The Picture Arrangement test was first used by Decroly (1914) but gained major attention when it was included in the WWI army IQ tests. However the test never really caught on, but in the 1930s, David Wechsler decided to include it in his scales. Of the 7 items Wechsler originally picked, 3 were stolen from the army tests, and 4 were stolen from the “king” cartoon strips that appeared in The New Yorker.
…you get to look at several cards–at least three, sometimes as many as seven–each of which shows a drawing. The drawings look like panels in comic strips. You are asked to arrange the cards from left to right so that the drawings tell some kind of meaningful story; in some cases, more than one sequence is allowed to be meaningful. Picture Arrangement measures, among other things, your ability to anticipate and to engage in “social planning”…Possibly evidencing his weakness in social planning, the tape at this point records a frustrated sixty-four-year-old mumbling to himself in anguish and occasionally expressing delight at a solution. His final score was nothing to boast about.
There’s a stereotype that libertarians can be a bit autistic so it’s kind of funny that the brilliant libertarian Seligman would struggle on the most social of the Wechsler subtests. Libertarianism also caused more direct problems for Seligman on the other social subtest Comprehension, which straight up asked him to explain why a certain libertarian ideas needed prevention. The feisty Seiligman replied by saying the preventive laws were unneeded, forcing the psychologist to restate the question in a way that didn’t require Seligman to agree with the premise.
Shortly after the great Wechsler died, the Picture Arrangement subtest was dropped from the scale, probably because the test is time consuming, difficult to administer, and doesn’t cluster well with any of the major abilities measured by the WAIS.
Nonetheless I decided to include it in the PAIS (Pumpkin Adult Intelligence Scale) and the 12 items selected have proven to be extremely satisfactory.
Although the test is a pretty good measure of g, Wechsler noted that mental retardates sometimes did well, even when they failed other tests. Conversely, I have noticed that high IQ autistics often do poorly, even when they do well on every other test.
Wechsler claimed psychopaths often do well, but I haven’t seen any real data.
The test measures big picture thinking, the ability to get the idea, size up social situations, see the forest not the trees.
It may also measure sense of humor, and in the case of the Wechsler version, New York Jewish sense of humor.
When I tried the test on the regulars at a pool hall I frequent, their scores out of 12 were 9,8,8,5,5,2,1. The mean was 5.4 with an SD of 3.1. This is a good estimate for Canadians a whole since pool hall customers are a pretty random sample of the population but keep in mind that Canadians are about 3 IQ points brighter than Americans. If we assume the mean of 5.4 = IQ 100 + 3, and the SD of 3.1 = 15, we can perhaps crudely convert to IQ equivalencies (U.S. norms.
Not surprisingly, the mean for my largely brilliant readers was much higher: 8.2 (SD = 2.2).
Nine of my readers also supplied data on their SATs/ACTs. This subset was even brighter still, with a mean of 9.6 (SD = 1.88). Their SATS/ACTs equated to IQs with a mean of 126 (SD = 16) (U.S. norms). If we equate the means and SDs, we get a second method to convert to IQ equivalencies.
469 thoughts on “Norming the Picture Arrangement test”
The Philosophersaid:
The picture arrangement test is a decent attempt at a culture reduced social intelligence test if that is in any way theoretically possible or even a theoretical desirability.
But it doesn’t test ‘advanced’ social reasoning and manipulation like selling something dumb to an average person or making someone laugh without hitting yourself.
I am often running on empty. So I do not concentrate well. It takes extreme willpower to have brief moments of clarity.
This test has in it the experience of oneself when looking at what people do. In other words, it contains the snapshots of social motion. A person infers what happens because it is an emotional sensitivity of actions. But the art is not even that good so the inferences need to be taken by low resolution of information. It is high abstraction really not detailed. But if one has had the visual experience then the abstractions are acquired by the details one has processed in real life.
People who draw for a living would pass this test no matter what. So it has a low ceiling when it comes to abstractions or details. Personally, I would say that comic book artists in 90’s could come up with a better test. By taking a Marvel comic book and deleting all text then putting the pages in random order and then putting them back in order.
Music animations are also spatial-temporal and require knowing motion to get a sense of meaning from it by integration. A story is really actors in motion with motivations to get things and this has been studied for a long time. When people think of things they have looks and make sounds and this is placed in themes of the background and flow of scenes. So movie directors would also say this test is too low a resolution for any practical purpose in their field.
Understanding why people do what they do takes more than just observation of others but of the self. Emotions are what is inside you and me. They define what directions we go in when we attach them to external things and others. If you hate or love you have a different reverence for what is happening to people. Emotions are not simple like music is not simple. You cannot relate unless you fully know what another person feels so you cannot make another person become different in the expected way you want unless you have a total awareness of those emotions. A story has limitations in the goals and variability of what people do when motivated. If you have not felt deep enough you cannot see their effects in what people do.
At 11/12 I didn’t expect to do as well as I did. This test felt more like inventing stories, with all the baseless assumptions that come with that, than it did a social IQ test. I think Phil is right in that being able to read a room or understand hidden social cues isn’t the same as being capable of manipulating it for one’s benefit. Wouldn’t surprise me if psychopaths are naturally better at that form of reasoning.
In sixth grade, I was in the bottom 1st percentile of spelling and at the top (95th percentile) of social studies. This was based on the national standard.
I can read fine but spell poorly. Could this be the same reason I am poor at the coding subtest on the wais 4 ? I am not dyslexic.
if rr weren’t a mentally retarded clown troll who talks too much he would try to compare apples with apples. but he is so he doesn’t.
namely, black violence associated with drug gangs should be subtracted and the remainder compared to whites in similar economic and social situations in the US, britain, and canada. are blacks still more violent? are they more violent than similarly poor and ghetto-ized pakistanis in britain or poor whites in glasgow? the poor white ghetto may no longer exist in the US as it did 100 years ago. appalachia is very poor, but it’s rural. so let’s compare violence in eastern kentucky and violence in the rural “black belt” of the old csa. what do you find?
then he’d have to look at the caribbean and africa. is it drugs? is it poverty? northern mexico is the most violent place on earth, but just across the border are the safest cities in the US. and these US cities are near 100% mexican. why? answer: drug cartels, poverty, corruption among others.
there are good arguments for a non-essentialist explanation but rr is too fucking retarded and filled with hate for wypipo and too brainwashed by ne?liberalism to think of any of them.
...said:
PPEE IS NOW BANNING THE WORD “—LIBRLISM”…
YET ANOTHER PROOF, 200 PROOF, THAT PEEPEE IS 100% PURE EVIL…AND/OR ‘TISTIC.
SAD.
you have to be a w-pipo to get why this doesn’t suck.
sad.
…
Santosaid:
”then he’d have to look at the caribbean and africa. is it drugs? is it poverty? northern mexico is the most violent place on earth, but just across the border are the safest cities in the US. and these US cities are near 100% mexican. why? answer: drug cartels, poverty, corruption among others.”
I believe that only Jayman is capable to deny that there are structural or environmental factors that can promote behavioral changes in certain population groups.
But there are always underlying intrinsic factors that cause certain individuals, from certain subgroups, to be more influenced than others.
Because even individuals who grow up in the same socioeconomically disadvantaged environments tend to present different long-term responses and, therefore, different life paths.
And some reasons for these different responses under very similar conditions are: personality type; the presence or absence of any mental/personality disorder; level of cognitive ability;of rationality…
All these underlying intrinsic factors are observable and their patterns traceable.
Young Mexicans who are today associated with cartel criminal practices, under other conditions, may not display “enhanced” sociopathic behavioral phenotypes.
However, they would still present sociopathic behaviors with less expressiveness or impact on the community.
And it is still possible that there are individuals whose behavior patterns, particularly those related to criminal practices, are predominantly unpredictable.
Santo still doesn’t understand that the TAAO is an American-specific theory to explain black offending that makes successful novel predictions. Can someone write that in Portuguese?
Erichthoniussaid:
TAAO é uma teoria específica dos EUA para explicar a ofensa negra que faz previsões de romance bem-sucedidas.
The Philosophersaid:
Anyways that gay guy in my class in high school came out and got gay married last week. Congrats I guess.
The Evolution of Paleolithic Hunting Weapons: A Response to Declining Prey Sizehttps://t.co/JTQFNZU7ZD
Suggests large animals may have needed no more than crudest tech. But catching smaller, fleeter animals may have needed advances in tools. pic.twitter.com/vSRhTlRKuv
American ethnographic data on the average TCSA of tips attached to their shafts show that thrusting spear tips, dart (spear thrower) tips, and arrow tips have declining mean TCSAs of 168, 58, and 33, respectively [43]. Reviewing the South African record [53] found that the TCSA of points declined, beginning at 300 ka until reaching arrow tip size during the MIS 4 glacial (~71 ka).
LOL. Oh, look. Another study corroborates my claims.
You’re right. I could have saved myself an hour of my time reading the paper just by seeing which university published the paper. I won’t make that mistake next time.
Lurkersaid:
RR, for you it might be: Does this person agree with some degree of hereditarianism or genetic determinism? Then let’s use the gap in our understanding of causality and development to try to find holes where the environment can fill and then ignore anything that implies genetic determinism in their paper.
Funny enough, developmental systems theorizing precludes a genetic reductionism.
rr is full on autistic AND low IQ AND evil AND gay. peepee banned me. she's delusional.said:
It’s good that you agree with those two propositions.
“Is being vifwd as physically strong positive or negative?”
It’s context-dependent.
When it comes to media representations, yea I agree with that. That is a very good question. I think it is answerable by empirical means. Regarding the second part of the first question, there are some studies on how there is positive media representation that’s reflective of the black population of the US as a whole. Still yet other studies show how black athletes are, for example, portrayed in the media over a 10 year period showed that only a small minority of the article directly addressed race, and that it showed they highlighted correcting wrongs of the past, being the first black to accomplish something, and the decease and small number of blacks in a certain sport. Nevertheless, as for your last question, it depends on how you look at it. Media-as-effect reflects social realities or commercial interests. Media-as-cause reflects stereotype reinforcement, normalization of violence, and impact on self-perception (these three would of course reflect back on TAAO). And when it comes to TAAO, it reflects back on stereotype reinforcement, normalization of violence, impact on self-perception, and it also recognizes that media representations are influenced by the broader societal context. So while TAAO doesn’t solely attribute the cause of AAO on media portrayals, it emphasizes the importance of understanding how historical and contemporary influences, including the media, shape criminal behavior while recognizing that media representations are influenced by and influencing social perceptions and behaviors.
When it comes to implicit racial BIAS (IRB), that’s distinguished from explicit racial bias on the basis of being unintentional and unconscious, so basically microaggreesions (this can be discussed separately), contrasted with explicit racial bias which manifests itself in overt racism and discrimination. IRB also contributes to, for example, disparities in set bails between blacks and whites. IRBs can then eventually translate into microaggreesions which then have real physiological consequences for health.
Regarding the just-so story claim, I think my defense in my previous comment was apt. However, I disagree with your claim that it’s a post hoc theory. TAAO generates testable predictions and hypotheses based on its empirical framework. The predictions are derived from the core framework, and so it can be subject to empirical tests, and as I stated earlier, they pass the muster of empirical examination. It goes beyond merely aligning wkth existing data and generates testable predictions.
Regarding why aggression is a cause of testosterone, I’ll give a short explanation (let me know if you want a more complex one). There’s (1) A perception of a threat or challenge, (2) The HPA axis is activated, (3) the adrenal gland is activated, (4) testosterone is released which leads to (5) a short term testosterone increase, this then leads to (6) competition due to the initial start of the chain in (1), and finally it leads to a feedback mechanism. It’s been empirically shown that T doesn’t increase A, A increases T.
When it comes to denser bones, more musculature, and greater motor coordinatation along with smaller brains thsg might be found in individuals or groups that have propensities to commit violence, and that the traits seem to be increase in blacks, I fail to see how a “smaller brain” would make aggression more successful. If you’re saying that most of the traits you named seem to be higher in males and lower in females cross-racially, it depends what you mean by that. The recent empirical data is clear on that relationship between T and A.
Now when it comes to the empirical test of TAAO, let’s just discuss one of the many papers which discuss the empirical success of the TAAO: Racial Discrimination, Weakened School Bonds, and Problematic Behaviors: Testing a Theory of African American Offending, Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes 2016
So they examined a core hypothesis of the TAAO, namely that racial discrimination should diminish school bonds which then increases the likelihood of engaging in criminal actions later on. They used data from two cohorts, abbreviated as PHDCN-LCS. So they texted whether racial discrimination (RD) predicted changes in “externalizing behavior” longitudinally, from wave 1 to wave 3. They also examined whether black youths are attached to their school, their teachers and whether or not they’re committed to their education. They also tested whether or not RD is relevant to school ties after controlling for parental bonds. So they state that almost half of blacks in the discussed dataset stated that they perceived RD in school. So they cited evidence that blacks that perceive RD in school are more likely to commit “externalizing behavior” outside of school.
So they had 3 hypotheses: RD predicts changes in externalizing behavior between wave 1 and 3; school bonds predict changes in externalizing behavior (EB) after controlling for attachment and other covariates, and school bonds should attenuate influence of RD on changes in EB after controlling for attachment to parents and other covariates.
So here is how they constructed their index:
“We constructed a racial discrimination index based on questions included in the personal identity questionnaire that was completed at wave 3. Each respondent was prompted with the following statement: ‘‘Now I have a few questions about discrimination. Sometimes people feel they are discriminated against, or treated badly or differently because of their race, ethnicity, color, language, or the country they or their family came from. Please tell me if you have felt discriminated against for this reason IN THE PAST YEAR at any of the places listed on this card’’ (emphasis in original). The respondents were then given the following options: (1) in your own neighborhood; (2) when you were outside your own neighborhood (3) when you were at school; (4) when you saw a doctor, nurse or other health provider; (5) when you wanted service—for example buying something at a store or a restaurant;(6) when you met someone for the first time; (7) In the past year, have you felt discriminated against by the police (emphasis in original); and (8) In the past year, have you felt discriminated against because of your race, ethnicity, color, language, or the country you or your family came from anywhere else or by anyone else (emphasis in original). Each question had two responses that were coded 0 ¼ no and 1 ¼ yes. Responses were summed across the eight items and higher scores indicated that the youths perceived more discrimination. African American youths were coded 0 (42 percent) if they reported that they were not discriminated against in the past year. The values on the racial discrimination index range from 0 to 7 and the a value was .626. Note that our measure of racial discrimination is based on whether the African American youths perceived that they were discriminated against.”
So the longitudinal basis of the study shows whether or not there is an increase or decrease in perceived RD (PRD).
So the more they perceived discrimination, the more it led to EBs and those that reported more attachment to their parents reported fewer EBs. In the end, the analysis lends support the the TAAO. This is but one of the many empirical tests that lend support to it. And I will end with this prediction and the references that verified it. The prediction follows from the theory and it’s been found to hold across different datasets.
Black Americans with a stronger sense of racial identity are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than black Americans with a weak sense of racial identity. How does this prediction follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that a strong racial identity can act as a protective factor against criminal involvement. Those with a stronger sense of racial identity may be less likely to engage in criminal behavior as a way to cope with racial discrimination and societal marginalization. (Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
Again, thanks for an insightful and thought provoking comment.
allowing rr to comment is banning mugabe.
rr is full on autistic AND low IQ AND evil AND gay. peepee banned me. she’s delusional.
” finally it leads to a feedback mechanism. It’s been empirically shown that T doesn’t increase A, A increases T.”
Feedback means mutual influence so you can’t say, categorically, T doesnt i(contribute to) increase agression.
The amount of testosterone someone possess also influence how agressive he can be. That’s one of the reasons males tend to be significantly more agressive than females as well young males to older ones, because we have significant more amount of testosterone which allows us to display greater drive for competitiveness and hostility among each other. But of course just high testosterone is not enough. Someone with lower cognitive capacity also tend to be have less sophisticated cognitive tools to approach their daily challenges without recurring to violence. Being diagnosed with ADHD or anti social personality disorder also contribute to increase the proneness to engage in violent behaviors.
“The amount of testosterone someone possess also influence how agressive he can be.*
Nope. I’ve shown that claim is false. Remember the O’Connor et al and Tricker et al references? If your claim were true, then they would have observed increased aggression in their subjects—but they didn’t.
wild combination!said:
canada, britain, caribbean, almost all of africa, brazil… all the same redonkulously high rates of black violence… and yet it’s wypipo’s fault?
rr: sauce?
mugabe: it’s on wikipedia satanist! U R EVIL! CUT YOUR HAIR AND MARRY YOUR BABYMOMMA! POS!
ALSO i will ban myself until an actual commenter who is not rr makes a comment.
this hasn’t happened for months and will never happen because peepee’s blog is dead.
I believe and I understand that intelligence can be different in people because the parts of the brain are working together more or less differently.
That is the whole point: that intelligence is different for different people. The brain in a person has parts that work together. These differences DO exist. They can be studied by neuroscience.
temporal can include spatial arrangements in spacetime but then when we cannot hold in the mind certain shapes, the mind becomes linear instead of 4 dimensional.
people that break word apart cannot break apart words cannot break apart 3D patterns.
then we have people that synthesis words but cannot synthesis 3D shapes.
if things go together in words but not in space then we have wordcels, if we have people that put together things in space but not words we have spatial rotators.
It takes the left and right front brain working together and it takes the back right and left sides in the back brain working together, i.e. the whole brain working together to get full intelligence.
then we have the ability to describe 4D not just linear and not just shape but recursive processes together.
synthesis and analysis of linear words and parallel (all at the same time) shapes in space.
people with only words can go up and down in sequence but cannot put perspective, they cannot have global view. a to b to c to d but not able to tell that some inside and some outside is not the same as action. action becomes total when 3D becomes inside out. that is why anime people do not look good in 3D, only as drawings. action in 2d animation is awesome action because is fast and increases speed but 3D graphics become dull but also becomes totally textured in that all parts exist not the abstract action. words are just action not all parts that must be in place. so when taking a story we do not put in movies all parts just the excitation of a scene. space has all details but words are just the highlights.
because verbal leaves out almost all details it cannot by nature tell full story. full perspective. it cannot take parts as they are and make them real in world as details but can speer actions. actions then will make people have emotion not rationality. rationality is only their when details exist, space details or we get impulse to move forward not sit still and see everything at every angle.
but the person who only has space understanding cannot see that actions can be more than slow. they will see things as slow. they will want fast action in world not the mind, they will be upset by fast minds and fast words, words that mean nothing in the context of details in space. actions are concreate, do a do b do c. not vague.
multiple meanings become one meaning in space.
but because words have not space they become random actions.
–
the brain follows motion/shapes and because motion in words is different from motion in space we have the diffrence in what happens with emotion and rationality. random and order. fast and slow. breaking apart and putting together. vague and concrete. (rap and country music) multi meanings and one meaning. vision – verbal
Again, neuroscience can study physiology but it can’t bridge the explanatory gap. Your claim is true if and only if mind-brain identity is true and I’d love to see your argument for that.
What do you mean by “evidence”, “brain quality”, and “intelligence”? If you mean cognition, cognition is irreducible. So what’s the argument that mind-brain identity is true?
any organism that moves in the world needs to know how things are in the world. it then needs to change the world to its benefit to survive.
the brain in humans knows consequences of its actions by careful experimentation perceiving the way things are then constructs a set of rules to find ways to change its environment.
the move a brain perceives and the more sets of rules a brain generates the more it can learn what works and what does not work.
all this is known: that the brain loops work together to change reality and do so by testing what sets of rules get results in whatever circumstance it is in. different brains can attain more acuity of the environment and generate better rules to get results.
First para is true. Second is nonsense. The human brain doesn’t “know” anything – knowing is a property of selves and the self isn’t the brain. Brains don’t perceive, the self does through the mind. Perception action cycle aligns with my cognitive interface dualism.
“people that break word apart cannot break apart words cannot break apart 3D patterns”
???
Verbal intelligence is strongly associated with social intelligence which is strongly associated with emotional intelligence which is strongly associated with social conformity specially to the given social circles because the higher necessity for socialization by this people (just look at how students in humanities tend to be very social). Also seems there is a connection between verbal intelligence and certain types of hormonal profiles. Women tend to be verbally smarter than men but this tend to cost their rational capacity to control emotions and analyse stuff objectively. Even thought women seems better to understand and control their emotions in intra and interpersonal interactions or contexts, they tend not in intelectual contexts.
But we are talking about some aspects of verbal linguistic intelligence most people think is the essence of it, not its real essence: capacity to understand the concepts of words, use them in more appropriate ways and also the capacity to create new words; the very understanding of language/words itself.
Seems i understood you are talking about common tilts between verbal and non verbal intelligences or domains and that the people who are too much attach to the semantics, tilted to the verbal aspects, tend to adopt wokeism (blank slatism, etc).
visual tilt means people can be more concrete and thus reject verbal reasoning because it makes not sense in practical matters. they need objective demonstration of results. if it works then it works. no mumbo jumbo philosophy shit.
