
No you’d be a mere repository for memories, if you’d even be this, because even remembering requires the motivation to remember.
That also cuts to another problem with your definition, which is that there are intelligences that are non sentient, think the current state of artifical *intelligence* research.
Well this definition of intelligence only applies to sentient intelligence though robots might have the functional equivalent of sentience.
I’ll keep my response brief such that we don’t derail
“Yes it does. Not having goals or motivations means not having feelings (because all motivation is pleasure seeking and pain avoiding), and the mind is defined as the part of a person that thinks, reasons, feels, and remembers. A sentient being is one that is finely sensitive in perception or feeling.”
1. I mentioned the fact that not having feelings comes along with not having goals or motivations, as you have later cited
2. According to the Wikipedia definition which is just the quickest I could copy as I am strapped for time hails as follows” Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.” where feeling is defined as” Feeling is the nominalization of the verb to feel.[1] Originally used to describe the physical sensation of touch through either experience or perception, the word is also used to describe other experiences, such as “a feeling of warmth”[2] and of sentience in general.” no need for much additional comment here clearly feeling is defined as perception in the context of sentience not emotion.
” No you’d be a mere repository for memories, if you’d even be this, because even remembering requires the motivation to remember.”
1. You are equivocating on the definition of motivation, clearly I was referring to motivation to take action outside of one’s own subjective experience, besides the statement is not true, remembering is an involuntary process though it can be triggered by thoughts.
There exists a specific nature to thoughts in humans, some of it is involuntarily guided whilst some is trough executive control, parts of executive control could be seen as *requiring * motivation, though clearly this motivation is not necessary as we can imagine an intelligence without any form of introspective self control. (But none of this is relevant to my point as I was talking about motivation to act beyond the confines of one’s mind, which is required to adapt to environments beyond oneself)
We could endlessly cite dictionary definitions tit for tat. I think most people associate sentience with “free will” or at least the illusion there of & it’s hard to imagine that without motivation.
You are equivocating on the definition of motivation, clearly I was referring to motivation to take action outside of one’s own subjective experience
I agree that there are some sentient beings so lacking in motivation as to make this definition of intelligence problematic, but then for these same people, IQ tests would be pointless. Any operational definition is going to have similar problems. For example we could define height as the ability to reach the top of whatever shelf and you might ask “what if my arms are cut off?”.
What is the percent of jews who are merchant??
evil = UN-Cynicism inter alia.
if you’re UN-Cynical you’re evil.
‘The definition excludes from consideration any circumstances which could contradict the definition. Like a Catch-22 in reverse. Yes, pure genius indeed.’
If you look at my response you’ll see that this is not the case, for the definition to do this it would have to be more specific on what you and you’re mean, the definition leaves a class of things that could be seen to have sentience and thus can be reffered by you and you’re excluded because those things can’t adapt because they don’t have goals.
Intelligence as quant is multi prediction of reality the way you effectively want it to be.
First, you must be aware of many things, then simulate them then select them based on preferences on what you want.
I was diagnosed with autism in 2004. Now autism is lacking cognitive empathy. The inability to model other minds. Some non-autists are geniuses and predict what others do with extreme Fidelity. I can predict what others will think of me if I say certain things as the average person. I hold back a lot. I am not autists by lack of mind I have sensory-motor problems, which is why my processing speed is so low. My brain gets stuck not that I have a deficit in cognitive empathy. Getting stuck is horribly frustrating. Having sensory-motor deficits is horribly frustrating. But I model people good as average.
Autisms is not cognitive empathy deficit. It is not aphantasia. It is a density problem. Shczophrenincs have low-density connections. Autists have high-density connections. These cause problems in the brain. It can be understanding people but the problem goes deeper than this. It is a self-regulation issue and I have problems self-regulating myself.
Schizophrenic mind seems super difuse while autistic mind seems on avg super umbalanced distributed. These patterns ressembles male and female avg brains. Male brains have on avg better connections within hemispheres or sides while female brains have better connections between them. It’s tends to explain both qualities and defiicits.
So whats Santo’s IQ? Can you at least say whether it matches my own judgement based on my reading of a translation of his blog.
low to mid 130s?
Autistic people tend to have terrible personal care as well. I think its more related to grooming per se though rather than things like cutting your hair regularly, cutting toenails etc. which they remember to do. I remember my autistic friend growing up always kept his hair super short and perfectly square. Thats poor grooming but good hygiene I suppose.