Santosaid:
Verbal understanding is very important in practical results.
yes rr, you discount actual science for scientism.
Santosaid:
Real philosophy is not this childish play on words. More respect, man!1
Dont let poets lie to you.
Santosaid:
Anime,
I think the main tilt here is not (only) between verbal and non verbal IQ. It’s not a “quantitative” tilt but a qualitative one, between learning and reasoning ability. What i already posted here, my theory for human intelligence dividing it on 3 great capacities: learning, reasoning and perception. Even i can easily agree with you that high verbal intelligence tend to make people too attached to words but it’s not an absolute rule. I doubt people with high spatial intelligence over their verbal intelligence is way better to avoid ideological indoctrination of any kind. What makes people more rational is not this tilt but developing their reasoning skills, their capacity to evaluate information. Someone who believes in all of religious doctrine or of other type, like wokeism, tend to overpersonalize their own capacity to interpret and understand the world. This i consider one of the hallmark of Irrationality. So rather than evaluate and judge stuff with a maximized impartiality and objectivity, the less rational tend to embrace their own subjectivity: expectations, desires, beliefs in their intelectual approach. And some of the most inteligent people in learning skills tend to have severe deficiency on their reasoning skills, if not this type is very common. High learning skills = generally means high scoring on cognitive tests = high capacity to rationalize their own point of views than to stick to “common sense”. My impression is that all perceived above avg IQ people i know tend to be as vulnerable to irrationalia as people with perceived something else IQ.
There is verbal reasoning and then there is verbal perceptual. rr lack perceptual reasoning or he would not reject empirical studies on how the brain works. he is totally immune to evidence that intelligence and the brain are causative on each other. He see them are only corollary or associative.
Anyone with any sense whatsoever would accept that neuroscience studies intelligence because visuospatial reasoning is used and works to determine the system relationships. Anything that works is emphatically true in this reality. The brain is a self regulated network and only by word sophistry can this be denied. His Propaganda works on weak minds because people cannot tell that what he is saying does not work in reality it denies reality. We who can perceptually reason and have done the research on the mechanism of cognition know his verbal reasoning has not basis in reality. He may call people that understand neuroscience delusional but then he shows that he is only reasoning from the perspective that networks do not exist. that shapes do not exist, that temporal signalling do not exist in the brain. He is ignorant of brain mechanism that are apparent to anyone who understands cybernetics.
The only conclusion that can be made is that he uses verbal reasoning to discount perceptual reasoning. He is a left brained thinker and thus can call anything not within that delusional.
“yes rr, you discount actual science for scientism.”
You’re disregarding knowledge gained from philosophy on this matter (“no mumbo jumbo philosophy shit”) and only looking at empirical studies. That’s the point of “scientism.” And if we assume it’s true it leads to an absurdity, since we CAN gain knowledge from conceptual analyses and the like.
Remember Santo, White people can use their free will to stop “perpetuating negative stereotypes” of Black people, give them money to educate themselves, give them jobs, never say or do anything possibly discriminatory (even though it would take infinite resources)… but black people cannot use their free will to stop murdering people or robbing stores, keep jobs, or study a little harder.
And, Lurker, one of the biggest losers of this white savior/flagelated supremacy is blacks themselves. Keep saying the only problem is “white racism” and just keep blacks killing and oppressing themselves, specially, at scalating rates.
It’s mostly about white liberals feel better with themselves, not really to approach problems to start to solve them.
And in many cases it’s also to keep relevant some people’s professional lives/lies.
(Prediction 1) Black Americans with a stronger sense of racial identity are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than black Americans with a weak sense of racial identity. How does this prediction follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that a strong racial identity can act as a protective factor against criminal involvement. Those with a stronger sense of racial identity may be less likely to engage in criminal behavior as a way to cope with racial discrimination and societal marginalization. (Burt, Simons, as Gibbons, 2013; Burt, Lei, and Simons, 2017; Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
(Prediction 2) Experiencing racial discrimination increases the likelihood of black Americans engaging in criminal actions. How does this follow from the theory? TAAO posits that racial discrimination can lead to feelings of frustration and marginalization, and to cope with these stressors, some individuals may resort to commuting criminal acts as a way to exert power or control in response to their experiences of racial discrimination. (Unnever, 2014; Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes, 2016; Herda, 2016, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
(Prediction 3) Black Americans who feel socially marginalized and disadvantaged are more prone to committing crime as a coping mechanism and have weakened school bonds. How does this follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that those who experience social exclusion and disadvantage may turn to crime as a way to address their negative life circumstances. and feelings of agency. (Unnever, 2014; Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes, 2016)
Santo I actually think verbal intelligence, especially higher level VIQ (which I have and you have) has nothing to do with reading or words. Its about following, constructing and manipulating arguments or concepts or theories.
Puppy doesn’t understand this. He said rote memorising the dictionary is a good example of high VIQ.
You and Santo weren’t raised in America so a U.S. vocabulary test will be biased against you but for people who were, it’s a very good test of intelligence.
Jensen writes:
In fact, vocabulary tests are among the best measures of intelligence, because the acquisition of word meanings is highly dependent on the eduction of meaning from the contexts in which the words are encountered. Vocabulary for the most part is not acquired by rote memorization or through formal instruction. The meaning of a word most usually is acquired by encountering the word in some context that permits at least some partial inference as to its meaning. By hearing or reading the word in a number of different contexts, one acquires, through the mental processes of generalization and discrimination and eduction, the essence of the word’s meaning, and one is then able to recall the word precisely when it is appropriate in a new context. Thus the acquisition of vocabulary is not as much a matter of learning and memory as it is of generalization, discrimination, eduction, and inference.
Children of high intelligence acquire vocabulary at a faster rate than children of low intelligence, and as adults they have a much larger than average vocabulary, not primarily because they have spent more time in study or have been more exposed to words, but because they are capable of educing more meaning from single encounters with words and are capable of discriminating subtle differences in meaning between similar words.
Words also fill conceptual needs, and for a new word to be easily learned the need must precede one’s encounter with the word. It is remarkable how quickly one forgets the definition of a word he does not need. I do not mean “ need” in a practical sense, as something one must use, say, in one’s occupation; I mean a conceptual need, as when one discovers a word for something he has experienced but at the time did not know there was a word for it. Then when the appropriate word is encountered, it “ sticks” and becomes a part of one’s vocabulary. Without the cognitive “ need,” the word may be just as likely to be encountered, but the word and its context do not elicit the mental processes that will make it “ stick.”
During childhood and throughout life nearly everyone is bombarded by more different words than ever become a part of the person’s vocabulary. Yet some persons acquire much larger vocabularies than others. This is true even among siblings in the same family, who share very similar experiences and are exposed to the same parental vocabulary.
Humans invented words and numbers to better navigate and understand the world they lived. So understanding these symbols tend to help us in this order.
Feral children aren’t exposed to the relevant socio-cultural influences needed to speak and verbalize, so what do you think the answer to that question is? Read Vygotsky.
The Philosophersaid:
A person who doesn’t know any language still has a verbal IQ.
Its behind a paywall. There are probably at least double that amount in America alone. The only people that know arent fucking journalists at Forbes covering up the info for the elites but bankers working in the Caymans.
Santosaid:
Nobody have an IQ, literally.
The Philosophersaid:
Puppy you explicitly said racist attitudes to blacks makes them commit more crime. When Lurker said most of the victims of blacks are actually blacks it debunked the worlds dumbest ever argument.
I never said anything even close to that Pill. Why do you keep misreading what people think? What I said was when a race commits more crime, even innocent members of said race are viewed suspiciously.
You said it in the last thread. You said discrimination makes blacks angry or something or depressed or whatever and they lash out at whitey and uh themselves. Thats your reasoning. Oprah told you that.
Now you’re conflating what I said with what PP said. Are you OK? You should stop commenting until you can remember who said what before you say someone said something that they didn’t
Oprah and especially Donahue were GENERATIONS ahead of their time on gay issues but by 1998 at the latest Oprah was openly pro-gay.
I remember some conservative white woman in the audience said “gays are always flaunting their gayness and I’m sick of it” to which Oprah replied:
“You know what I’m sick of: HETEROSEXUAL MALES RAPING AND SODOMIZING YOUNG GIRLS!!!!!!!!!!!!”
The audience which was full of gays since that was the day’s topic just went wild, standing up screaming hysterically. It was just so powerful in 1998, seeing such a prestigious person (who also had the moral authority of being a black woman from poverty) stand up so forcefully in favor of gays.
Still waiting for the references for your claim. (I’ve successfully dispatched that nonsense, and even if it WERE true, it wouldn’t make blacks more violent/prone to criminal activities.)
Blacks tend to be disproportionally homophobic by five reasons:
1. Low cognitive ability (not just low IQ, but also lower rationality capacity)/to understand and to deal with complexity like accepting the fact some people are attracted to the same sex and or will not generate descendents
2. Low empathy to, even not understanding, at least accepting and respecting individuals from sexual minorities. The same hostility is also directed to groups like atheists and people with some other differences like mental conditions and physical defficiencies
3. High religious adherence which positively correlates with low cognitive ability and also with low concrete empathy (not self alleged one), particularly to homos and big shoes.
4. They are highly impacted by AIDS pandemics and seems have developed defensive response to frankly rampant bi and gay male promiscuity even thought heterosexual blacks also tend to be more promiscuous than their peers of other racial groups.
5. They seems have many bissexual people/men or metassexual ones among them and some of the most “homophobic” people are closeted gay and bi.
The simplest explanation is they hate guys because they are high T. Every single jock in my school hated gays. All the more normal or dare I say feminine boys either ignored gays or went to embrace it.
You can predict attitudes to gays based on muscle definition alone. You don’t need any sociological argument.
Santosaid:
That’s your problem, Phill. Even high testosterone explains a lot this type of irrational animosity, is never a single factor, as you are believing.
“The simplest explanation is they hate guys because they are high T.”
You didn’t explain anything, you made an unevidenced claim. I bet you can’t tell me how T is produced in the body.
Just in case anyone believes your bullshit:
“the evidence is mixed on which race has higher levels of testosterone (due to low-quality studies that hereditarians cite for their claim). In fact, two recent studies showed that non-Hispanic blacks didn’t have higher levels of testosterone than other races (Rohrmann et al, 2007; Lopez et al, 2013). Contrast this with the classical hereditarian response that blacks indeed do have higher rates of testosterone than whites (Rushton, 1995)—using Ross et al (1986) to make the claim. (See here for my response on why Ross et al is not evidence for the hereditarian position.) Although Nyante et al (2012) showed a small increase in testosterone in blacks compared to whites and Mexican Americans using longitudinal data, the body of evidence shows that there is no to small differences in testosterone between blacks and whites (Richard et al, 2014). So despite claims that “African-American men have repeatedly demonstrated serum total and free testosterone levels that are significantly higher than all other ethnic groups” (Alvarado, 2013: 125), claims like this are derived from flawed studies, and newer more representative analyses show that there is a small difference in testosterone between blacks and whites to no difference.
Nevertheless, even if blacks have higher levels of testosterone than other races, then this would still not explain racial differences in crime, since heightened aggression explains T increases, high T doesn’t explain heightened aggression. HBDers seem to have cause and effect backwards for this relationship. Injecting individuals with supraphysiological doses of testosterone as high as 200 and 600 mg per week does not cause heightened anger or aggression (Tricker et al, 1996; O’Connor et, 2002). If the hereditarian hypothesis on the relationship between testosterone and aggression were true, then we would see the opposite finding from what Tricker et al and O’Connor et al found. Thus this discussion shows that hereditarians are wrong about racial differences in testosterone and that they are wrong about causality when it comes to the T-aggression relationship. (The actual relationship is aggression causing increases in testosterone.) So this argument shows that the hereditarian simplification on the T-aggression relationship is false. (But see Pope, Kouri and Hudson, 2000 where they show that a 600 mg dose of testosterone caused increased manic symptoms in some men, although in most men there was little to no change; there were 8 “responders” and 42 “non-responders.”)”
Your daily reminder that Rushton was wrong. Prediction: no response from the usual suspects, because they’re ignorant on matters of physiology.
The Philosophersaid:
You have such a low IQ you can’t tell for yourself that they have high T just by looking at their faces and their bodies. You truly are either the dumbest or most ideological person in the comment section.
The Philosophersaid:
Well I’m not saying the only factor. But if you had to make a guess whether a guy was likley to dress up like a woman or endorse sodomy you basically look at the muscle definition.
Or you can make him write a book about his life and what tv shows he watched yadda yadda and do it that way and do it the slow way.
Nothing to say about the studies I cited for both of my claims. Of course…
“You truly are either the dumbest or most ideological person in the comment section.”
Don’t talk about yourself like that.
Santosaid:
I also need to figure out how dumb he is if toxic masculinity and lower cognitive ability are correlated
The Philosophersaid:
Oprah never explicitly endorsed gays and definitely not in the 1990s. A black woman would have been trashed in her community for endorsing the gays in those days.
Even Obama was against the gays in his early days in Chicago doing community organising. He knew that topic was toxic for most blacks, especially black men who would literally beat the shit out of any gays they knew.
Oprah explicitly defended gays in 1997 when she supported Ellen famously coming out of the closet. She says she got enormous hate mail for it & Ellen herself lost her sitcom over it:
Actually Obamas biographer came out and said Obama admitted to his former girlfriend that sometimes he had gay feelings. Also tucker interviewed some guy last week who claimed he had gay sex with obama in 1999. But the guy has a criminal record as a conman so I’m not sure.
I told you he was gays years ago & you lacked the social intelligence to believe me, arrogantly thinking you could rely on your judgement.
He said he had sex with men DAILY in his imagination & now liberals are trying to explain it by saying he was just trying to impress his artsy girlfriend. LOL! Just take the L.
I meant liberals should take the L on this one. Michelle being transgender is an additional rumor which I never bought.
Lurkersaid:
She may not be transgender but how many masculine traits she has and being his choice of woman does really lend credence to Obama being secretely gay/bisexual.
The Philosophersaid:
Well if you believe Michelle is really Michael Robinson then you have to believe the kids are someone elses.
Erichthoniussaid:
Nobody cares that Obama is gay (if he even is gay). Only cuckservatives do.
The Philosophersaid:
Cuckservatives would actually applaud Obama coming out…or [redacted by pp, 2023-09-11]
The Philosophersaid:
Oprah managed to get Puppys hero Meghan Markle despised in the UK. I saw a poll that said the majority of Brits hate her. She basically made Harry accuse his grandmother of being a racist.
Frankly, I think she might be but he shouldn’t be saying that on tv. I wouldn’t even call my own mother racist on tv even though she and I are racists.
Mainstream media ‘debunking’ Michelle being a tranny.
Notice the way they say its not true because theres no evidence. You don’t need evidence for something to be true necessarily. Michelle also has very high T for a woman. She probably has more T than 99% of east asian men.
You love repeating Rushton’s bullshit as if it means anything. You never cite any references for your claim and you completely disregard any references that blow up your idiotic and false claims.
Imagine you are in a group setting, a psychiatric doctor is present and they are about to put you in a mental hospital. You have one chance, only one chance to avoid going.
They ask: is neuroscience used to study intelligence?
Ha good one. “Psychiatric medicine” is a sham. If one is familiar with the arguments, they should answer in the negative. Dualism is THAT fringe a position.
It “treats” unproven brain disorders, while other branches of medicine treat actual brain disorders. Only bodily disease can be found so “mental illness” doesn’t exist (see T. Szasz, “Insanity” and “The Myth of Mental Illness”). If an actual brain disease is found, it becomes a neurological disorder and is studied by neurology, not psychiatry. So if psychiatric disease can be shown to be a brain disease, it’s not a psychiatric disease but then a neurological disorder.
Here it is in premise and conclusion form:
(1) If psychiatric disorders were generally brain diseases, then neurologists would be the primary medical professionals treating them.
(2) If neurologists would be the primary medical professionals studying them, then we wouldn’t need psychiatry to “help people” suffering from them (with the associated “medicines”).
(C) Thus, if psychiatric disease were generally brain diseases, then we would need psychiatry to “help people” suffering from them (with the associated “medicines”).
Further, the recent papers on the myth of the chemical imbalance of depression are apt.
I agree with Szasz that categorizing mental illness is an inherently more subjective endeavor than normal illnesses, but that doesn’t warrant the claim that Psychiatric medicine is a “sham.” The fact of the matter is medicine, along with cognitive-behavioral therapy, has proven to be effective in treating mental disorders. Why do you think Loaded, someone with severe bipolar disorder, comes on here and spews the garbage that he does? You know, he doesn’t take his medication, right? Disorders exist. The discomfort exists. And the solutions, while not perfect, are there. And I think denying this is ableist at best.
Regarding the depression study, I don’t believe depression is as robust of a concept as other disorders are, but that study does not support your claim either. I think your opinion on psychiatry is ill-informed and based on pure emotion. The research you’ve done to support this view is more half-assed than normal, and I highly suggest you dig into this more because it simply doesn’t reflect reality. You’ve made a really general claim but gave very specific examples in an attempt to prove it. This is fallacious, and I don’t find it very persuasive.
“doesn’t warrant the claim that Psychiatric medicine is a “sham.””
I think so, because if so-called mental disorders are merely made up by psychiatrists, and if they are merely brain diseases, then it becomes neurology and not psychiatry. (I do believe that CBT works for some things, for the record.) I’ll flesh out the argument more on my blog soon (I have a few more things in my queue to write about before this, then I have to read/research for it so sit tight).
“that study doesn’t support your claim either”
I think what supported my claim the strongest was my Szaszian argument I made. The fact that the chemical imbalance theory of depression was refuted is just extra.
“The research you’ve done to support this cure is more half-assed than normal”
I didn’t research anything for my comment, that was just from memory. I agree it was a half-assed defense, and I’d need a bit to flesh the argument for my claim more fully. Maybe then you’ll find it more persuasive.
Are you still talking? Mr “da jooz did errything” who doesn’t read what’s given to him that refutes his claims. Can’t hold down a long-form discussion. Can’t discuss more than “the Jews.” Can’t cite anything for his claims. “Rr HaS a VeRy LoW iQ”—I have a better quality of life than you, I take showers and I don’t get fired from every job I get. I’m more knowledgeable than you on just about everything (my comments here attest to that). You’re just a clown.
Erichthoniussaid:
” mental disorders are merely made up by psychiatrists”
They aren’t, though. Sure, the categorization and diagnoses are something that is left up to psychologists and psychiatrists, but these are real ailments. At one point in history, movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest were more fact than fiction. However, Bipolar disorder, Autism, Schizophrenia, GAD, etc., are not just made-up diseases.
My ADHD isn’t so awful that I can’t function normally without medication, but I have friends who are so bad off that without Adderall, they literally can’t survive as human beings.
No offense, but that argument is not effective at all. It’s just saying that you wouldn’t need psychiatrists if mental disorders are brain diseases. This might be an effective argument for people who are trying to assert brain-mind identity, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to lead to the conclusion that psychiatry is a “sham.”
I mean, I think a case could be made against those “disorders”, especially being “genetic” and “having an evolutionary history.” (I’ll expand when I write my piece.)
I took Adderall when I was in my teens. It sucked. I felt like a robot. It sucked my whole personality from me so I stopped taking it.
And if mental disorders are truly brain diseases, then it would be left to neurology, not psychiatry, to study and diagnose. That was Szasz’s point. (You should read Hang Maung’s work on dualism and bio-psychiatry, interesting stuff.)
I’ll admit that I may have been too quick to say it’s a “sham”, but I’ll try to reductio both positions.
Erichthoniussaid:
“I took Adderall when I was in my teens. It sucked. I felt like a robot. It sucked my whole personality from me so I stopped taking it.”
Same, but for some people, it’s their only hope of leading a normal life. When I quit smoking weed, almost all of the executive dysfunction went away…almost. I still procrastinate and hyperfocus on the wrong things. But there are people that don’t smoke weed at all, but you wouldn’t know it talking to them.
Yea that’ll be something I’ll be reading into soon.
Did weed cloud your thinking or something? For me it’s good to wind down at night. (I haven’t vaped in a month, because it’s hard finding something in Western NY.)
My understanding of mental illness is also reflected in my understanding of network theory.
rr does not think networks matter to how we feel think or behave. He thinks regulatory processes cannot affect the mind thus rejecting brains as being something that has to do with intelligence or emotions.
Yet it does matter how the brain changes because the way the brain changes allows us to understand and control ourselves.
Intelligence is just what happens when we change in such a way as to affect internal and external reality to the degree we can know and make/test inferences. We understand things when we see the results and correct for errors. If the brain does not change correctly then we are not intelligent. Brains that improve faster will become more intelligent via correct changes. Error correction depends on the regulations of the network by a process of internal/external feedback. The way regulation happens depends on the configuration of its network parts and the signals between them.
Dysregulation is when the signals become unbalanced jeopardizing the integrity of the organism. Hedonic tone and all else like fear, anger, pain, pleasure, hot, and cold depend on proper regulation or you fluctuate in critical moments of system failure modes. The body/brain tells you what to do and intelligence is a way of getting what is needed for the survival of the system. That is why intelligence requires the brain to change to understand environments good enough for resource acquisition. brain change leads to mental change.
It’s totally worthless. Now, i’m convinced he is intentionally trolling us. Even if it’s not true, it’s helps me to avoid feeding him with attention he desperately wants. If most heresytarians just stop to give attention to him and his sophistrycated arguments, I believe he would eventually stop to embarass himself. We are still debating with someone completely clueless, baseless about what he think is knowing or understanding. Anyone who claim objectivity or objective truth is not possible should just go out of any moral or intelectual debate, because trying to convince other people that you are right is basically the same as to believe or agree that objectivity is true or real and the opposite is to believe nobody is wrong or right. So when our beloved tRRoll keep fighting anything we write here he is underlyingly screaming “I’M RIGHT. I’M IN THE SIDE OF OBJECTIVE TRUTH”. Just like when someone claim that morality is (totally) relative and then scream “RACISM IS WROOOON”… these are great examples of very basic contradictions, typical from pseudo intelectuals or sophists. Really doesnt worth. No matter what or how you say.
Like I said above… Delusionalia. You make the most elementary mistakes and claims that are easily disproved (Jews and their role in the slave trade, testosterone and aggression), and provide NO references for your claim but still say it like it’s true. You had nothing to say about the 500 words I wrote about the TAAO two weeks ago
Go ahead and quote me saying two things that are contradictory, then explain the contradiction.
Uh… no Melo. You don’t understand my view. I know that what people want is SUBjective… but they OBjectively want those things, and there are certain modes of life and desires that lead to more fulfilling lives than other desires and ways of achieving those desires. Therefore morality is BOTH subjective and objective.
You claiming that being racist is irrational as to appeal to our own selfishness for a world that offers more to us (which would be a world where we all treat races equally, you claim) is implicitly admitting that there is something we SHOULD want, and that wanting to be nonracist is something that would lead to better lives for us. If there is no objective reason for us to prefer nonracist lives, you are basically being manipulative trying to get others to believe what you want them to believe because it would benefit you more. Therefore it is inconsistent for you to state morality is only subjective and you to recommend us a specific way of acting, unless you are simply lying about racism being better for us. It’s not that hard to grasp if you think about it.
The Philosophersaid:
Thats your view. You said racism is wrong because CNN said it.
The Philosophersaid:
Lurker youre debating a mixed race carpenter. This is basically a conversation that won’t go anywhere.
Erichthoniussaid:
Morality is subjective because you can’t derive an ought from an is. Everyone has different goals, but if we have the same goal, we can logically deduce the correct action to lead to that goal. If my goal is prosperity among all humans, to treat people how I want to be treated and to be kind to others even if they are different from me, I think an Anti-racist attitude helps that goal. We can debate if that is the case, but it doesn’t contradict my view that morality is subjective.
Lurkersaid:
But we can change our goals. if one can show that it will lead to better results for everyone, at least on average, people will change their goals. This happens all the time.
Regardless, even with mutually contradictory goals, if one has to believe they exist, there are still clearly better ways of acheiving them. For example, one person achieving their goal is better than neither doing it and both of them feeling bad. That is simply objective.
We find ourselves in a world with actual existing physical and mental states, which include our goals, and the best ways to get them in the real world. That makes the best course(s) of action objective.
Unless you simply don’t think there are better ways of achieving our desires, and/or ways to make people happier and more well off, which obviously makes no sense given your statement that implies there are better ways to achieve prosperity among humans.
Santosaid:
Anime,
About our debate, I already told you, the main tilt is not verbal and non verbal but between people who are above avg on learning and below avg on reasoning horrible and people who have the opposite tilt. The first group is more likely to become alergic to anything which smells common sense or “conservatism” and then start to jump in any sensationalistic pseudo science or pseudo intelectualism like our tRRoll.
You may think worship for God and Capitalism are not the same as become woke but they are indoctrination too and people on non verbal tilt seems more likely to fool on.
Language is basal for human intelligence even for its “non verbal” aspects. That’s why linguistic and mathematic intelligences are so G charged.
I hear that people with lateral synchronized brains are more able to reason, but then with brains that are not laterally synched (anteroposterior) front to back synched, they learn faster.
That is both verbal and nonverbal act differently:
When side to side synched they have a rotational perspective. That which comes from reevaluation constantly.
But if front and back synched, this separates functions. Verbal only do verbal, and visuospatial only does visuospatial. This requires immediate testing. Iterative progress in a fixed structure. That is a divide so they do not combine.
That is where words have fixed meanings and objects have fixed operations. But side to side they gain multiple ambiguity. or what is the flexible and the rigid.
if you can do things in multiple ways not just one way then it is apparent what side-to-side means and front-to-back is.
The one solution is not the one solution on one hand but the woke people find it so that extreme they say no solutions exist.
They completely say: damned be consequences.
But then maybe it’s confused?
Anything to win against those who cannot think?
Think: that is who looks at what works and then do that?
People say: This works this way: the other says you did not consider x. and then they go back and forth about all possibilities. only then they cannot agree because of concrete and abstract positions. works in practice not in theory, works in theory, not in practice. But then what is the disagreement?
reasoning be it in terms of concrete or abstract requires terms and tests. the side to side makes it possible to bridge abstract explainotory gaps. but then divided brains can only produce what they did concretely verbal and nonverbal. I did x only x is possible. Argument x is true, argument x cannot be false because “all my assumptions are true”.
“That is both verbal and nonverbal act differently:”
I’m not disputing this but you are making a mess because your main belief is that this is a causation while it’s a correlation. It’s means there are other non cognitive and qualitative cognitive factors involved.
It’s not only
“Tristan was self indoctrinated to believe in racial equalitarianism because he has a verbal tilt”
Because there are lots of people with verbal tilt who were not self indoctrinated at least to believe in wokeism and lots of people with different profiles who does. Even if majority of people with verbal tilt were now partially or full blown woke, just verbal tilt doesnt woke people.
“When side to side synched they have a rotational perspective. That which comes from reevaluation constantly”
You having a hard time to understand that evaluate information primarily require verbal intelligence by obvious reason i will not even develop here.
There are lots of people among partial and full giftedness range who are very good on learning but about reasoning they basically overrationalize their own uncriticized beliefs… well what you are doing now.
Reasoning is basically our capacity to differentiate what is truth from what is bullshit. That’s easy to understand. It is its essence. The best way to think rationally. You dont need to know geometry to know astrology is bullshit and astronomy is not. You need some non quantitative or qualitative cognitive abilities to start to better evaluate information like intelectual humillity, curiosity and honesty. It’s also very important being good on objectivity and impartiality. These abilities are developable but it seems their individual development potential vary significantly. Most people, including majority of “high IQ” people seems doing poorly on reasoning. Actually, possessing a higher cognitive potential tends to make people overconfident, differently than some studies. But because they are great on rationalization they tend to look less confident than people in other IQ range and particularly those with low IQ.
Santosaid:
Being frank, pattern recognition is fundamental for reasoning or rationality specially when you are not technically proficient or an expert in given topic. And pattern recognition associated with the knowledge of fallacies and logical laws which greatly helps to think better.
Santosaid:
Actually, possessing a higher cognitive potential tends to make people overconfident, differently than some studies…’
That is not even important to what I am currently saying:
people who have a divided brain see one answer and those who have a unified brain see multiple possibilities.
whether they can be honest about what they know about is a different matter because ridged people usually do not change views well flexible people do change views.
The fact that a brain divides itself creates a tendency toward complete certainty in verbal and nonverbal. well, a brain that is open to possibilities adjusts when necessary.
You are looking at what I am saying and assuming I have a concrete inflexible view. Thus ignore the new information presented. That is what people do when they want to dominate a conversation: ignore everything a person said and focus on that person’s supposed bias instead of the main point. That may or may not be verbal but it is not the honest thing to do. Mostly if a person is socially oriented they reject the data and focus on the mentality of the people they are interacting with. It is easier to discount people than data so they go in that direction.
>You having a hard time to understand that evaluate information primarily require verbal intelligence
If I am correct, Divided brains only have one rigid view which does not change. Because verbal is isolated from nonverbal.
United brains can change views and thus, “evaluate”, if honesty and necessary.
Santosaid:
”people who have a divided brain see one answer and those who have a unified brain see multiple possibilities.”
People who have a split brain have brain injuries…
In fact, they are often useful for comparing the relatively different functions of the cerebral hemispheres.
”You are looking at what I am saying and assuming I have a concrete inflexible view. Thus ignore the new information presented. That is what people do when they want to dominate a conversation: ignore everything a person said and focus on that person’s supposed bias instead of the main point. That may or may not be verbal but it is not the honest thing to do. Mostly if a person is socially oriented they reject the data and focus on the mentality of the people they are interacting with. It is easier to discount people than data so they go in that direction.”
That’s what you’re showing.
You are creating a parallel debate.
I’m talking about how there are a lot of people who are great at memorizing information but terrible at judging it.
You, in turn, are talking about your diffuse knowledge of neuroscience, citing parts of the brain associated with this or that set of tasks.
Would you at least elaborate on what you are saying?
”The fact that a brain divides itself creates a tendency toward complete certainty in verbal and nonverbal. well, a brain that is open to possibilities adjusts when necessary.”
It is a fact that the brain only presents large fissures of continuity when there are one or more lesions.
Just a cognitive preference for linguistic intelligence, with or without prejudice to spatial intelligence, does not explain how a person ends up believing that human races do not exist or that their differences are minimal.
It is necessary to present other factors, such as a greater expression of ”openness to experience”, positively related to liberalism.
It’s a combination of factors and I’m not denying that verbal tilt can even play a significant role, but it’s usually associated with other factors, and there are exceptions to the rule.
>I’m talking about how there are a lot of people who are great at memorizing information but terrible at judging it.
If verbal is used to judge then as to where verbal comes from it is sound. So when we read or hear we have to have context for what is happening because facts get processed in a way that is only about one-to-one and not continuous. I can flow into what I say and present a perfect reasonable performance in communication but then we have the part where we select what comes next consciously or unconsciously. This is apparent in spewing facts and beliefs but then what you need to do to reason is to notice larger things. The whole is the entirety of what is reasonable. Not some small out-of-place thing but the gist. The translation from one specific idea to a general idea. What I say is based on what I want you to understand. If I am only memorizing I will make it so you must accept certain “facts” because to me they are obvious but not to you but I cannot think they have no relevance. I can only tell you what I had in my mind with no critique. So I cannot do anything other than one-to-one based on that “knowledge” and not go further. If I went further I would be surrounding everything with context. Only by making all things in my attempt to elaborate specific can I be general in the wide view because I need to reason in the way that denotes what I am addressing to you not something private to myself. If private to myself then that is not an explanation. It is esoteric. And by telling you what I think I am only doing so by extrapolation in what you say back to me. I am not proclaiming you must memorize facts I am engaging you with real feedback. Because verbal is sound and symbol that reflects back onto the one’s communicated with and not the reaction to dead text argumentation no one will understand when preached at them.
>Would you at least elaborate on what you are saying?
The corpus callosum is distinct in the use of language. It is the anterior cingulate cortex that detects errors in sound and text. People who are verbal in this way use error detection and have side-to-side synchrony. People who do not are action-oriented and do not listen for abnormalities. They just demand and react and do not evaluate what is missing or what is intuitive to the extent that they can glean hidden meaning.
You santo look only for errors in what I say, you have strong side-to-side synchrony. That can be good only if communication is used to add to what others say and not dismantle people for no reason at all other than to be disagreeable. But then look at people who do not look for errors. They just repeat the same trash over and over. repetition repetition repetition. that is because they cannot check errors they have weak anterior cingulate cortex. If you cannot find errors you cannot reason or judge as you santo say. But then if you can reason you can reason as a sophist, you can dismantle anything based on technicalities and promote political agendas like rr does. He reasons to find errors in anything not in his belief system so no santo, you can reason verbally and be a poor judge of reality as long as you have the wrong motives and the wrong premises, and wrong assumptions. sophistry requires high verbal reasoning in fact epistemologically you can have the highest reasoning and be ontologically incorrect. rr KNOWS neuroscience cannot study intelligence and all that contradicts this is error. So like a good lawyer, he finds all ways to disprove, reject, and dismantle all things not in that ontology. The verbal reasoner must use his intelligence, his error detector, to disqualify anything that he KNOWS is epistemologically untrue. That means he takes what he KNOWS reality is and counteracts all languages containing “errors”. Verbal can be the most delusional and the most irrational simply by the ontology they assume to be true.
Only the honest person, the person with the least ontologically hardened position can even consider reality as different from what he thinks it is. Honesty is not verbal or nonverbal. But then look at nonverbal. They cannot afford to reason fallaciously. math is universal and that means science can be replicated. Verbal sophistry can replicate like cancers or viruses but always dies. Nonverbal never dies because it is engineering. You cannot bullshit in that arena. Objects do what they do. Objects = objective reality. You cannot use words to deny what objects are. So science still exists and will exist. So even if not honest people learn fast who lied. Replication = validation.
Science is not perfect but it is not the same as laywerism.
Verbal reasoning is not the same as epistemological honesty.
Santosaid:
“If verbal is used to judge then as to where verbal comes from it is sound. So when we read or hear we have to have context for what is happening because facts get processed in a way that is only about one-to-one and not continuous. I can flow into what I say and present a perfect reasonable performance in communication but then we have the part where we select what comes next consciously or unconsciously. This is apparent in spewing facts and beliefs but then what you need to do to reason is to notice larger things. The whole is the entirety of what is reasonable. Not some small out-of-place thing but the gist. The translation from one specific idea to a general idea. What I say is based on what I want you to understand. If I am only memorizing I will make it so you must accept certain “facts” because to me they are obvious but not to you but I cannot think they have no relevance. I can only tell you what I had in my mind with no critique. So I cannot do anything other than one-to-one based on that “knowledge” and not go further. If I went further I would be surrounding everything with context. Only by making all things in my attempt to elaborate specific can I be general in the wide view because I need to reason in the way that denotes what I am addressing to you not something private to myself. If private to myself then that is not an explanation. It is esoteric. And by telling you what I think I am only doing so by extrapolation in what you say back to me. I am not proclaiming you must memorize facts I am engaging you with real feedback. Because verbal is sound and symbol that reflects back onto the one’s communicated with and not the reaction to dead text argumentation no one will understand when preached at them.”
Quoting facts and knowledge’s words. Bad signal…
Why this gigantic and random comment??
“>Would you at least elaborate on what you are saying?”
My bad. Firstly you should learn how to synthetize your written thoughts. Your elaborations are often too elaborated.
“The corpus callosum is distinct in the use of language. It is the anterior cingulate cortex that detects errors in sound and text. People who are verbal in this way use error detection and have side-to-side synchrony. People who do not are action-oriented and do not listen for abnormalities. They just demand and react and do not evaluate what is missing or what is intuitive to the extent that they can glean hidden meaning.”
Maybe i’m too dumb to understand this or is you who also have issues to communicate in objective way. That’s not the topic. I was waiting some feedback or real intelectual interaction with you based on a common ground, but your autism make this possibility harder.
“You santo look only for errors in what I say, you have strong side-to-side synchrony.”
When i find something from you i consider a ‘non mistake’ i will tell you, i promise.
“That can be good only if communication is used to add to what others say and not dismantle people for no reason at all other than to be disagreeable. But then look at people who do not look for errors.”
I’m talking about something and you pushed to the other perspective that even if it is within the topic doesnt agregate but disperse our debate creating paralell discussions.
“They just repeat the same trash over and over. repetition repetition repetition. that is because they cannot check errors they have weak anterior cingulate cortex. If you cannot find errors you cannot reason or judge as you santo say. But then if you can reason you can reason as a sophist, you can dismantle anything based on technicalities and promote political agendas like rr does.”
If you think only woke “or” left wing people who indoctrinate themselves and being you a God’s believer…
” He reasons to find errors in anything not in his belief system so no santo, you can reason verbally and be a poor judge of reality as long as you have the wrong motives and the wrong premises, and wrong assumptions. sophistry requires high verbal reasoning in fact epistemologically you can have the highest reasoning and be ontologically incorrect.”
Where i said verbal reasoning or intelligence is never a possible or common contributive factor to intelectual dishonesty?
Nope. Better reasoning, better objective understanding of the world.
You are dividing reasoning in capacities (learning skills) IQ superficially analyse. My original idea is not to divide reasoning even thought is totally possible. It is to focus on the general capacity to judge and evaluate (information). It’s also related with self knowledge, about our own limitations and potentials. It’s means if you correctly evaluate your capacity to understand something as very low or insufficient, it is actually a good reasoning
“Only the honest person, the person with the least ontologically hardened position can even consider reality as different from what he thinks it is. Honesty is not verbal or nonverbal. But then look at nonverbal. They cannot afford to reason fallaciously. math is universal and that means science can be replicated.”
Mathematics is a language. Numbers are fictitious as words. We dont have 5 fingers in each hands but 5 1 finger. Doesnt exist 6 apples or 7 bananas. Counting is factually arbitrary. What is universal to known universe we exist are the logical laws which governs us.
“Verbal sophistry can replicate like cancers or viruses but always dies. Nonverbal never dies because it is engineering. You cannot bullshit in that arena.”
Jewsus…
Nonverbal is derived from verbal as irrational is from rational. Nonverbal belongs to human realm. Sorry, little dude.
And without us, truth doesnt exist. You are anthropomorphozing the inanimate.
And because non verbal is just a silly term, it’s actually dependent on verbal to function correctly.
“Objects do what they do. Objects = objective reality. You cannot use words to deny what objects are. So science still exists and will exist. So even if not honest people learn fast who lied. Replication = validation.”
So are you still believing n God and eternal life????
“Science is not perfect but it is not the same as laywerism”
Since a long time that Science has been coopted by tyrannical power.
“Verbal reasoning is not the same as epistemological honesty.”
Verbal reasoning is the primary human reasoning and “epistemiological honesty” is not possible without it. Verbal intelligence can be a big villain but it’s also the most important.
verbal comes from proper communication between people.
it is not just derived from memorization but from review and understanding. You need to look at what others are saying or you don’t have verbal reasoning. verbal is the development of people-to-people interactions. People learning from people.
>Maybe i’m too dumb to understand this or is you who also have issues to communicate in objective way. That’s not the topic. I was waiting some feedback or real intelectual interaction with you based on a common ground, but your autism make this possibility harder.
The topic is about verbal, You do not understand where it comes from or how it works so I am telling you the background.
>I’m talking about something and you pushed to the other perspective that even if it is within the topic doesnt agregate but disperse our debate creating paralell discussions.
again you do not understand verbal and nonverbal elements, so I am eleberating.
>If you think only
I told you that a divided brain tends to never change its views in most cases.
Verbal nonverbal is not the issue, it is divided brain or non-divided brain. This changes how verbal and nonverbal are used.
remember the anterior cingulate cortex?
A divided brain does not use the anterior cingulate cortex to process verbally. This means the divided brain will use verbal not the same as the unified brain.
>It’s also related with self knowledge, about our own limitations and potentials. It’s means if you correctly evaluate your capacity to understand something as very low or insufficient, it is actually a good reasoning
it is related to honesty, you cannot be objective without honesty.
honest people reason better but reasoning is not about objectivity, reasoning is about telling people what you think objective reality is thus rr or anyone can reason. but they have fixed beliefs on what reality is, they cannot change what they believe and cannot be honest about ontological unknowns.
simply: only an omniscient deity can reason perfectly / tell you the truth on all matters because humans do not have infinite wisdom/knowledge of reality. honesty is required because we only have limited understanding.
>Mathematics is a language. – What is universal to known universe we exist are the logical laws which governs us.
no, Without objective reality math is arbitrary.
math only works because reality is objective not subjective like ambiguous verabl is. that is why you can fool people with language but not fool people with math because math has objective standards that cannot be broken. You will get caught because math is NOT ambiguous.
>You are anthropomorphozing the inanimate.
Humans lie about shit all the time. Sophistry is a real phenomenon, it is not inanimate because humans are bastards.
>And because nonverbal is just a silly term, it’s actually dependent on verbal to function correctly.
Objective reality does not depend on language. Animals exist without language and reality still exists. Humans only need language to collaborate as a tool to make technology.
>Verbal reasoning is the primary human reasoning and “epistemiological honesty” is not possible without it. Verbal intelligence can be a big villain but it’s also the most important.
A divided brain uses language not the same way as a unified brain, again you do not know the topic because you do not understand how language works in the brain or in objective real life.
Language as a tool can be used objectively or ambiguously and or as a weapon. that does not mean objective reality does not exist. It does not mean objects only exist as language games. Cars are real, Trucks are real, Computers are real. They are not imaginary. They work objectively.
The whole point in verbal/nonverbal distinction is that language describes objective reality but is not objective reality itself. Reason is used differently in different brains because we have different understandings of reality. Language does not make reality go away. But nonverbal is used to do things language cannot do because nonverbal is objective all the time whereas language is ambiguous 90% of the time.