Its funny growing up I never seen people as labels like ‘autism’, ‘schizo’ ‘gay’ etc but the older you get you realise you can pretty much classify people like types of animal on a nature documentary. I myself am a classic schizotypal but I never knew this until just 2 years ago. I went my whole life just thinking I was different and very unique psychological experiences and then I googled my label and it describes in detail my thoughts, habits, job prospects, social and family life. Everything basically.
Puppy might also notice I’ve boxed aspergers people into a very stereotyped way too because Mother Wisdom has revealed to me all stereoytypes are true
Then schizotypal delusional stereotype is true too
Dearest God (actually Devil),
Verborragic way to think make something way more simple look like impenetrable…
My intelligence’s concept approach is near to be perfect but because i have no patience nor talent to wonder with style and no direction at all…
Biggest responsible for all shit we have from ideological polarization to all other malladies are…
The smartest people
Not the avg joey
It’s a sin blame simpler minded people to boost polarization if about intellectual battles they are mere expectaators and at the best spinning tops.
Stop to conceptualize intelligence from what it’s do to what it is.
Adaptation = one of intelligence outcomes (one of the most important)
Intelligence itself = capacity to detect differences, similarities… patterns.
While we’re on the subject of TV, I recommend everyone watch an episode of The Simpsons called “Homer’s Enemy.” It’s the best episode from any show I’ve seen.
HBDers, realists, etc. have a lot in common with Frank Grimes. They’re pretty much correct about everything they’re pissed off about, but no one cares.
The just world fallacy is very common among depressives, especially white ones.
That sounds paradoxical to me. You’d think depressed people would assume that the world is inherently unjust and no good deed goes unpunished. And that no bad deed goes unrewarded, for that matter.
@Ganzir
fwiw: when i was depressed i had a (single outcome) predeterministic view of the world with everything being robotically fixed in it’s place. also that was incidentally the time when I got into smt (mainstream, NOT PERSONA).
Yes, some believe that, too. Especially the severe cases. But afaict it’s more common for people to believe that the universe owes them more for what they’ve done.
You let a bunch of racists comment on your blog with inane comments and then all of a sudden block me. what is wrong wit you Pumpkin?!?
I block the racists way more than I block you.
only my birthday which i hope you remember? big hint.
meant to say “only” on my birthday nigga.
>Runs HBD blog.
>Doesn’t like racists.
That’s not called “innocence” that’s called selective cognitive dissonance.
WTF name 1 racist here. I don’t see any racists.
I don’t see any racists.
You don’t own a mirror?
LISTEN PUMPKIN HAPPY NEW YEAR I HAVE BEEN MANIC FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS BUT I HAVE SOMETHING I HAVE TO SHARE WITH YOU OK?/
I was reading your article about the development of human cognition and your explanation stemming from evolutionary tree splitoff date and inferred dark Caucasoid interbreeding but what if the dark caucasoids WERE ACTUALLY NEANDERTHALS
I cannot verify this theory because i am not familiar enough with the maps dates and stuff but maybe you could look into it i apologize if you consider it pompous that i think you havent thought of this yet but hear me OUT!!
There is a gene that is STRONGLY RELATED to brain size AND INTELLIGENCE in many studies IQ MATHEMATICAL ABILITY YOU NAME IT IT CORRELATES WITH IT
DUF1220
Neanderthals had bigger brains then humans and also more variants of this gene and PERHAPS OTHERS THAT CODED FOR BRAIN SIZE SO HEAR ME OUT
what if the homo sapiens intelligence we know today is an emergent phenomenon a result of a meshing of the EFFICIENCY OF HOMOSAPIENS BRAINS and neanderthal variants for brain size
that would explain why if you match Africans for brain size they have the same intelligence because the interbreeding expanded european asian and middle eastern brain size!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IF YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD THEORY CAN YOU PLEASE REPLY?? THANK YOU PUMPKIN I WISH YOU THE BEST 2021 YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cochran & Harpending had a similar theory: not about brain size per se but about hybridation between humans & neanderthals causing the modern human mind & the upper paleolithic revolution.
THAT’S AMAZING THANKS FOR REPLYING PUMPKING 🙂
Do you belive that the dark caucasoids in your IQ prediction equation can be substituted with Neanderthals and still have it be accurate?
THANKS
Just as a hint of our potential future discussion pp: the hybridization may have something to do with the funk of 40,000 years 🙂
“Have been”
Movie seems interesting…