Yes, you can use verbal to describe reality objectively but nonverbal is completely objective all the time not 90% of the time.
Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex use language in a way such as to look at ambiguity as a positive thing the other brain structure sees it as a negative.
The distinction is not left or right brain.
It is not verbal vs. nonverbal
It is not woke/alt-right
It is not reasoning objectively vs. sophistry.
The distinction is in understanding ambiguity or having an exact understanding. People who need exactness use exactness separately in both the left and right brain because they do not use the anterior cingulate cortex. People who use the anterior cingulate cortex use it as a conflict resolver between conflicting data sets.
So being objective is for a person who needs exact language.
They nitpick everything you say.
They do not care about empathy to understand what others’ points are. they are language police.
This could be the result of not using the anterior cingulate cortex to resolve conflict internally. that is why they have fixed belief systems.
Santosaid:
“verbal comes from proper communication between people.
it is not just derived from memorization but from review and understanding.
You need to look at what others are saying or you don’t have verbal reasoning. verbal is the development of people-to-people interactions. People learning from people.”
I’m talking about general reasoning and not “verbal reasoning”…
“The topic is about verbal,”
Your little ass.
“You do not understand where it comes from or how it works so I am telling you the background.”
Nope. You just redirected this debate to your chronic IQism.
“again you do not understand verbal and nonverbal elements, so I am eleberating.”
I’m still talking about how someone can believe in gender theory or in God theory.
“I told you that a divided brain tends to never change its views in most cases.”
Depends on the injury.
“Verbal nonverbal is not the issue, it is divided brain or non-divided brain. This changes how verbal and nonverbal are used.remember the anterior cingulate cortex?
“No have such thing, silly.
More globally connected and more locally connected brains, you mean??
>It’s also related with self knowledge, about our own limitations and potentials. It’s means if you correctly evaluate your capacity to understand something as very low or insufficient, it is actually a good reasoning.
“It is related to honesty, you cannot be objective without honesty.”
The same way through. You can’t be effectively honest in intelectual way without knowing how to be objective and impartial in your thoughts or reasoning. And how does your comment here counterague my own above????
That’s your problem.
“honest people reason better but reasoning is not about objectivity, reasoning is about telling people what you think objective reality is thus rr or anyone can reason. but they have fixed beliefs on what reality is, they cannot change what they believe and cannot be honest about ontological unknowns.”
God?
You are another good example of sophistry.
Reasoning, ideally, is obviously about seeking the objective truth. Reasoning, in broader terms, can lead people to manipulate facts to feel better. But the highest expression of reason is objective understanding.
“simply: only an omniscient deity can reason perfectly / tell you the truth on all matters because humans do not have infinite wisdom/knowledge of reality. honesty is required because we only have limited understanding.”
OK, mister self honesty…
“no, Without objective reality math is arbitrary.”
O.K.
“math only works because reality is objective not subjective like ambiguous verabl is.”
So human consciousness doesn’t exist in reality?? You even know the terms you are using. Subjectivity is about perspective of the observer. Maths doesn’t exist, it’s not necessarily a human invention but an improvement, like the qualitative symbolic language, maths is a quantitative symbolic one.
“that is why you can fool people with language but not fool people with math because math has objective standards that cannot be broken. You will get caught because math is NOT ambiguous.”
Hello, capitalism??
Junior still doesn’t know about pyramid schemes.. I see.
“Humans lie about shit all the time. Sophistry is a real phenomenon, it is not inanimate because humans are bastards”
You are talking about as if you are totally immune from it… I see.
“Objective reality does not depend on language. Animals exist without language and reality still exists. Humans only need language to collaborate as a tool to make technology.”
Really?????? Oohh
“A divided brain uses language not the same way as a unified brain, again you do not know the topic because you do not understand how language works in the brain or in objective real life.”
This is not the topic… this is topic you invented because it is well known how autistic people tend to avoid real conversations.
“Language as a tool can be used objectively or ambiguously and or as a weapon. that does not mean objective reality does not exist. It does not mean objects only exist as language games. Cars are real, Trucks are real, Computers are real. They are not imaginary. They work objectively.”
Thank you. Yesterday I was thinking trucks could change their gender…
“The whole point in verbal/nonverbal distinction is that language describes objective reality but is not objective reality itself.”
Hyperbolism.
“Reason is used differently in different brains because we have different understandings of reality.”
Relativism.
“Language does not make reality go away. But nonverbal is used to do things language cannot do because nonverbal is objective all the time whereas language is ambiguous 90% of the time.”
Hyperbolism.
“Yes, you can use verbal to describe reality objectively but nonverbal is completely objective all the time not 90% of the time.”
Hyperbolism.
“Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex use language in a way such as to look at ambiguity as a positive thing the other brain structure sees it as a negative.”
Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex = liberals??
Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex = like 99% of them.”
The distinction is not left or right brain.
It is not verbal vs. nonverbal
It is not woke/alt-right
It is not reasoning objectively vs. sophistry.”
You are just talking about verbal vs nonverbal all the time based on your hyperbolic interpretation..
“The distinction is in understanding ambiguity or having an exact understanding.”
Or??
“People who need exactness use exactness separately in both the left and right brain because they do not use the anterior cingulate cortex. People who use the anterior cingulate cortex use it as a conflict resolver between conflicting data sets”
Stop using some studies on neuroscience to make such over-deterministic statements.
“So being objective is for a person who needs exact language.”
You don’t need it??
“They nitpick everything you say.”
It’s MEEE”
They do not care about empathy to understand what others’ points are. they are language police.”
Sorry. You want me to agree with your nonsense to make you happy??
“This could be the result of not using the anterior cingulate cortex to resolve conflict internally. that is why they have fixed belief systems.”
>Reasoning, ideally, is obviously about seeking the objective truth. Reasoning, in broader terms, can lead people to manipulate facts to feel better. But the highest expression of reason is objective understanding.
True but so far you have failed to do so because you disregarded everything I said that is based on objective reality.
You just criticized and learned nothing from what I said.
>You want me to agree with your nonsense
You do not seek to understand the objective truth.
Exactly as I said a person who would do if they had fixed belief systems.
Whether that has to do with global connectivity or not I cannot say. But you would rather not know the truth on that matter either.
Santosaid:
So i hope GOD teach me soon as HE did to you…
The Philosophersaid:
I don’t read RRs comments usually but did he just say above to Anime he thinks a person’s mind is completely detached from his brain?? LOL.
So you think a person who doesn’t believe in evolution, thinks the mind exists outside the brain and thinks testosterone has nothing to do with aggression would somehow be correct on his social theories?
“Detached” is a strong word which I wouldn’t use. That implies a disembodied afterlife, a disembodied existence, which wouldn’t be possible since we identify each other based, in part, on our physical identities (our bodies). So it follows that a disembodied afterlife isn’t possible. You can’t think without a brain. Even if they were possible, a disembodied mind wouldn’t be human, since what makes us human is our minds ALONG WITH our bodies. But I DO say that mental properties are qualitatively and fundamentally distinct from physical properties.
What do you think “necessary but not sufficient” means? Do you think that “network structure” and “network organization” *are* thinking? I’m saying that the brain and it’s parts are necessary for thinking but not sufficient for it and that the a priori immaterial aspects of thought argument refute physicalist explanations of mind and thinking.
What do you think “necessary but not sufficient” means? And the mind can change the brain, as interactionist dualist accounts show. And I don’t understand your question. Can you elaborate?
>What do you think “necessary but not sufficient” means?
You tell me.
You think any kind of brain can be intelligent because it does not matter what configuration the brain network has or the dynamics involved in your opinion?
>And the mind can change the brain, as interactionist dualist accounts show
You say network dynamic do not exist. That it has no involvement in intelligence. That would mean is there is no interaction of mind and the brain network as a dynamic system. thus any change in the network has no implications for intelligence.
>And I don’t understand your question. Can you elaborate?
Intelligence requires the brain change as a network to a different configuration.
How does mind change the brain to induce that change if network dynamics have no involvement?
Brains can’t be intelligent. You’re attributing a property of human selves to one of its parts (mereological fallacy). Where did I say “network dynamic do not exist”? This, again, goes back to the distinction between necessariness and sufficientness.
“there is no interaction of mind and brain”
Nonsense, as myself, Lowe, and Krodel show. That’s not the position at all. Read my article where I articulate my position. Again, I don’t deny that neuroscience can tell us anything about physiology, only that it can’t tell us anything about the mind. You’re strawmanning me. The fact that I said “the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but not a sufficient condition” means that brain and it’s physical processes are necessary for cognition/mindedness, so what you’re attributing to me is nonsense. I’ve explains how the mind changes the brain, and you’re attributing an action (cognizing) to the brain and saying it’s reducible to the parts, while I’m saying that it’s necessary (X is needed for Y to hold), not sufficient (X is Y). My viewpoint is way more nuanced than you’re attributing to me. It’s why I said the other day that we’re talking past each other.
>you’re attributing an action (cognizing) to the brain and saying it’s reducible to the parts,
^Strawman
The system works as a whole not isolated parts. The total system cannot function without internal and external feedback. If feedback was not involved in intelligence there would be no way for the brain to change itself. Tell me in concrete terms how mental attributes influence feedback loops to change the brain. Or tell me how intelligence happens without feedback loops.
and post an actual link to your argument about where intelligence is comes from. I Think you said development?
By the way, this new paper shows that cognitive science is (mostly) irrelevant to the mind-body problem. (Though some cognitive scientists are implicit dualists, I don’t think that cognitive science has a say in the mind-body problem, nor do I think that it shows a physicalist ontology is true.)
Excellent very hiqh IQ critique of neoliberalism and the clinton administration (i.e. Robert Rubin’s economic policy), ironically the critique is done by 2 jews.
This is what a high verbal intelligence allows u puppy. To diagnose and make critiques. Not memorizing the official definition of words.
Frankly, for whatever reason it seems jews are the best critics of economic theories.
Time to quote Jensen again especially the sentence I bolded (but Jensen’s half-Jewish so I guess you’ll ignore half of this):
In fact, vocabulary tests are among the best measures of intelligence, because the acquisition of word meanings is highly dependent on the eduction of meaning from the contexts in which the words are encountered. Vocabulary for the most part is not acquired by rote memorization or through formal instruction. The meaning of a word most usually is acquired by encountering the word in some context that permits at least some partial inference as to its meaning. By hearing or reading the word in a number of different contexts, one acquires, through the mental processes of generalization and discrimination and eduction, the essence of the word’s meaning, and one is then able to recall the word precisely when it is appropriate in a new context. Thus the acquisition of vocabulary is not as much a matter of learning and memory as it is of generalization, discrimination, eduction, and inference.
Children of high intelligence acquire vocabulary at a faster rate than children of low intelligence, and as adults they have a much larger than average vocabulary, not primarily because they have spent more time in study or have been more exposed to words, but because they are capable of educing more meaning from single encounters with words and are capable of discriminating subtle differences in meaning between similar words.
Words also fill conceptual needs, and for a new word to be easily learned the need must precede one’s encounter with the word. It is remarkable how quickly one forgets the definition of a word he does not need. I do not mean “ need” in a practical sense, as something one must use, say, in one’s occupation; I mean a conceptual need, as when one discovers a word for something he has experienced but at the time did not know there was a word for it. Then when the appropriate word is encountered, it “ sticks” and becomes a part of one’s vocabulary. Without the cognitive “ need,” the word may be just as likely to be encountered, but the word and its context do not elicit the mental processes that will make it “ stick.”
During childhood and throughout life nearly everyone is bombarded by more different words than ever become a part of the person’s vocabulary. Yet some persons acquire much larger vocabularies than others. This is true even among siblings in the same family, who share very similar experiences and are exposed to the same parental vocabulary.
You do not read dictionaries in social studies class pill.
You read stories about people doing things and people interacting with other people.
The Philosophersaid:
From age 5-13 you basically just do rote memorisation of what words mean. Thats literally the sole and total purpose of the textbook. Puppy thinks a person that aces his english tests in these years has a gigantic verbal IQ.
Higher level verbal reasoning to be very blunt is not taught in schools and not taught by socialisation. Its somewhat innate.
The Philosophersaid:
Jensen is talking about how we acquire later vocabulary after school which is maybe at most 50% of the vocabulary you take on as a human being.
I don’t disagree with jensen completely. I’m just saying, rote memorisation and checking the dictionary is how a lot of kids learn words.
The Philosophersaid:
Look testing someones vocab is basically like asking someone to perform a mental calculation in their head to gauge someones quant IQ.
But this is left wing jews criticising jewish elites so I’m all for it.
The Philosophersaid:
I remember based soley on intuition rejecting neoliberalism as a teenager. I did it on the bus rides to Trinity College. I asked myself what would happen if you abolished welfare, pensions, educational grants, childcare benefits….the economy would totally collapse in the short and long run and actually the rich would get poorer.
You realize there are Bank of Americas in England right? So why can’t there be a Bank of England in Ireland? Think pill, think!
LOADEDsaid:
i have very high cognitive flexibility as well something Anime may have noted in our convos together
The Philosophersaid:
The irish and the scottish…both celtic…are definitely the most R selected of the white people. Pumping out babies and doing drugs (alcohol) and being generally dumber than the germanics or the southern europeans. I’m very open about that.
But we’re great warriors. And we’re brave. So thats important too.
And as fenoopy, the north african commenter said before he was banned by puppy…we’re not [redacted by pp, 2023-09-12] like the blacks who didn’t even invent religion or bows and arrows.
Bell was from a british ancestry and Scotus…was basically a priest. I thought you’d throw another british proddy descendant aristocrat at me like Berkeley.
Ireland’s population wasn’t always tiny dumbass. In the 1840s before the famine it was 8.5m. We bred like rabbits. The british scolded us for that.
or is my GAY-dar broke(n)???said:
arthur russell went the gay way (SUPPOSEDLY) because … money …
capitalism = GAY!
sounds VERY UN-gay:
or is my GAY-dar broke(n)???
OPRAH STILL YET TO PROMOTE ARTHUR RUSSELL!said:
ARTHUR RUSSELL WAS A GENIUS … WHO …
DIED IN POVERTY …
OPRAH STILL YET TO PROMOTE ARTHUR RUSSELL!
THE GENIUS IS ENOUGH.
THE SINCERITY IS EXTRA … CHERRY ON TOP!
OPRAH STILL YET TO PROMOTE ARTHUR RUSSELL!
THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES?said:
PEEPEE (QUA SWANK) CLAIMED MONK WAS SUCH.
WRONG!
RUSSELL GETS A LOT OF SYMPATHY (OBVIOUSLY) BECAUSE THE WAY HE DIED.
BUT!
LIKE MONK!
THE EMPEROR IS NOT NAKED!
NOT!
RUSSELL NEEDED LESS ENCOURAGEMENT THAN OTHERS BECAUSE HIS HORRIBLY ACNE SCARRED FACE.
AND THE HORRIBLE FACT THAT HE WAS A PRETTY GOOD LOOKING GUY WITHOUT THAT … THAT … MUTILATION?
mugabe: obviously! the “wild irish” have only been part of civilization for 150 years at most. in this period you expect too much from them. but today they’re rich. ireland is like singapore but with irish pipo.
and russian litterateurs are always reckoned the better of all, the best…shakespeare and dickens vs tolstoy? tolstoy wins.
Thats exactly my point, we were basically barbarians until the British came and ‘civilised us’ via raping the country.
We obviously didn’t evolve high IQs like the germanics and the southern europeans. But Irish men are more masculine. Its basically R selection.
If you compare the Scottish and the English its basically the same lesson.
The Philosophersaid:
I’m not an expert on high Lit but for a country where english wasn’t even the first language until 1900 and 80% people were banned from education until 1860 and the population being about 5% the size of russia, clearly we have much better writers than the russians.
The Philosophersaid:
In poetry and dramatic writing for the stage, we are also clearly outstanding.
The Philosophersaid:
Gaelic is a very very difficult language to learn and was tougher than learning math for me in school. I even did advanced math and had no interest in it and still scored better than in gaelic.
Okay but I’ll typically only publish a maximum of 5 of your comments per day (iceland calendar used to date stamp comments). Anymore than 5 and your quality tends to fall off a cliff.
Hard to say anyone because so many great minds here but I think you’re one of the best here at verbal fluency. I can picture you racing through the written essay section of an exam while the rest of the university students are just suffering from writer’s block.
The Philosophersaid:
You said you would fuck off. Why are you coming back? You said the blog was too boring so just stay away.
the stark difference between reality and what we conceive of in our minds is stark
Brunosaid:
PP : You realize there are Bank of Americas in England right? So why can’t there be a Bank of England in Ireland? Think pill, think!
I- Nope on this one. Phil ris right.
Bank of America as Bank of Ireland are commercial banks. Whereas Bank of England is a central bank like Federal reserve board or Central Bank of Ireland. A central bank has no business being outside UK.
—> Position is in the UK.
II- What’s weird is that if Phil is an Irish Republic citizen, I don’t see how BE would recruit him for a permanent non PhD research position. There are probably agreements with Irish people but it must be limited. Core jobs in central banks are always for nationals, except international students training.
—> So either Pill is going back to school or he has UK citizenship (including double nationality) .
III- Previous points are consistant with the fact that Travelers and Tinkers are close. And they may enjoy special programs like black graduates 😉
What’s also strange is that Pill lived in Singapore. What would someone from the backwoods of Ireland be doing in a country as cosmopolitan and cutting edge as Singapore? That’s why I sometimes think Pill is actually a South Asian immigrant to Ireland.
Theres nothing strange at all. I won an academic scholarship to study in Asia. Irish nationals don’t need visas to work in the UK because of the Good Friday Agreement. Brexit doesn’t effect us. Bruno keeps banging on about this traveler thing thinking hes funny lol.
Anyways even if I wasn’t irish there are plenty of people at the Bank of England who are non-nationals. The former governor 5 years ago was a canadian. The advisory board and executive committee have foreign nationals I think. The Bank of England literally trains people from 3rd world countries to eventually go back and run their countries central banks. The British invented central banking. At the start of the empire most central bankers in former colonies such as Ireland or indeed Canada, would have been involved with the Bank of England at some stage.
LOADEDsaid:
the short story i wrote had excellent communication between characters and a very profound story arc
Melo, lurker, and PP are the best people to discuss things with here. AK and Santo sometimes, but a lot of the time they’re nonsense generators. Loaded and “philosopher” are the bottom of the barrel. Mugabe… Is on a list by himself.
No, you just have low social intelligence. You think you have a complete understanding of reality when you do not and cannot see beyond your own mind and into the minds of others. People think differently than you, but that does not make it nonsense.
Look into the term “sociology” if what I said confused you.
See? Nonsense generator. My job entails what “social intelligence” refers to, along with aspects of my daily life. Saying this about me from comments on a blog that I comment on to discuss certain things is…. Interesting, to say the least.
“People think differently than you, but that does not make it nonsense.”
A lot of what both of you say isn’t intelligible because it’s nonsense (it’s incoherent).
Although I disagree a lot with Melo, lurker, and PP, they aren’t nonsense generators and can have clear, nuanced discussions on different concepts. Those three are the best to discuss things with. And I did say that both you and Santo are fine to discuss with sometimes, just not all the time.
>A lot of what both of you say isn’t intelligible because it’s nonsense (it’s incoherent).
You use language incorrectly. That is why you say this. Or you think I use it incorrectly but that is not the same as nonsense. Your claims that I am unintelligent is from your cultural dependent word use. If your social intelligence were higher then you would understand what others say within that persons cultural reference frames. And so you neglect to understand what I say almost all the time. You claim that IQ tests are middle class knowledge tests and that means you should know I am not in your cultural range. You are an academic I am on welfare. Santo is not even from the USA he is from Brazil.
You cannot have it both ways rr, you cannot be a sociologist and call what I say nonsense just because my background culture had me learn language in the way I did. Either I am factually incorrect (ignorant) or I use words incorrectly (cultural background), but I am not stupid. Same goes for you.
It’s not about “using words incorrectly”, it’s about how you string them together and form your ideas. A lot of the time it’s incoherent. I did also say that “sometimes” you two are good to discuss with (like now you’re being very clear and coherent), but other times it’s just nonsense to me. And I said to Santo the other day that he’s a bad writer and that it’s not the language barrier that is causing it. I just think you sometimes can’t get your ideas across clearly and it comes out incoherent.
>it’s about how you string them together and form your ideas.
That is a syntax issue with nothing to do with a well-formed grammatically correct way of doing language.
If you want clarity then perhaps you should read more about linguistics, that way my slang will not be as cryptic to you as it is now.
>I just think you sometimes can’t get your ideas across clearly
You keep saying my ideas are wrong and I have to reword everything to fit your tiny verbal window of acceptable terminologies and semantics.
The barrier is cultural because I am not middle class or whatever imaginary class you are. Even if I went to a science middle school and was in the gifted high school programs I did not read what other people read or watch the TV other people watched, I was poor and had to accept the free launch programs in school.
You are the one whose ideas are incorrect because you do not understand how culture works or linguistics or philosophy or science or anything else, your view is too narrow to understand anything close to its full range. Yet you cannot get what I say time and time again calling it what you will. You have no creativity/imagination or empathy for people with either of those things.
I am aware I sound harsh but I do not have any more patience for people who are just going to repeat and repeat and repeat to me like an indoctrinated robot that they are right and I am wrong.
“That is a syntax issue with nothing to do with a well-formed grammatically correct way of doing language.
If you want clarity then perhaps you should read more about linguistics, that way my slang will not be as cryptic to you as it is now.”
I’ve obviously read some linguistics. It very well may be a syntax issue, but I don’t think it’s “cryptic”. It’s just my opinion about how you write.
“you do not understand how culture works or linguistics or philosophy or science or anything else, your view is too narrow to understand anything close to its full range.”
See, this is what I mean. You’re saying I “do not understand” how things work. That’s ridiculous.
“I am aware I sound harsh but I do not have any more patience for people who are just going to repeat and repeat and repeat to me like an indoctrinated robot that they are right and I am wrong.”
My guy, I merely stated my opinion on who is worth discussing things with here. You’re being pretty clear and not incoherent now, but I believe a lot of what you say is incoherent with no flow. That’s just my opinion, maybe I’m wrong but I’m just calling it how I see it.
>I believe a lot of what you say is incoherent with no flow.
Almost every recent guest post I made on pp’s blog you just bullshited all over it in the comments section saying exactly what you said above: dismissing and calling it nonsense when it is not. I have no respect for anything you say in that regard.
>See, this is what I mean.
>You’re saying I “do not understand” how things work.
yes, like feedback loops involvent with intelligence, I repeated for months every time you strawmaned me about reductionism. remember I have studied a.i. since 2001, Nothing you write on your blog about “development” or “interactions” is new, it has been known since before you or I were born, You just do not get it:
“Almost every recent guest post I made on pp’s blog you just bullshited all over it in the comments section saying exactly what you said above: dismissing and calling it nonsense when it is not. I have no respect for anything you say in that regard.”
I respect your opinion.
“yes, like feedback loops involvent with intelligence, I repeated for months every time you strawmaned me about reductionism. remember I have studied a.i. since 2001, Nothing you write on your blog about “development” or “interactions” is new, it has been known since before you or I were born, You just do not get it:”
Uh, I just proposed a novel philosophical framework integrating action potentials as the interface between the mental and the physical which relies on feedback loops. A cornerstone of DST thinking is feedback loops. You said above that “^^^Thinking/intelligence is a brain mechanism” and this implies a physical mechanism but the mind isn’t mechanistic and that claim is defeated by the Ross-Feser immaterial aspects of thought argument. Necessary doesn’t mean sufficient.
Santosaid:
The troll who writes like Judith Butler or Foucault is not in the position to evaluate other people’s writing quality without analysing himself firstly and, surprise, he doesnt.
The main reason for anguage is a better communication. Human language itself was developed (not necessarily suddenly “invented”) exactly to improve it. So sophistrycated unwriting style is a complete backward of thousand of evolution and development. Only a privileged person or a complete fool who could adopt it in any instance if professionally or not.
why are the people here so spiteful and angry all the time. the hate is unbearable from these folks not only targeted towards me but also all of humanity.
PP your blog attracts misanthropes and just outcasts in general myself included but i think im remedying myself while these old folks stay stagnant!
no ACTUAL irishman thinks irish pipo are innately dumber than...than...ANYONE!said:
leno’s mother was scottish, craig ferguson, seth meyers (jewy irish), colbert, o’brien, fallon, will ferrell, adam mckay, …
the celts have comedy locked up.
recent phenomenon.
peepee: no network late night jews for same reason no jew presidents.
mugabe: then why one irishman (phil donahue) vs geraldo, raphael (i sware she said she was a(n) MoT), springer, povich?
peepee: [makes RIDICULOUS oprah promotional comment because lacks self-control.]
no ACTUAL irishman thinks irish pipo are innately dumber than…
than…
ANYONE!
BRIAN BARU BTFOed THE VIVKINGS!
THE FUCKING VIKINGS!
peepee: [makes RIDICULOUS oprah promotional comment because lacks self-control.]
sad.
the POINT about ARTHUR RUSSELL is…
1. you can listen to his interview … sounds … NOT gay.
2. his music is DIFFICULT … BUT not intentionally so … he’s the monk of east village disco … [crow caws] … [car door closes … party next door] … [oven beeps … it’s over! it’s over! it’s over!] …
spaghetti pipo = the COOLEST pipo != rr = sad …
mugabe is more spaghetti than rr!
FACT!
LOADEDsaid:
Leno went to school at the private university i attended for a year. so did Charles Taylor the infamous despot of Liberia. so did many other successful entrepreneurs since it is a business school.
its a really up and coming school and will gain prestige if not academically just in terms of how much tuition is since its about 40000 a semester just for classes!
its elite per se.
anyways i also got a marketing job. i will be working with this very attractive early 30s marketing director who was really impressed with my interview performance.
what i meant by this is that Jay Leno went there for a year i went there for quite a few years actually and got my degree there.
speaking of tuition isnt it crazy how i have such good intuition. my intuition is the only reason im still alive and one of the many reasons im so great at everything!
LOADEDsaid:
it is now a different day in iceland so im going to post my comment about aliens reptiles mammals etc. in terms of neuroscience.
aliens are very expansive in their openness while lacking associative horizon. probably a very K-selected species.
humans are obviously mammals. so mammals are warm blooded.
aliens could be reptilian meaning theyre cold blooded. cold bloodedness circulating the brain leads to cooler thoughts or in other words rationality.
I was just on a call with Loaded and I am trying to help him improve his comments. He is writing an essay about intelligence from a neuroscience perspective because he was going to become a neurologist but went in a different direction with a business degree. He studied the subject for a semester and knows some things about it. He is a very nice guy and I would say his mental abilities in quant is higher than mine. I think rr is correct that development matters but also that quant is a real thing as Loaded potential is very high. I simply had more self-development but Loaded has potential.
I know you said it’s 23 inches but it looks small in the photo but could be the camera angle.
They have polygenic scores for intracranial volume? I’ve been waiting for that for years. They’re probably very inaccurate at the individual level but might tell us something about population level trends.
LOADEDsaid:
its cuz my forehead is sloped
LOADEDsaid:
i also have a very long skull
Erichthoniussaid:
LOL, why does Loaded look like he’s in his 30s?
God, I look so young compared to you all. It’s that Asian.
Yeah, Cat lose the beard. Get a haircut, and tidy up the beard. You might get pussy.
Loaded’s hair makes him look a bit older than he is but other than that he looks good. But he appears to have a tiny brain which I suspect made him vulnerable to a psychotic break.
LOADEDsaid:
i have a 23 inch head circumference ive mentioned this many times!
Lurkersaid:
Yes but don’t forget your lean-body mass article, which hypothesizes that the IQ correlation with brain size mass should be compared to lean-body mass not whole body mass.
Now Anime thinks he is an expert on neuroscience just because he is obssessed on it. Another interesting traits: such narcisism at the point to post his own photo, fourth time here, obviously related with self obsession. This prove you dont need to be a “social butterfly” to be very narcisist.
About the other, if he is not trolling… i ask how he could get to high education??? Parent’s money??
go away santo, you do not want to have real conversations about topics.
The Philosophersaid:
I said from day 1 that anime was a narcissist but then I changed my mind and said it was autism. The guy just constantly talks about how his brain works. Its ridiculous.
Santosaid:
Autism, intelectual narcisism and pedantry are positively correlated. Seems common autists thinking they are great on some topics just because they are obsessed on them.
Santosaid:
It’s more likely to find inteligent life in some Jupiter’s moons than on multiple loaded comments.
santo if you are not going to be constructive in discussions then do not bother. calling me autistic is a copout. you do not have anything better to add when it comes to trying to understand things.
just add something better, don’t project your own insecurities.
Santosaid:
Sometimes we just need to reinforce than add.
LOADEDsaid:
PP remember my unapproved comment about my genetic results for intelligence and a variety of other traits from cognidna:
Pumpkin Person 
The picture arrangement test is a decent attempt at a culture reduced social intelligence test if that is in any way theoretically possible or even a theoretical desirability.
But it doesn’t test ‘advanced’ social reasoning and manipulation like selling something dumb to an average person or making someone laugh without hitting yourself.
I am often running on empty. So I do not concentrate well. It takes extreme willpower to have brief moments of clarity.
This test has in it the experience of oneself when looking at what people do. In other words, it contains the snapshots of social motion. A person infers what happens because it is an emotional sensitivity of actions. But the art is not even that good so the inferences need to be taken by low resolution of information. It is high abstraction really not detailed. But if one has had the visual experience then the abstractions are acquired by the details one has processed in real life.
People who draw for a living would pass this test no matter what. So it has a low ceiling when it comes to abstractions or details. Personally, I would say that comic book artists in 90’s could come up with a better test. By taking a Marvel comic book and deleting all text then putting the pages in random order and then putting them back in order.
Music animations are also spatial-temporal and require knowing motion to get a sense of meaning from it by integration. A story is really actors in motion with motivations to get things and this has been studied for a long time. When people think of things they have looks and make sounds and this is placed in themes of the background and flow of scenes. So movie directors would also say this test is too low a resolution for any practical purpose in their field.
Understanding why people do what they do takes more than just observation of others but of the self. Emotions are what is inside you and me. They define what directions we go in when we attach them to external things and others. If you hate or love you have a different reverence for what is happening to people. Emotions are not simple like music is not simple. You cannot relate unless you fully know what another person feels so you cannot make another person become different in the expected way you want unless you have a total awareness of those emotions. A story has limitations in the goals and variability of what people do when motivated. If you have not felt deep enough you cannot see their effects in what people do.
Highly recommending watch this video.
At 11/12 I didn’t expect to do as well as I did. This test felt more like inventing stories, with all the baseless assumptions that come with that, than it did a social IQ test. I think Phil is right in that being able to read a room or understand hidden social cues isn’t the same as being capable of manipulating it for one’s benefit. Wouldn’t surprise me if psychopaths are naturally better at that form of reasoning.
pp,
In sixth grade, I was in the bottom 1st percentile of spelling and at the top (95th percentile) of social studies. This was based on the national standard.
I can read fine but spell poorly. Could this be the same reason I am poor at the coding subtest on the wais 4 ? I am not dyslexic.
Jesus christ Melo look at this video. Its a psychiatrist analysing Biden for dementia:
He called Kamala Harris, ‘President Kamala Harris’ WTF.
Having the occasional gaffe is just a sign of getting old, not dementia.
Did you hear what the guy said? Biden is just aboout holding on.
Oprah stared him…
I have been a very strong ally of the gay community since day 1.
Community?? Where??
Everywhere.
Real gay communities dont exist. Sadly.
finally explained.
rr is fucking peepee.
stereotype overload!
sad!
if rr weren’t a mentally retarded clown troll who talks too much he would try to compare apples with apples. but he is so he doesn’t.
namely, black violence associated with drug gangs should be subtracted and the remainder compared to whites in similar economic and social situations in the US, britain, and canada. are blacks still more violent? are they more violent than similarly poor and ghetto-ized pakistanis in britain or poor whites in glasgow? the poor white ghetto may no longer exist in the US as it did 100 years ago. appalachia is very poor, but it’s rural. so let’s compare violence in eastern kentucky and violence in the rural “black belt” of the old csa. what do you find?
then he’d have to look at the caribbean and africa. is it drugs? is it poverty? northern mexico is the most violent place on earth, but just across the border are the safest cities in the US. and these US cities are near 100% mexican. why? answer: drug cartels, poverty, corruption among others.
there are good arguments for a non-essentialist explanation but rr is too fucking retarded and filled with hate for wypipo and too brainwashed by ne?liberalism to think of any of them.
PPEE IS NOW BANNING THE WORD “—LIBRLISM”…
YET ANOTHER PROOF, 200 PROOF, THAT PEEPEE IS 100% PURE EVIL…AND/OR ‘TISTIC.
SAD.
you have to be a w-pipo to get why this doesn’t suck.
sad.
…
”then he’d have to look at the caribbean and africa. is it drugs? is it poverty? northern mexico is the most violent place on earth, but just across the border are the safest cities in the US. and these US cities are near 100% mexican. why? answer: drug cartels, poverty, corruption among others.”
I believe that only Jayman is capable to deny that there are structural or environmental factors that can promote behavioral changes in certain population groups.
But there are always underlying intrinsic factors that cause certain individuals, from certain subgroups, to be more influenced than others.
Because even individuals who grow up in the same socioeconomically disadvantaged environments tend to present different long-term responses and, therefore, different life paths.
And some reasons for these different responses under very similar conditions are: personality type; the presence or absence of any mental/personality disorder; level of cognitive ability;of rationality…
All these underlying intrinsic factors are observable and their patterns traceable.
Young Mexicans who are today associated with cartel criminal practices, under other conditions, may not display “enhanced” sociopathic behavioral phenotypes.
However, they would still present sociopathic behaviors with less expressiveness or impact on the community.
And it is still possible that there are individuals whose behavior patterns, particularly those related to criminal practices, are predominantly unpredictable.
Santo still doesn’t understand that the TAAO is an American-specific theory to explain black offending that makes successful novel predictions. Can someone write that in Portuguese?
TAAO é uma teoria específica dos EUA para explicar a ofensa negra que faz previsões de romance bem-sucedidas.
Anyways that gay guy in my class in high school came out and got gay married last week. Congrats I guess.
Melo check this out.
American ethnographic data on the average TCSA of tips attached to their shafts show that thrusting spear tips, dart (spear thrower) tips, and arrow tips have declining mean TCSAs of 168, 58, and 33, respectively [43]. Reviewing the South African record [53] found that the TCSA of points declined, beginning at 300 ka until reaching arrow tip size during the MIS 4 glacial (~71 ka).
LOL. Oh, look. Another study corroborates my claims.
But wait….
Department of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University
Oops, I guess we have to throw this study out.
You’re right. I could have saved myself an hour of my time reading the paper just by seeing which university published the paper. I won’t make that mistake next time.
RR, for you it might be: Does this person agree with some degree of hereditarianism or genetic determinism? Then let’s use the gap in our understanding of causality and development to try to find holes where the environment can fill and then ignore anything that implies genetic determinism in their paper.
baby lion…of course i meant to say…
Oops, I guess we have to throw this study out.
correct!
let’s use archeologist ricardo eichmann as a source. the son of adolf eichmann. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Eichmann
so much for the theory that the nazis were dumb.
30 hours vs answers me?
vs
vs
Funny enough, developmental systems theorizing precludes a genetic reductionism.
It’s good that you agree with those two propositions.
“Is being vifwd as physically strong positive or negative?”
It’s context-dependent.
When it comes to media representations, yea I agree with that. That is a very good question. I think it is answerable by empirical means. Regarding the second part of the first question, there are some studies on how there is positive media representation that’s reflective of the black population of the US as a whole. Still yet other studies show how black athletes are, for example, portrayed in the media over a 10 year period showed that only a small minority of the article directly addressed race, and that it showed they highlighted correcting wrongs of the past, being the first black to accomplish something, and the decease and small number of blacks in a certain sport. Nevertheless, as for your last question, it depends on how you look at it. Media-as-effect reflects social realities or commercial interests. Media-as-cause reflects stereotype reinforcement, normalization of violence, and impact on self-perception (these three would of course reflect back on TAAO). And when it comes to TAAO, it reflects back on stereotype reinforcement, normalization of violence, impact on self-perception, and it also recognizes that media representations are influenced by the broader societal context. So while TAAO doesn’t solely attribute the cause of AAO on media portrayals, it emphasizes the importance of understanding how historical and contemporary influences, including the media, shape criminal behavior while recognizing that media representations are influenced by and influencing social perceptions and behaviors.
When it comes to implicit racial BIAS (IRB), that’s distinguished from explicit racial bias on the basis of being unintentional and unconscious, so basically microaggreesions (this can be discussed separately), contrasted with explicit racial bias which manifests itself in overt racism and discrimination. IRB also contributes to, for example, disparities in set bails between blacks and whites. IRBs can then eventually translate into microaggreesions which then have real physiological consequences for health.
Regarding the just-so story claim, I think my defense in my previous comment was apt. However, I disagree with your claim that it’s a post hoc theory. TAAO generates testable predictions and hypotheses based on its empirical framework. The predictions are derived from the core framework, and so it can be subject to empirical tests, and as I stated earlier, they pass the muster of empirical examination. It goes beyond merely aligning wkth existing data and generates testable predictions.
Regarding why aggression is a cause of testosterone, I’ll give a short explanation (let me know if you want a more complex one). There’s (1) A perception of a threat or challenge, (2) The HPA axis is activated, (3) the adrenal gland is activated, (4) testosterone is released which leads to (5) a short term testosterone increase, this then leads to (6) competition due to the initial start of the chain in (1), and finally it leads to a feedback mechanism. It’s been empirically shown that T doesn’t increase A, A increases T.
When it comes to denser bones, more musculature, and greater motor coordinatation along with smaller brains thsg might be found in individuals or groups that have propensities to commit violence, and that the traits seem to be increase in blacks, I fail to see how a “smaller brain” would make aggression more successful. If you’re saying that most of the traits you named seem to be higher in males and lower in females cross-racially, it depends what you mean by that. The recent empirical data is clear on that relationship between T and A.
Now when it comes to the empirical test of TAAO, let’s just discuss one of the many papers which discuss the empirical success of the TAAO: Racial Discrimination, Weakened School Bonds, and Problematic Behaviors: Testing a Theory of African American Offending, Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes 2016
So they examined a core hypothesis of the TAAO, namely that racial discrimination should diminish school bonds which then increases the likelihood of engaging in criminal actions later on. They used data from two cohorts, abbreviated as PHDCN-LCS. So they texted whether racial discrimination (RD) predicted changes in “externalizing behavior” longitudinally, from wave 1 to wave 3. They also examined whether black youths are attached to their school, their teachers and whether or not they’re committed to their education. They also tested whether or not RD is relevant to school ties after controlling for parental bonds. So they state that almost half of blacks in the discussed dataset stated that they perceived RD in school. So they cited evidence that blacks that perceive RD in school are more likely to commit “externalizing behavior” outside of school.
So they had 3 hypotheses: RD predicts changes in externalizing behavior between wave 1 and 3; school bonds predict changes in externalizing behavior (EB) after controlling for attachment and other covariates, and school bonds should attenuate influence of RD on changes in EB after controlling for attachment to parents and other covariates.
So here is how they constructed their index:
“We constructed a racial discrimination index based on questions included in the personal identity questionnaire that was completed at wave 3. Each respondent was prompted with the following statement: ‘‘Now I have a few questions about discrimination. Sometimes people feel they are discriminated against, or treated badly or differently because of their race, ethnicity, color, language, or the country they or their family came from. Please tell me if you have felt discriminated against for this reason IN THE PAST YEAR at any of the places listed on this card’’ (emphasis in original). The respondents were then given the following options: (1) in your own neighborhood; (2) when you were outside your own neighborhood (3) when you were at school; (4) when you saw a doctor, nurse or other health provider; (5) when you wanted service—for example buying something at a store or a restaurant;(6) when you met someone for the first time; (7) In the past year, have you felt discriminated against by the police (emphasis in original); and (8) In the past year, have you felt discriminated against because of your race, ethnicity, color, language, or the country you or your family came from anywhere else or by anyone else (emphasis in original). Each question had two responses that were coded 0 ¼ no and 1 ¼ yes. Responses were summed across the eight items and higher scores indicated that the youths perceived more discrimination. African American youths were coded 0 (42 percent) if they reported that they were not discriminated against in the past year. The values on the racial discrimination index range from 0 to 7 and the a value was .626. Note that our measure of racial discrimination is based on whether the African American youths perceived that they were discriminated against.”
So the longitudinal basis of the study shows whether or not there is an increase or decrease in perceived RD (PRD).
So the more they perceived discrimination, the more it led to EBs and those that reported more attachment to their parents reported fewer EBs. In the end, the analysis lends support the the TAAO. This is but one of the many empirical tests that lend support to it. And I will end with this prediction and the references that verified it. The prediction follows from the theory and it’s been found to hold across different datasets.
Black Americans with a stronger sense of racial identity are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than black Americans with a weak sense of racial identity. How does this prediction follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that a strong racial identity can act as a protective factor against criminal involvement. Those with a stronger sense of racial identity may be less likely to engage in criminal behavior as a way to cope with racial discrimination and societal marginalization. (Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
Again, thanks for an insightful and thought provoking comment.
allowing rr to comment is banning mugabe.
rr is full on autistic AND low IQ AND evil AND gay. peepee banned me. she’s delusional.
RRs comments are a steaming pile of shit. Just total garbage.
” finally it leads to a feedback mechanism. It’s been empirically shown that T doesn’t increase A, A increases T.”
Feedback means mutual influence so you can’t say, categorically, T doesnt i(contribute to) increase agression.
The amount of testosterone someone possess also influence how agressive he can be. That’s one of the reasons males tend to be significantly more agressive than females as well young males to older ones, because we have significant more amount of testosterone which allows us to display greater drive for competitiveness and hostility among each other. But of course just high testosterone is not enough. Someone with lower cognitive capacity also tend to be have less sophisticated cognitive tools to approach their daily challenges without recurring to violence. Being diagnosed with ADHD or anti social personality disorder also contribute to increase the proneness to engage in violent behaviors.
“The amount of testosterone someone possess also influence how agressive he can be.*
Nope. I’ve shown that claim is false. Remember the O’Connor et al and Tricker et al references? If your claim were true, then they would have observed increased aggression in their subjects—but they didn’t.
canada, britain, caribbean, almost all of africa, brazil… all the same redonkulously high rates of black violence… and yet it’s wypipo’s fault?
rr: sauce?
mugabe: it’s on wikipedia satanist! U R EVIL! CUT YOUR HAIR AND MARRY YOUR BABYMOMMA! POS!
ALSO i will ban myself until an actual commenter who is not rr makes a comment.
this hasn’t happened for months and will never happen because peepee’s blog is dead.
she killed it with her low IQ and racism.
sad.
I believe and I understand that intelligence can be different in people because the parts of the brain are working together more or less differently.
That is the whole point: that intelligence is different for different people. The brain in a person has parts that work together. These differences DO exist. They can be studied by neuroscience.
Self-regulation of networked loops.
Finally, iluminatikitty is understanding.
yea, but did you see what i said to rr? over and over and over
and santo i knew this long before you did.
you cannot even understand what i said about verbal people having blind spots in intelligence
Sorry, i didnt see it, totally. What did you say??
I advise you to stop to feed the troll. It’s impossible to have a real intelectual conversation with a sophist.
temporal can include spatial arrangements in spacetime but then when we cannot hold in the mind certain shapes, the mind becomes linear instead of 4 dimensional.
people that break word apart cannot break apart words cannot break apart 3D patterns.
then we have people that synthesis words but cannot synthesis 3D shapes.
if things go together in words but not in space then we have wordcels, if we have people that put together things in space but not words we have spatial rotators.
It takes the left and right front brain working together and it takes the back right and left sides in the back brain working together, i.e. the whole brain working together to get full intelligence.
then we have the ability to describe 4D not just linear and not just shape but recursive processes together.
synthesis and analysis of linear words and parallel (all at the same time) shapes in space.
people with only words can go up and down in sequence but cannot put perspective, they cannot have global view. a to b to c to d but not able to tell that some inside and some outside is not the same as action. action becomes total when 3D becomes inside out. that is why anime people do not look good in 3D, only as drawings. action in 2d animation is awesome action because is fast and increases speed but 3D graphics become dull but also becomes totally textured in that all parts exist not the abstract action. words are just action not all parts that must be in place. so when taking a story we do not put in movies all parts just the excitation of a scene. space has all details but words are just the highlights.
because verbal leaves out almost all details it cannot by nature tell full story. full perspective. it cannot take parts as they are and make them real in world as details but can speer actions. actions then will make people have emotion not rationality. rationality is only their when details exist, space details or we get impulse to move forward not sit still and see everything at every angle.
but the person who only has space understanding cannot see that actions can be more than slow. they will see things as slow. they will want fast action in world not the mind, they will be upset by fast minds and fast words, words that mean nothing in the context of details in space. actions are concreate, do a do b do c. not vague.
multiple meanings become one meaning in space.
but because words have not space they become random actions.
–
the brain follows motion/shapes and because motion in words is different from motion in space we have the diffrence in what happens with emotion and rationality. random and order. fast and slow. breaking apart and putting together. vague and concrete. (rap and country music) multi meanings and one meaning. vision – verbal
Not just “verbal people” have it.
what?
Again, neuroscience can study physiology but it can’t bridge the explanatory gap. Your claim is true if and only if mind-brain identity is true and I’d love to see your argument for that.
If the brain has nothing to do with intelligence then we would not find differences in the brain regarding intelligence.
Video: Why the dyslexic brain is misunderstood
What’s fhe argument that mind-brain identity is true?
What is the evidence that brain quality has no relation to intelligence?
What do you mean by “evidence”, “brain quality”, and “intelligence”? If you mean cognition, cognition is irreducible. So what’s the argument that mind-brain identity is true?
any organism that moves in the world needs to know how things are in the world. it then needs to change the world to its benefit to survive.
the brain in humans knows consequences of its actions by careful experimentation perceiving the way things are then constructs a set of rules to find ways to change its environment.
the move a brain perceives and the more sets of rules a brain generates the more it can learn what works and what does not work.
all this is known: that the brain loops work together to change reality and do so by testing what sets of rules get results in whatever circumstance it is in. different brains can attain more acuity of the environment and generate better rules to get results.
Google: Perception Action Cycle
First para is true. Second is nonsense. The human brain doesn’t “know” anything – knowing is a property of selves and the self isn’t the brain. Brains don’t perceive, the self does through the mind. Perception action cycle aligns with my cognitive interface dualism.
Perception Action Cycle is done by the brain or if you had no brain no cycle could happen.
“if you had not brain” – necessary vs sufficient.
Anime,
“people that break word apart cannot break apart words cannot break apart 3D patterns”
???
Verbal intelligence is strongly associated with social intelligence which is strongly associated with emotional intelligence which is strongly associated with social conformity specially to the given social circles because the higher necessity for socialization by this people (just look at how students in humanities tend to be very social). Also seems there is a connection between verbal intelligence and certain types of hormonal profiles. Women tend to be verbally smarter than men but this tend to cost their rational capacity to control emotions and analyse stuff objectively. Even thought women seems better to understand and control their emotions in intra and interpersonal interactions or contexts, they tend not in intelectual contexts.
But we are talking about some aspects of verbal linguistic intelligence most people think is the essence of it, not its real essence: capacity to understand the concepts of words, use them in more appropriate ways and also the capacity to create new words; the very understanding of language/words itself.
Seems i understood you are talking about common tilts between verbal and non verbal intelligences or domains and that the people who are too much attach to the semantics, tilted to the verbal aspects, tend to adopt wokeism (blank slatism, etc).
verbal tilt can be a deficient in visual in some.
visual tilt means people can be more concrete and thus reject verbal reasoning because it makes not sense in practical matters. they need objective demonstration of results. if it works then it works. no mumbo jumbo philosophy shit.
Verbal understanding is very important in practical results.
visuospatial results?
“no mumbo jumbo philosophy shit”
Remember the other day when I brought up “scientism”?
yes rr, you discount actual science for scientism.
Real philosophy is not this childish play on words. More respect, man!1
Dont let poets lie to you.
Anime,
I think the main tilt here is not (only) between verbal and non verbal IQ. It’s not a “quantitative” tilt but a qualitative one, between learning and reasoning ability. What i already posted here, my theory for human intelligence dividing it on 3 great capacities: learning, reasoning and perception. Even i can easily agree with you that high verbal intelligence tend to make people too attached to words but it’s not an absolute rule. I doubt people with high spatial intelligence over their verbal intelligence is way better to avoid ideological indoctrination of any kind. What makes people more rational is not this tilt but developing their reasoning skills, their capacity to evaluate information. Someone who believes in all of religious doctrine or of other type, like wokeism, tend to overpersonalize their own capacity to interpret and understand the world. This i consider one of the hallmark of Irrationality. So rather than evaluate and judge stuff with a maximized impartiality and objectivity, the less rational tend to embrace their own subjectivity: expectations, desires, beliefs in their intelectual approach. And some of the most inteligent people in learning skills tend to have severe deficiency on their reasoning skills, if not this type is very common. High learning skills = generally means high scoring on cognitive tests = high capacity to rationalize their own point of views than to stick to “common sense”. My impression is that all perceived above avg IQ people i know tend to be as vulnerable to irrationalia as people with perceived something else IQ.
There is verbal reasoning and then there is verbal perceptual. rr lack perceptual reasoning or he would not reject empirical studies on how the brain works. he is totally immune to evidence that intelligence and the brain are causative on each other. He see them are only corollary or associative.
Anyone with any sense whatsoever would accept that neuroscience studies intelligence because visuospatial reasoning is used and works to determine the system relationships. Anything that works is emphatically true in this reality. The brain is a self regulated network and only by word sophistry can this be denied. His Propaganda works on weak minds because people cannot tell that what he is saying does not work in reality it denies reality. We who can perceptually reason and have done the research on the mechanism of cognition know his verbal reasoning has not basis in reality. He may call people that understand neuroscience delusional but then he shows that he is only reasoning from the perspective that networks do not exist. that shapes do not exist, that temporal signalling do not exist in the brain. He is ignorant of brain mechanism that are apparent to anyone who understands cybernetics.
The only conclusion that can be made is that he uses verbal reasoning to discount perceptual reasoning. He is a left brained thinker and thus can call anything not within that delusional.
RSA ANIMATE: The Divided Brain
“yes rr, you discount actual science for scientism.”
You’re disregarding knowledge gained from philosophy on this matter (“no mumbo jumbo philosophy shit”) and only looking at empirical studies. That’s the point of “scientism.” And if we assume it’s true it leads to an absurdity, since we CAN gain knowledge from conceptual analyses and the like.
>You’re disregarding knowledge gained from philosophy on this matter and only looking at empirical studies.
You call knowledge gained empirical studies scientism so you can disregard the results because as santo says:
the less rational tend to embrace their own subjectivity: expectations, desires, beliefs in their intelectual approach.
Nope. “philosophy mumbo jumbo” is you disregarding conceptual a priori knowledge. Like I said… Scientism.
rr you are a sophist
Dysrationalia (rarely use this term).
Delusionalia.
Anime,
Verbal reasoning is not totally separated from perceptual reasoning.
Nobody is influencing black men to kill and oppress (specially) themselves in Subsariahan África, Latin America or in USA.
Remember Santo, White people can use their free will to stop “perpetuating negative stereotypes” of Black people, give them money to educate themselves, give them jobs, never say or do anything possibly discriminatory (even though it would take infinite resources)… but black people cannot use their free will to stop murdering people or robbing stores, keep jobs, or study a little harder.
And, Lurker, one of the biggest losers of this white savior/flagelated supremacy is blacks themselves. Keep saying the only problem is “white racism” and just keep blacks killing and oppressing themselves, specially, at scalating rates.
It’s mostly about white liberals feel better with themselves, not really to approach problems to start to solve them.
And in many cases it’s also to keep relevant some people’s professional lives/lies.
And in many cases it’s also to keep relevant some people’s professional lives/lies.
LOL! Santo is one of the most creative people here.
(Prediction 1) Black Americans with a stronger sense of racial identity are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than black Americans with a weak sense of racial identity. How does this prediction follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that a strong racial identity can act as a protective factor against criminal involvement. Those with a stronger sense of racial identity may be less likely to engage in criminal behavior as a way to cope with racial discrimination and societal marginalization. (Burt, Simons, as Gibbons, 2013; Burt, Lei, and Simons, 2017; Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
(Prediction 2) Experiencing racial discrimination increases the likelihood of black Americans engaging in criminal actions. How does this follow from the theory? TAAO posits that racial discrimination can lead to feelings of frustration and marginalization, and to cope with these stressors, some individuals may resort to commuting criminal acts as a way to exert power or control in response to their experiences of racial discrimination. (Unnever, 2014; Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes, 2016; Herda, 2016, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
(Prediction 3) Black Americans who feel socially marginalized and disadvantaged are more prone to committing crime as a coping mechanism and have weakened school bonds. How does this follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that those who experience social exclusion and disadvantage may turn to crime as a way to address their negative life circumstances. and feelings of agency. (Unnever, 2014; Unnever, Cullen, and Barnes, 2016)
If you ban RRGPT I will give you money.
Better save that money for the next rainy day that you get fired.
LOL, god damn.
Me, when I don’t know the historical ramifications of colonialism.
Are you going to explain why all my comments are banned?
it’s totally obvious that peepee spread her legs for rr.
stereotypes of black women are TRUE.
sad.
sadness@sadness.com
“i’m 1% italian, 33% chinese, 33% black, 33% albanian. how dare you claim i’m not 100% italian!” — rr
Santo I actually think verbal intelligence, especially higher level VIQ (which I have and you have) has nothing to do with reading or words. Its about following, constructing and manipulating arguments or concepts or theories.
Puppy doesn’t understand this. He said rote memorising the dictionary is a good example of high VIQ.
You and Santo weren’t raised in America so a U.S. vocabulary test will be biased against you but for people who were, it’s a very good test of intelligence.
Jensen writes:
In fact, vocabulary tests are among the best measures of intelligence, because the acquisition of word meanings is highly dependent on the eduction of meaning from the contexts in which the words are encountered. Vocabulary for the most part is not acquired by rote memorization or through formal instruction. The meaning of a word most usually is acquired by encountering the word in some context that permits at least some partial inference as to its meaning. By hearing or reading the word in a number of different contexts, one acquires, through the mental processes of generalization and discrimination and eduction, the essence of the word’s meaning, and one is then able to recall the word precisely when it is appropriate in a new context. Thus the acquisition of vocabulary is not as much a matter of learning and memory as it is of generalization, discrimination, eduction, and inference.
Children of high intelligence acquire vocabulary at a faster rate than children of low intelligence, and as adults they have a much larger than average vocabulary, not primarily because they have spent more time in study or have been more exposed to words, but because they are capable of educing more meaning from single encounters with words and are capable of discriminating subtle differences in meaning between similar words.
Words also fill conceptual needs, and for a new word to be easily learned the need must precede one’s encounter with the word. It is remarkable how quickly one forgets the definition of a word he does not need. I do not mean “ need” in a practical sense, as something one must use, say, in one’s occupation; I mean a conceptual need, as when one discovers a word for something he has experienced but at the time did not know there was a word for it. Then when the appropriate word is encountered, it “ sticks” and becomes a part of one’s vocabulary. Without the cognitive “ need,” the word may be just as likely to be encountered, but the word and its context do not elicit the mental processes that will make it “ stick.”
During childhood and throughout life nearly everyone is bombarded by more different words than ever become a part of the person’s vocabulary. Yet some persons acquire much larger vocabularies than others. This is true even among siblings in the same family, who share very similar experiences and are exposed to the same parental vocabulary.
Taking a Vygotskian approach, you’re wrong.
Phill,
I think the essence of verbal intelligence is primarily words/language understanding which can helps us to manipulate them contextually.
So a person raised by wolves has zero verbal intelligence?
So a person raised by wolves
Don’t talk about your parents that way
Verbal = language
Humans invented words and numbers to better navigate and understand the world they lived. So understanding these symbols tend to help us in this order.
Feral children aren’t exposed to the relevant socio-cultural influences needed to speak and verbalize, so what do you think the answer to that question is? Read Vygotsky.
A person who doesn’t know any language still has a verbal IQ.
An article you’ll find very interesting:
Its behind a paywall. There are probably at least double that amount in America alone. The only people that know arent fucking journalists at Forbes covering up the info for the elites but bankers working in the Caymans.
Nobody have an IQ, literally.
Puppy you explicitly said racist attitudes to blacks makes them commit more crime. When Lurker said most of the victims of blacks are actually blacks it debunked the worlds dumbest ever argument.
I never said anything even close to that Pill. Why do you keep misreading what people think? What I said was when a race commits more crime, even innocent members of said race are viewed suspiciously.
You said it in the last thread. You said discrimination makes blacks angry or something or depressed or whatever and they lash out at whitey and uh themselves. Thats your reasoning. Oprah told you that.
LOL! I never said anything like that. You have brain worms.
Now you’re conflating what I said with what PP said. Are you OK? You should stop commenting until you can remember who said what before you say someone said something that they didn’t
No it doesn’t. You just don’t understand it.
Yes it does. You are a fucking troll. Go back to your cave.
Claim without evidence. Typical.
Logical arguments dont need evidence dumbass.
You’re right, but you’re making an empirical claim.
Low IQ again. Blacks doing crime on other blacks wouldn’t be an outcome of racism dumbass.
Not understating TAAO again.
“Blacks doing crime on other blacks wouldn’t be an outcome of racism dumbass.”
Why not?
I said blacks hate gays because of high T and you banned the comment.
Where was Oprah on gay marriage in the 2000s and 1990s Puppy?
Oprah and especially Donahue were GENERATIONS ahead of their time on gay issues but by 1998 at the latest Oprah was openly pro-gay.
I remember some conservative white woman in the audience said “gays are always flaunting their gayness and I’m sick of it” to which Oprah replied:
“You know what I’m sick of: HETEROSEXUAL MALES RAPING AND SODOMIZING YOUNG GIRLS!!!!!!!!!!!!”
The audience which was full of gays since that was the day’s topic just went wild, standing up screaming hysterically. It was just so powerful in 1998, seeing such a prestigious person (who also had the moral authority of being a black woman from poverty) stand up so forcefully in favor of gays.
Still waiting for the references for your claim. (I’ve successfully dispatched that nonsense, and even if it WERE true, it wouldn’t make blacks more violent/prone to criminal activities.)
Blacks tend to be disproportionally homophobic by five reasons:
1. Low cognitive ability (not just low IQ, but also lower rationality capacity)/to understand and to deal with complexity like accepting the fact some people are attracted to the same sex and or will not generate descendents
2. Low empathy to, even not understanding, at least accepting and respecting individuals from sexual minorities. The same hostility is also directed to groups like atheists and people with some other differences like mental conditions and physical defficiencies
3. High religious adherence which positively correlates with low cognitive ability and also with low concrete empathy (not self alleged one), particularly to homos and big shoes.
4. They are highly impacted by AIDS pandemics and seems have developed defensive response to frankly rampant bi and gay male promiscuity even thought heterosexual blacks also tend to be more promiscuous than their peers of other racial groups.
5. They seems have many bissexual people/men or metassexual ones among them and some of the most “homophobic” people are closeted gay and bi.
The simplest explanation is they hate guys because they are high T. Every single jock in my school hated gays. All the more normal or dare I say feminine boys either ignored gays or went to embrace it.
You can predict attitudes to gays based on muscle definition alone. You don’t need any sociological argument.
That’s your problem, Phill. Even high testosterone explains a lot this type of irrational animosity, is never a single factor, as you are believing.
“The simplest explanation is they hate guys because they are high T.”
You didn’t explain anything, you made an unevidenced claim. I bet you can’t tell me how T is produced in the body.
Just in case anyone believes your bullshit:
“the evidence is mixed on which race has higher levels of testosterone (due to low-quality studies that hereditarians cite for their claim). In fact, two recent studies showed that non-Hispanic blacks didn’t have higher levels of testosterone than other races (Rohrmann et al, 2007; Lopez et al, 2013). Contrast this with the classical hereditarian response that blacks indeed do have higher rates of testosterone than whites (Rushton, 1995)—using Ross et al (1986) to make the claim. (See here for my response on why Ross et al is not evidence for the hereditarian position.) Although Nyante et al (2012) showed a small increase in testosterone in blacks compared to whites and Mexican Americans using longitudinal data, the body of evidence shows that there is no to small differences in testosterone between blacks and whites (Richard et al, 2014). So despite claims that “African-American men have repeatedly demonstrated serum total and free testosterone levels that are significantly higher than all other ethnic groups” (Alvarado, 2013: 125), claims like this are derived from flawed studies, and newer more representative analyses show that there is a small difference in testosterone between blacks and whites to no difference.
Nevertheless, even if blacks have higher levels of testosterone than other races, then this would still not explain racial differences in crime, since heightened aggression explains T increases, high T doesn’t explain heightened aggression. HBDers seem to have cause and effect backwards for this relationship. Injecting individuals with supraphysiological doses of testosterone as high as 200 and 600 mg per week does not cause heightened anger or aggression (Tricker et al, 1996; O’Connor et, 2002). If the hereditarian hypothesis on the relationship between testosterone and aggression were true, then we would see the opposite finding from what Tricker et al and O’Connor et al found. Thus this discussion shows that hereditarians are wrong about racial differences in testosterone and that they are wrong about causality when it comes to the T-aggression relationship. (The actual relationship is aggression causing increases in testosterone.) So this argument shows that the hereditarian simplification on the T-aggression relationship is false. (But see Pope, Kouri and Hudson, 2000 where they show that a 600 mg dose of testosterone caused increased manic symptoms in some men, although in most men there was little to no change; there were 8 “responders” and 42 “non-responders.”)”
Your daily reminder that Rushton was wrong. Prediction: no response from the usual suspects, because they’re ignorant on matters of physiology.
You have such a low IQ you can’t tell for yourself that they have high T just by looking at their faces and their bodies. You truly are either the dumbest or most ideological person in the comment section.
Well I’m not saying the only factor. But if you had to make a guess whether a guy was likley to dress up like a woman or endorse sodomy you basically look at the muscle definition.
Or you can make him write a book about his life and what tv shows he watched yadda yadda and do it that way and do it the slow way.
Nothing to say about the studies I cited for both of my claims. Of course…
“You truly are either the dumbest or most ideological person in the comment section.”
Don’t talk about yourself like that.
I also need to figure out how dumb he is if toxic masculinity and lower cognitive ability are correlated
Oprah never explicitly endorsed gays and definitely not in the 1990s. A black woman would have been trashed in her community for endorsing the gays in those days.
Even Obama was against the gays in his early days in Chicago doing community organising. He knew that topic was toxic for most blacks, especially black men who would literally beat the shit out of any gays they knew.
Oprah explicitly defended gays in 1997 when she supported Ellen famously coming out of the closet. She says she got enormous hate mail for it & Ellen herself lost her sitcom over it:
Well thats her supporting her showbusiness buddy.
Actually Obamas biographer came out and said Obama admitted to his former girlfriend that sometimes he had gay feelings. Also tucker interviewed some guy last week who claimed he had gay sex with obama in 1999. But the guy has a criminal record as a conman so I’m not sure.
I would say Obama might be bisexual.
I told you he was gays years ago & you lacked the social intelligence to believe me, arrogantly thinking you could rely on your judgement.
He said he had sex with men DAILY in his imagination & now liberals are trying to explain it by saying he was just trying to impress his artsy girlfriend. LOL! Just take the L.
What L. I floated the theory obama was gay and michelle was transgender 5 years ago and you laughed me out of the room.
I meant liberals should take the L on this one. Michelle being transgender is an additional rumor which I never bought.
She may not be transgender but how many masculine traits she has and being his choice of woman does really lend credence to Obama being secretely gay/bisexual.
Well if you believe Michelle is really Michael Robinson then you have to believe the kids are someone elses.
Nobody cares that Obama is gay (if he even is gay). Only cuckservatives do.
Cuckservatives would actually applaud Obama coming out…or [redacted by pp, 2023-09-11]
Oprah managed to get Puppys hero Meghan Markle despised in the UK. I saw a poll that said the majority of Brits hate her. She basically made Harry accuse his grandmother of being a racist.
Frankly, I think she might be but he shouldn’t be saying that on tv. I wouldn’t even call my own mother racist on tv even though she and I are racists.
Frankly, I think she might be
I can’t picture her not being racist.
no one in this world
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/31/facebook-posts/no-michelle-obama-not-transgender-woman/
Mainstream media ‘debunking’ Michelle being a tranny.
Notice the way they say its not true because theres no evidence. You don’t need evidence for something to be true necessarily. Michelle also has very high T for a woman. She probably has more T than 99% of east asian men.
You love repeating Rushton’s bullshit as if it means anything. You never cite any references for your claim and you completely disregard any references that blow up your idiotic and false claims.
You can’t prove a negative pill.
Basic rule of logic.
They don’t have to prove Michelle is not a tranny to say it’s not true.
The burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion
So thats why Obama came out with his birth cert when Trump badgered him….Great social IQ puppy.
Why they would made up their own real identities??
Their daugthers look like her and she is not a very masculine woman.
She is ultra masculine. Even the danish media couldn’t find anything nice to say about her looks so they instead said she had “great arms”.
Michelle could literally bodyslam most women.
Being ugly doesnt mean always being masculine to woman. But i dont find her absolutely ugly at all.
As a straight man, shes totally hideous. The worst looking first lady in american history.
Even Anime wouldnt say (alleged) racism made blacks commit crimes.
>delusional
Imagine you are in a group setting, a psychiatric doctor is present and they are about to put you in a mental hospital. You have one chance, only one chance to avoid going.
They ask: is neuroscience used to study intelligence?
Remember they are actual psychiatric doctors.
Should you say yes or no?
Ha good one. “Psychiatric medicine” is a sham. If one is familiar with the arguments, they should answer in the negative. Dualism is THAT fringe a position.
Dualism isn’t THAT fringe a position * I know of one psychiatrist that’s a dualist (Hane Maung).
“Ha good one. “Psychiatric medicine” is a sham.”
Oh, yeah? What about it is a “sham?”
It “treats” unproven brain disorders, while other branches of medicine treat actual brain disorders. Only bodily disease can be found so “mental illness” doesn’t exist (see T. Szasz, “Insanity” and “The Myth of Mental Illness”). If an actual brain disease is found, it becomes a neurological disorder and is studied by neurology, not psychiatry. So if psychiatric disease can be shown to be a brain disease, it’s not a psychiatric disease but then a neurological disorder.
Here it is in premise and conclusion form:
(1) If psychiatric disorders were generally brain diseases, then neurologists would be the primary medical professionals treating them.
(2) If neurologists would be the primary medical professionals studying them, then we wouldn’t need psychiatry to “help people” suffering from them (with the associated “medicines”).
(C) Thus, if psychiatric disease were generally brain diseases, then we would need psychiatry to “help people” suffering from them (with the associated “medicines”).
Further, the recent papers on the myth of the chemical imbalance of depression are apt.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
https://www.madinamerica.com/2022/08/depression-genetics-pillar/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2023/06/mary-boyle-interviews-jay-joseph/
I agree with Szasz that categorizing mental illness is an inherently more subjective endeavor than normal illnesses, but that doesn’t warrant the claim that Psychiatric medicine is a “sham.” The fact of the matter is medicine, along with cognitive-behavioral therapy, has proven to be effective in treating mental disorders. Why do you think Loaded, someone with severe bipolar disorder, comes on here and spews the garbage that he does? You know, he doesn’t take his medication, right? Disorders exist. The discomfort exists. And the solutions, while not perfect, are there. And I think denying this is ableist at best.
Regarding the depression study, I don’t believe depression is as robust of a concept as other disorders are, but that study does not support your claim either. I think your opinion on psychiatry is ill-informed and based on pure emotion. The research you’ve done to support this view is more half-assed than normal, and I highly suggest you dig into this more because it simply doesn’t reflect reality. You’ve made a really general claim but gave very specific examples in an attempt to prove it. This is fallacious, and I don’t find it very persuasive.
“I agree with Szasz”
Good, Szasz a lot right.
“doesn’t warrant the claim that Psychiatric medicine is a “sham.””
I think so, because if so-called mental disorders are merely made up by psychiatrists, and if they are merely brain diseases, then it becomes neurology and not psychiatry. (I do believe that CBT works for some things, for the record.) I’ll flesh out the argument more on my blog soon (I have a few more things in my queue to write about before this, then I have to read/research for it so sit tight).
“that study doesn’t support your claim either”
I think what supported my claim the strongest was my Szaszian argument I made. The fact that the chemical imbalance theory of depression was refuted is just extra.
“The research you’ve done to support this cure is more half-assed than normal”
I didn’t research anything for my comment, that was just from memory. I agree it was a half-assed defense, and I’d need a bit to flesh the argument for my claim more fully. Maybe then you’ll find it more persuasive.
And by the way, after I’m done doing a deep dive into this, if I come to the conclusion that I’m wrong, I’ll admit it and explain why.
Melo, is it dawning on you RR has very low IQ or not yet?
Are you still talking? Mr “da jooz did errything” who doesn’t read what’s given to him that refutes his claims. Can’t hold down a long-form discussion. Can’t discuss more than “the Jews.” Can’t cite anything for his claims. “Rr HaS a VeRy LoW iQ”—I have a better quality of life than you, I take showers and I don’t get fired from every job I get. I’m more knowledgeable than you on just about everything (my comments here attest to that). You’re just a clown.
” mental disorders are merely made up by psychiatrists”
They aren’t, though. Sure, the categorization and diagnoses are something that is left up to psychologists and psychiatrists, but these are real ailments. At one point in history, movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest were more fact than fiction. However, Bipolar disorder, Autism, Schizophrenia, GAD, etc., are not just made-up diseases.
My ADHD isn’t so awful that I can’t function normally without medication, but I have friends who are so bad off that without Adderall, they literally can’t survive as human beings.
No offense, but that argument is not effective at all. It’s just saying that you wouldn’t need psychiatrists if mental disorders are brain diseases. This might be an effective argument for people who are trying to assert brain-mind identity, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to lead to the conclusion that psychiatry is a “sham.”
I await your post on this.
I mean, I think a case could be made against those “disorders”, especially being “genetic” and “having an evolutionary history.” (I’ll expand when I write my piece.)
I took Adderall when I was in my teens. It sucked. I felt like a robot. It sucked my whole personality from me so I stopped taking it.
And if mental disorders are truly brain diseases, then it would be left to neurology, not psychiatry, to study and diagnose. That was Szasz’s point. (You should read Hang Maung’s work on dualism and bio-psychiatry, interesting stuff.)
I’ll admit that I may have been too quick to say it’s a “sham”, but I’ll try to reductio both positions.
“I took Adderall when I was in my teens. It sucked. I felt like a robot. It sucked my whole personality from me so I stopped taking it.”
Same, but for some people, it’s their only hope of leading a normal life. When I quit smoking weed, almost all of the executive dysfunction went away…almost. I still procrastinate and hyperfocus on the wrong things. But there are people that don’t smoke weed at all, but you wouldn’t know it talking to them.
Yea that’ll be something I’ll be reading into soon.
Did weed cloud your thinking or something? For me it’s good to wind down at night. (I haven’t vaped in a month, because it’s hard finding something in Western NY.)
@Melo
My understanding of mental illness is also reflected in my understanding of network theory.
rr does not think networks matter to how we feel think or behave. He thinks regulatory processes cannot affect the mind thus rejecting brains as being something that has to do with intelligence or emotions.
Yet it does matter how the brain changes because the way the brain changes allows us to understand and control ourselves.
Intelligence is just what happens when we change in such a way as to affect internal and external reality to the degree we can know and make/test inferences. We understand things when we see the results and correct for errors. If the brain does not change correctly then we are not intelligent. Brains that improve faster will become more intelligent via correct changes. Error correction depends on the regulations of the network by a process of internal/external feedback. The way regulation happens depends on the configuration of its network parts and the signals between them.
Dysregulation is when the signals become unbalanced jeopardizing the integrity of the organism. Hedonic tone and all else like fear, anger, pain, pleasure, hot, and cold depend on proper regulation or you fluctuate in critical moments of system failure modes. The body/brain tells you what to do and intelligence is a way of getting what is needed for the survival of the system. That is why intelligence requires the brain to change to understand environments good enough for resource acquisition. brain change leads to mental change.
Dont feed the tRRoll, Anime
It’s totally worthless. Now, i’m convinced he is intentionally trolling us. Even if it’s not true, it’s helps me to avoid feeding him with attention he desperately wants. If most heresytarians just stop to give attention to him and his sophistrycated arguments, I believe he would eventually stop to embarass himself. We are still debating with someone completely clueless, baseless about what he think is knowing or understanding. Anyone who claim objectivity or objective truth is not possible should just go out of any moral or intelectual debate, because trying to convince other people that you are right is basically the same as to believe or agree that objectivity is true or real and the opposite is to believe nobody is wrong or right. So when our beloved tRRoll keep fighting anything we write here he is underlyingly screaming “I’M RIGHT. I’M IN THE SIDE OF OBJECTIVE TRUTH”. Just like when someone claim that morality is (totally) relative and then scream “RACISM IS WROOOON”… these are great examples of very basic contradictions, typical from pseudo intelectuals or sophists. Really doesnt worth. No matter what or how you say.
Like I said above… Delusionalia. You make the most elementary mistakes and claims that are easily disproved (Jews and their role in the slave trade, testosterone and aggression), and provide NO references for your claim but still say it like it’s true. You had nothing to say about the 500 words I wrote about the TAAO two weeks ago
Go ahead and quote me saying two things that are contradictory, then explain the contradiction.
“Just like when someone claim that morality is (totally) relative and then scream “RACISM IS WROOOON”…”
LOL. You morons can’t help but completely misunderstand our views.
Sad.
Uh… no Melo. You don’t understand my view. I know that what people want is SUBjective… but they OBjectively want those things, and there are certain modes of life and desires that lead to more fulfilling lives than other desires and ways of achieving those desires. Therefore morality is BOTH subjective and objective.
You claiming that being racist is irrational as to appeal to our own selfishness for a world that offers more to us (which would be a world where we all treat races equally, you claim) is implicitly admitting that there is something we SHOULD want, and that wanting to be nonracist is something that would lead to better lives for us. If there is no objective reason for us to prefer nonracist lives, you are basically being manipulative trying to get others to believe what you want them to believe because it would benefit you more. Therefore it is inconsistent for you to state morality is only subjective and you to recommend us a specific way of acting, unless you are simply lying about racism being better for us. It’s not that hard to grasp if you think about it.
Thats your view. You said racism is wrong because CNN said it.
Lurker youre debating a mixed race carpenter. This is basically a conversation that won’t go anywhere.
Morality is subjective because you can’t derive an ought from an is. Everyone has different goals, but if we have the same goal, we can logically deduce the correct action to lead to that goal. If my goal is prosperity among all humans, to treat people how I want to be treated and to be kind to others even if they are different from me, I think an Anti-racist attitude helps that goal. We can debate if that is the case, but it doesn’t contradict my view that morality is subjective.
But we can change our goals. if one can show that it will lead to better results for everyone, at least on average, people will change their goals. This happens all the time.
Regardless, even with mutually contradictory goals, if one has to believe they exist, there are still clearly better ways of acheiving them. For example, one person achieving their goal is better than neither doing it and both of them feeling bad. That is simply objective.
We find ourselves in a world with actual existing physical and mental states, which include our goals, and the best ways to get them in the real world. That makes the best course(s) of action objective.
Unless you simply don’t think there are better ways of achieving our desires, and/or ways to make people happier and more well off, which obviously makes no sense given your statement that implies there are better ways to achieve prosperity among humans.
Anime,
About our debate, I already told you, the main tilt is not verbal and non verbal but between people who are above avg on learning and below avg on reasoning horrible and people who have the opposite tilt. The first group is more likely to become alergic to anything which smells common sense or “conservatism” and then start to jump in any sensationalistic pseudo science or pseudo intelectualism like our tRRoll.
You may think worship for God and Capitalism are not the same as become woke but they are indoctrination too and people on non verbal tilt seems more likely to fool on.
Language is basal for human intelligence even for its “non verbal” aspects. That’s why linguistic and mathematic intelligences are so G charged.
could be?
rote memorization vs reasoning?
I hear that people with lateral synchronized brains are more able to reason, but then with brains that are not laterally synched (anteroposterior) front to back synched, they learn faster.
That is both verbal and nonverbal act differently:
When side to side synched they have a rotational perspective. That which comes from reevaluation constantly.
But if front and back synched, this separates functions. Verbal only do verbal, and visuospatial only does visuospatial. This requires immediate testing. Iterative progress in a fixed structure. That is a divide so they do not combine.
That is where words have fixed meanings and objects have fixed operations. But side to side they gain multiple ambiguity. or what is the flexible and the rigid.
if you can do things in multiple ways not just one way then it is apparent what side-to-side means and front-to-back is.
The one solution is not the one solution on one hand but the woke people find it so that extreme they say no solutions exist.
They completely say: damned be consequences.
But then maybe it’s confused?
Anything to win against those who cannot think?
Think: that is who looks at what works and then do that?
People say: This works this way: the other says you did not consider x. and then they go back and forth about all possibilities. only then they cannot agree because of concrete and abstract positions. works in practice not in theory, works in theory, not in practice. But then what is the disagreement?
reasoning be it in terms of concrete or abstract requires terms and tests. the side to side makes it possible to bridge abstract explainotory gaps. but then divided brains can only produce what they did concretely verbal and nonverbal. I did x only x is possible. Argument x is true, argument x cannot be false because “all my assumptions are true”.
“That is both verbal and nonverbal act differently:”
I’m not disputing this but you are making a mess because your main belief is that this is a causation while it’s a correlation. It’s means there are other non cognitive and qualitative cognitive factors involved.
It’s not only
“Tristan was self indoctrinated to believe in racial equalitarianism because he has a verbal tilt”
Because there are lots of people with verbal tilt who were not self indoctrinated at least to believe in wokeism and lots of people with different profiles who does. Even if majority of people with verbal tilt were now partially or full blown woke, just verbal tilt doesnt woke people.
“When side to side synched they have a rotational perspective. That which comes from reevaluation constantly”
You having a hard time to understand that evaluate information primarily require verbal intelligence by obvious reason i will not even develop here.
There are lots of people among partial and full giftedness range who are very good on learning but about reasoning they basically overrationalize their own uncriticized beliefs… well what you are doing now.
Reasoning is basically our capacity to differentiate what is truth from what is bullshit. That’s easy to understand. It is its essence. The best way to think rationally. You dont need to know geometry to know astrology is bullshit and astronomy is not. You need some non quantitative or qualitative cognitive abilities to start to better evaluate information like intelectual humillity, curiosity and honesty. It’s also very important being good on objectivity and impartiality. These abilities are developable but it seems their individual development potential vary significantly. Most people, including majority of “high IQ” people seems doing poorly on reasoning. Actually, possessing a higher cognitive potential tends to make people overconfident, differently than some studies. But because they are great on rationalization they tend to look less confident than people in other IQ range and particularly those with low IQ.
Being frank, pattern recognition is fundamental for reasoning or rationality specially when you are not technically proficient or an expert in given topic. And pattern recognition associated with the knowledge of fallacies and logical laws which greatly helps to think better.
Actually, possessing a higher cognitive potential tends to make people overconfident, differently than some studies…’
…have suggested
>your main belief is
That is not even important to what I am currently saying:
people who have a divided brain see one answer and those who have a unified brain see multiple possibilities.
whether they can be honest about what they know about is a different matter because ridged people usually do not change views well flexible people do change views.
The fact that a brain divides itself creates a tendency toward complete certainty in verbal and nonverbal. well, a brain that is open to possibilities adjusts when necessary.
You are looking at what I am saying and assuming I have a concrete inflexible view. Thus ignore the new information presented. That is what people do when they want to dominate a conversation: ignore everything a person said and focus on that person’s supposed bias instead of the main point. That may or may not be verbal but it is not the honest thing to do. Mostly if a person is socially oriented they reject the data and focus on the mentality of the people they are interacting with. It is easier to discount people than data so they go in that direction.
>You having a hard time to understand that evaluate information primarily require verbal intelligence
If I am correct, Divided brains only have one rigid view which does not change. Because verbal is isolated from nonverbal.
United brains can change views and thus, “evaluate”, if honesty and necessary.
”people who have a divided brain see one answer and those who have a unified brain see multiple possibilities.”
People who have a split brain have brain injuries…
In fact, they are often useful for comparing the relatively different functions of the cerebral hemispheres.
”You are looking at what I am saying and assuming I have a concrete inflexible view. Thus ignore the new information presented. That is what people do when they want to dominate a conversation: ignore everything a person said and focus on that person’s supposed bias instead of the main point. That may or may not be verbal but it is not the honest thing to do. Mostly if a person is socially oriented they reject the data and focus on the mentality of the people they are interacting with. It is easier to discount people than data so they go in that direction.”
That’s what you’re showing.
You are creating a parallel debate.
I’m talking about how there are a lot of people who are great at memorizing information but terrible at judging it.
You, in turn, are talking about your diffuse knowledge of neuroscience, citing parts of the brain associated with this or that set of tasks.
Would you at least elaborate on what you are saying?
”The fact that a brain divides itself creates a tendency toward complete certainty in verbal and nonverbal. well, a brain that is open to possibilities adjusts when necessary.”
It is a fact that the brain only presents large fissures of continuity when there are one or more lesions.
Just a cognitive preference for linguistic intelligence, with or without prejudice to spatial intelligence, does not explain how a person ends up believing that human races do not exist or that their differences are minimal.
It is necessary to present other factors, such as a greater expression of ”openness to experience”, positively related to liberalism.
It’s a combination of factors and I’m not denying that verbal tilt can even play a significant role, but it’s usually associated with other factors, and there are exceptions to the rule.
>I’m talking about how there are a lot of people who are great at memorizing information but terrible at judging it.
If verbal is used to judge then as to where verbal comes from it is sound. So when we read or hear we have to have context for what is happening because facts get processed in a way that is only about one-to-one and not continuous. I can flow into what I say and present a perfect reasonable performance in communication but then we have the part where we select what comes next consciously or unconsciously. This is apparent in spewing facts and beliefs but then what you need to do to reason is to notice larger things. The whole is the entirety of what is reasonable. Not some small out-of-place thing but the gist. The translation from one specific idea to a general idea. What I say is based on what I want you to understand. If I am only memorizing I will make it so you must accept certain “facts” because to me they are obvious but not to you but I cannot think they have no relevance. I can only tell you what I had in my mind with no critique. So I cannot do anything other than one-to-one based on that “knowledge” and not go further. If I went further I would be surrounding everything with context. Only by making all things in my attempt to elaborate specific can I be general in the wide view because I need to reason in the way that denotes what I am addressing to you not something private to myself. If private to myself then that is not an explanation. It is esoteric. And by telling you what I think I am only doing so by extrapolation in what you say back to me. I am not proclaiming you must memorize facts I am engaging you with real feedback. Because verbal is sound and symbol that reflects back onto the one’s communicated with and not the reaction to dead text argumentation no one will understand when preached at them.
>Would you at least elaborate on what you are saying?
The corpus callosum is distinct in the use of language. It is the anterior cingulate cortex that detects errors in sound and text. People who are verbal in this way use error detection and have side-to-side synchrony. People who do not are action-oriented and do not listen for abnormalities. They just demand and react and do not evaluate what is missing or what is intuitive to the extent that they can glean hidden meaning.
You santo look only for errors in what I say, you have strong side-to-side synchrony. That can be good only if communication is used to add to what others say and not dismantle people for no reason at all other than to be disagreeable. But then look at people who do not look for errors. They just repeat the same trash over and over. repetition repetition repetition. that is because they cannot check errors they have weak anterior cingulate cortex. If you cannot find errors you cannot reason or judge as you santo say. But then if you can reason you can reason as a sophist, you can dismantle anything based on technicalities and promote political agendas like rr does. He reasons to find errors in anything not in his belief system so no santo, you can reason verbally and be a poor judge of reality as long as you have the wrong motives and the wrong premises, and wrong assumptions. sophistry requires high verbal reasoning in fact epistemologically you can have the highest reasoning and be ontologically incorrect. rr KNOWS neuroscience cannot study intelligence and all that contradicts this is error. So like a good lawyer, he finds all ways to disprove, reject, and dismantle all things not in that ontology. The verbal reasoner must use his intelligence, his error detector, to disqualify anything that he KNOWS is epistemologically untrue. That means he takes what he KNOWS reality is and counteracts all languages containing “errors”. Verbal can be the most delusional and the most irrational simply by the ontology they assume to be true.
Only the honest person, the person with the least ontologically hardened position can even consider reality as different from what he thinks it is. Honesty is not verbal or nonverbal. But then look at nonverbal. They cannot afford to reason fallaciously. math is universal and that means science can be replicated. Verbal sophistry can replicate like cancers or viruses but always dies. Nonverbal never dies because it is engineering. You cannot bullshit in that arena. Objects do what they do. Objects = objective reality. You cannot use words to deny what objects are. So science still exists and will exist. So even if not honest people learn fast who lied. Replication = validation.
Science is not perfect but it is not the same as laywerism.
Verbal reasoning is not the same as epistemological honesty.
“If verbal is used to judge then as to where verbal comes from it is sound. So when we read or hear we have to have context for what is happening because facts get processed in a way that is only about one-to-one and not continuous. I can flow into what I say and present a perfect reasonable performance in communication but then we have the part where we select what comes next consciously or unconsciously. This is apparent in spewing facts and beliefs but then what you need to do to reason is to notice larger things. The whole is the entirety of what is reasonable. Not some small out-of-place thing but the gist. The translation from one specific idea to a general idea. What I say is based on what I want you to understand. If I am only memorizing I will make it so you must accept certain “facts” because to me they are obvious but not to you but I cannot think they have no relevance. I can only tell you what I had in my mind with no critique. So I cannot do anything other than one-to-one based on that “knowledge” and not go further. If I went further I would be surrounding everything with context. Only by making all things in my attempt to elaborate specific can I be general in the wide view because I need to reason in the way that denotes what I am addressing to you not something private to myself. If private to myself then that is not an explanation. It is esoteric. And by telling you what I think I am only doing so by extrapolation in what you say back to me. I am not proclaiming you must memorize facts I am engaging you with real feedback. Because verbal is sound and symbol that reflects back onto the one’s communicated with and not the reaction to dead text argumentation no one will understand when preached at them.”
Quoting facts and knowledge’s words. Bad signal…
Why this gigantic and random comment??
“>Would you at least elaborate on what you are saying?”
My bad. Firstly you should learn how to synthetize your written thoughts. Your elaborations are often too elaborated.
“The corpus callosum is distinct in the use of language. It is the anterior cingulate cortex that detects errors in sound and text. People who are verbal in this way use error detection and have side-to-side synchrony. People who do not are action-oriented and do not listen for abnormalities. They just demand and react and do not evaluate what is missing or what is intuitive to the extent that they can glean hidden meaning.”
Maybe i’m too dumb to understand this or is you who also have issues to communicate in objective way. That’s not the topic. I was waiting some feedback or real intelectual interaction with you based on a common ground, but your autism make this possibility harder.
“You santo look only for errors in what I say, you have strong side-to-side synchrony.”
When i find something from you i consider a ‘non mistake’ i will tell you, i promise.
“That can be good only if communication is used to add to what others say and not dismantle people for no reason at all other than to be disagreeable. But then look at people who do not look for errors.”
I’m talking about something and you pushed to the other perspective that even if it is within the topic doesnt agregate but disperse our debate creating paralell discussions.
“They just repeat the same trash over and over. repetition repetition repetition. that is because they cannot check errors they have weak anterior cingulate cortex. If you cannot find errors you cannot reason or judge as you santo say. But then if you can reason you can reason as a sophist, you can dismantle anything based on technicalities and promote political agendas like rr does.”
If you think only woke “or” left wing people who indoctrinate themselves and being you a God’s believer…
” He reasons to find errors in anything not in his belief system so no santo, you can reason verbally and be a poor judge of reality as long as you have the wrong motives and the wrong premises, and wrong assumptions. sophistry requires high verbal reasoning in fact epistemologically you can have the highest reasoning and be ontologically incorrect.”
Where i said verbal reasoning or intelligence is never a possible or common contributive factor to intelectual dishonesty?
Nope. Better reasoning, better objective understanding of the world.
You are dividing reasoning in capacities (learning skills) IQ superficially analyse. My original idea is not to divide reasoning even thought is totally possible. It is to focus on the general capacity to judge and evaluate (information). It’s also related with self knowledge, about our own limitations and potentials. It’s means if you correctly evaluate your capacity to understand something as very low or insufficient, it is actually a good reasoning
“Only the honest person, the person with the least ontologically hardened position can even consider reality as different from what he thinks it is. Honesty is not verbal or nonverbal. But then look at nonverbal. They cannot afford to reason fallaciously. math is universal and that means science can be replicated.”
Mathematics is a language. Numbers are fictitious as words. We dont have 5 fingers in each hands but 5 1 finger. Doesnt exist 6 apples or 7 bananas. Counting is factually arbitrary. What is universal to known universe we exist are the logical laws which governs us.
“Verbal sophistry can replicate like cancers or viruses but always dies. Nonverbal never dies because it is engineering. You cannot bullshit in that arena.”
Jewsus…
Nonverbal is derived from verbal as irrational is from rational. Nonverbal belongs to human realm. Sorry, little dude.
And without us, truth doesnt exist. You are anthropomorphozing the inanimate.
And because non verbal is just a silly term, it’s actually dependent on verbal to function correctly.
“Objects do what they do. Objects = objective reality. You cannot use words to deny what objects are. So science still exists and will exist. So even if not honest people learn fast who lied. Replication = validation.”
So are you still believing n God and eternal life????
“Science is not perfect but it is not the same as laywerism”
Since a long time that Science has been coopted by tyrannical power.
“Verbal reasoning is not the same as epistemological honesty.”
Verbal reasoning is the primary human reasoning and “epistemiological honesty” is not possible without it. Verbal intelligence can be a big villain but it’s also the most important.
>Why this gigantic and random comment??
verbal comes from proper communication between people.
it is not just derived from memorization but from review and understanding. You need to look at what others are saying or you don’t have verbal reasoning. verbal is the development of people-to-people interactions. People learning from people.
>Maybe i’m too dumb to understand this or is you who also have issues to communicate in objective way. That’s not the topic. I was waiting some feedback or real intelectual interaction with you based on a common ground, but your autism make this possibility harder.
The topic is about verbal, You do not understand where it comes from or how it works so I am telling you the background.
>I’m talking about something and you pushed to the other perspective that even if it is within the topic doesnt agregate but disperse our debate creating paralell discussions.
again you do not understand verbal and nonverbal elements, so I am eleberating.
>If you think only
I told you that a divided brain tends to never change its views in most cases.
Verbal nonverbal is not the issue, it is divided brain or non-divided brain. This changes how verbal and nonverbal are used.
remember the anterior cingulate cortex?
A divided brain does not use the anterior cingulate cortex to process verbally. This means the divided brain will use verbal not the same as the unified brain.
>It’s also related with self knowledge, about our own limitations and potentials. It’s means if you correctly evaluate your capacity to understand something as very low or insufficient, it is actually a good reasoning
it is related to honesty, you cannot be objective without honesty.
honest people reason better but reasoning is not about objectivity, reasoning is about telling people what you think objective reality is thus rr or anyone can reason. but they have fixed beliefs on what reality is, they cannot change what they believe and cannot be honest about ontological unknowns.
simply: only an omniscient deity can reason perfectly / tell you the truth on all matters because humans do not have infinite wisdom/knowledge of reality. honesty is required because we only have limited understanding.
>Mathematics is a language. – What is universal to known universe we exist are the logical laws which governs us.
no, Without objective reality math is arbitrary.
math only works because reality is objective not subjective like ambiguous verabl is. that is why you can fool people with language but not fool people with math because math has objective standards that cannot be broken. You will get caught because math is NOT ambiguous.
>You are anthropomorphozing the inanimate.
Humans lie about shit all the time. Sophistry is a real phenomenon, it is not inanimate because humans are bastards.
>And because nonverbal is just a silly term, it’s actually dependent on verbal to function correctly.
Objective reality does not depend on language. Animals exist without language and reality still exists. Humans only need language to collaborate as a tool to make technology.
>Verbal reasoning is the primary human reasoning and “epistemiological honesty” is not possible without it. Verbal intelligence can be a big villain but it’s also the most important.
A divided brain uses language not the same way as a unified brain, again you do not know the topic because you do not understand how language works in the brain or in objective real life.
Language as a tool can be used objectively or ambiguously and or as a weapon. that does not mean objective reality does not exist. It does not mean objects only exist as language games. Cars are real, Trucks are real, Computers are real. They are not imaginary. They work objectively.
The whole point in verbal/nonverbal distinction is that language describes objective reality but is not objective reality itself. Reason is used differently in different brains because we have different understandings of reality. Language does not make reality go away. But nonverbal is used to do things language cannot do because nonverbal is objective all the time whereas language is ambiguous 90% of the time.
Yes, you can use verbal to describe reality objectively but nonverbal is completely objective all the time not 90% of the time.
Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex use language in a way such as to look at ambiguity as a positive thing the other brain structure sees it as a negative.
The distinction is not left or right brain.
It is not verbal vs. nonverbal
It is not woke/alt-right
It is not reasoning objectively vs. sophistry.
The distinction is in understanding ambiguity or having an exact understanding. People who need exactness use exactness separately in both the left and right brain because they do not use the anterior cingulate cortex. People who use the anterior cingulate cortex use it as a conflict resolver between conflicting data sets.
So being objective is for a person who needs exact language.
They nitpick everything you say.
They do not care about empathy to understand what others’ points are. they are language police.
This could be the result of not using the anterior cingulate cortex to resolve conflict internally. that is why they have fixed belief systems.
“verbal comes from proper communication between people.
it is not just derived from memorization but from review and understanding.
You need to look at what others are saying or you don’t have verbal reasoning. verbal is the development of people-to-people interactions. People learning from people.”
I’m talking about general reasoning and not “verbal reasoning”…
“The topic is about verbal,”
Your little ass.
“You do not understand where it comes from or how it works so I am telling you the background.”
Nope. You just redirected this debate to your chronic IQism.
“again you do not understand verbal and nonverbal elements, so I am eleberating.”
I’m still talking about how someone can believe in gender theory or in God theory.
“I told you that a divided brain tends to never change its views in most cases.”
Depends on the injury.
“Verbal nonverbal is not the issue, it is divided brain or non-divided brain. This changes how verbal and nonverbal are used.remember the anterior cingulate cortex?
“No have such thing, silly.
More globally connected and more locally connected brains, you mean??
>It’s also related with self knowledge, about our own limitations and potentials. It’s means if you correctly evaluate your capacity to understand something as very low or insufficient, it is actually a good reasoning.
“It is related to honesty, you cannot be objective without honesty.”
The same way through. You can’t be effectively honest in intelectual way without knowing how to be objective and impartial in your thoughts or reasoning. And how does your comment here counterague my own above????
That’s your problem.
“honest people reason better but reasoning is not about objectivity, reasoning is about telling people what you think objective reality is thus rr or anyone can reason. but they have fixed beliefs on what reality is, they cannot change what they believe and cannot be honest about ontological unknowns.”
God?
You are another good example of sophistry.
Reasoning, ideally, is obviously about seeking the objective truth. Reasoning, in broader terms, can lead people to manipulate facts to feel better. But the highest expression of reason is objective understanding.
“simply: only an omniscient deity can reason perfectly / tell you the truth on all matters because humans do not have infinite wisdom/knowledge of reality. honesty is required because we only have limited understanding.”
OK, mister self honesty…
“no, Without objective reality math is arbitrary.”
O.K.
“math only works because reality is objective not subjective like ambiguous verabl is.”
So human consciousness doesn’t exist in reality?? You even know the terms you are using. Subjectivity is about perspective of the observer. Maths doesn’t exist, it’s not necessarily a human invention but an improvement, like the qualitative symbolic language, maths is a quantitative symbolic one.
“that is why you can fool people with language but not fool people with math because math has objective standards that cannot be broken. You will get caught because math is NOT ambiguous.”
Hello, capitalism??
Junior still doesn’t know about pyramid schemes.. I see.
“Humans lie about shit all the time. Sophistry is a real phenomenon, it is not inanimate because humans are bastards”
You are talking about as if you are totally immune from it… I see.
“Objective reality does not depend on language. Animals exist without language and reality still exists. Humans only need language to collaborate as a tool to make technology.”
Really?????? Oohh
“A divided brain uses language not the same way as a unified brain, again you do not know the topic because you do not understand how language works in the brain or in objective real life.”
This is not the topic… this is topic you invented because it is well known how autistic people tend to avoid real conversations.
“Language as a tool can be used objectively or ambiguously and or as a weapon. that does not mean objective reality does not exist. It does not mean objects only exist as language games. Cars are real, Trucks are real, Computers are real. They are not imaginary. They work objectively.”
Thank you. Yesterday I was thinking trucks could change their gender…
“The whole point in verbal/nonverbal distinction is that language describes objective reality but is not objective reality itself.”
Hyperbolism.
“Reason is used differently in different brains because we have different understandings of reality.”
Relativism.
“Language does not make reality go away. But nonverbal is used to do things language cannot do because nonverbal is objective all the time whereas language is ambiguous 90% of the time.”
Hyperbolism.
“Yes, you can use verbal to describe reality objectively but nonverbal is completely objective all the time not 90% of the time.”
Hyperbolism.
“Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex use language in a way such as to look at ambiguity as a positive thing the other brain structure sees it as a negative.”
Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex = liberals??
Brains that use the anterior cingulate cortex = like 99% of them.”
The distinction is not left or right brain.
It is not verbal vs. nonverbal
It is not woke/alt-right
It is not reasoning objectively vs. sophistry.”
You are just talking about verbal vs nonverbal all the time based on your hyperbolic interpretation..
“The distinction is in understanding ambiguity or having an exact understanding.”
Or??
“People who need exactness use exactness separately in both the left and right brain because they do not use the anterior cingulate cortex. People who use the anterior cingulate cortex use it as a conflict resolver between conflicting data sets”
Stop using some studies on neuroscience to make such over-deterministic statements.
“So being objective is for a person who needs exact language.”
You don’t need it??
“They nitpick everything you say.”
It’s MEEE”
They do not care about empathy to understand what others’ points are. they are language police.”
Sorry. You want me to agree with your nonsense to make you happy??
“This could be the result of not using the anterior cingulate cortex to resolve conflict internally. that is why they have fixed belief systems.”
Like GOD???
>Reasoning, ideally, is obviously about seeking the objective truth. Reasoning, in broader terms, can lead people to manipulate facts to feel better. But the highest expression of reason is objective understanding.
True but so far you have failed to do so because you disregarded everything I said that is based on objective reality.
You just criticized and learned nothing from what I said.
>You want me to agree with your nonsense
You do not seek to understand the objective truth.
Exactly as I said a person who would do if they had fixed belief systems.
Whether that has to do with global connectivity or not I cannot say. But you would rather not know the truth on that matter either.
So i hope GOD teach me soon as HE did to you…
I don’t read RRs comments usually but did he just say above to Anime he thinks a person’s mind is completely detached from his brain?? LOL.
I can’t be his lawyer this time. He literally does believe that the mind and brain are different substances.
So you think a person who doesn’t believe in evolution, thinks the mind exists outside the brain and thinks testosterone has nothing to do with aggression would somehow be correct on his social theories?
^^^ obviously doesn’t understand my positions.
They are your positions stop gaslighting.
“Detached” is a strong word which I wouldn’t use. That implies a disembodied afterlife, a disembodied existence, which wouldn’t be possible since we identify each other based, in part, on our physical identities (our bodies). So it follows that a disembodied afterlife isn’t possible. You can’t think without a brain. Even if they were possible, a disembodied mind wouldn’t be human, since what makes us human is our minds ALONG WITH our bodies. But I DO say that mental properties are qualitatively and fundamentally distinct from physical properties.
^^^Thinking/intelligence is a brain mechanism that has been understood since 2014.
What does “mechanism” mean here?
Network feedback dynamics
A physical process, right?
perception action cycles
Yea that’s inline with my dualist framework. But thinking isn’t reducible to physical processes.
you are obsessed with the concept of “reductionism”.
^^^ thinking is irreducible to physical processes, per the Ross-Feser immaterial aspects of thought argument.
no brain = no thinking
brain is involved in some way then?
It’s necessary for thinking, but not sufficient.
You are saying any network structure and any network organization can be used for thinking?
And you are also saying that it does not matter how networks change because thinking can happens in any configuration of brain cells?
What do you think “necessary but not sufficient” means? Do you think that “network structure” and “network organization” *are* thinking? I’m saying that the brain and it’s parts are necessary for thinking but not sufficient for it and that the a priori immaterial aspects of thought argument refute physicalist explanations of mind and thinking.
Is it the brain that changes the mind or is it the mind that changes the brain?
Change is “necessary” for intelligence but you never explain how material and immaterial exchange the function of intelligence?
What do you think “necessary but not sufficient” means? And the mind can change the brain, as interactionist dualist accounts show. And I don’t understand your question. Can you elaborate?
>What do you think “necessary but not sufficient” means?
You tell me.
You think any kind of brain can be intelligent because it does not matter what configuration the brain network has or the dynamics involved in your opinion?
>And the mind can change the brain, as interactionist dualist accounts show
You say network dynamic do not exist. That it has no involvement in intelligence. That would mean is there is no interaction of mind and the brain network as a dynamic system. thus any change in the network has no implications for intelligence.
>And I don’t understand your question. Can you elaborate?
Intelligence requires the brain change as a network to a different configuration.
How does mind change the brain to induce that change if network dynamics have no involvement?
“You tell me”
There’s obviously a reason why I’m asking you.
Brains can’t be intelligent. You’re attributing a property of human selves to one of its parts (mereological fallacy). Where did I say “network dynamic do not exist”? This, again, goes back to the distinction between necessariness and sufficientness.
“there is no interaction of mind and brain”
Nonsense, as myself, Lowe, and Krodel show. That’s not the position at all. Read my article where I articulate my position. Again, I don’t deny that neuroscience can tell us anything about physiology, only that it can’t tell us anything about the mind. You’re strawmanning me. The fact that I said “the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but not a sufficient condition” means that brain and it’s physical processes are necessary for cognition/mindedness, so what you’re attributing to me is nonsense. I’ve explains how the mind changes the brain, and you’re attributing an action (cognizing) to the brain and saying it’s reducible to the parts, while I’m saying that it’s necessary (X is needed for Y to hold), not sufficient (X is Y). My viewpoint is way more nuanced than you’re attributing to me. It’s why I said the other day that we’re talking past each other.
>you’re attributing an action (cognizing) to the brain and saying it’s reducible to the parts,
^Strawman
The system works as a whole not isolated parts. The total system cannot function without internal and external feedback. If feedback was not involved in intelligence there would be no way for the brain to change itself. Tell me in concrete terms how mental attributes influence feedback loops to change the brain. Or tell me how intelligence happens without feedback loops.
and post an actual link to your argument about where intelligence is comes from. I Think you said development?
I don’t disagree with anything you just said. It’s inherent in my (humble) solution to the mind-body problem. Read this and get back to me.
And I think mind arises from species-typical human contexts from interacting with other humans. See
By the way, this new paper shows that cognitive science is (mostly) irrelevant to the mind-body problem. (Though some cognitive scientists are implicit dualists, I don’t think that cognitive science has a say in the mind-body problem, nor do I think that it shows a physicalist ontology is true.)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04046-0
You compare Melania or Jacky Kennedy to Michelle….I mean its like asking me whether I would rather have sex with a man or a woman.
Even Hillary when she was young looked way better.
Melania is the best looking woman of all time actually a lot of her physique and facial attributes attest 2 this
Verbal intelligence is everything
A genetically superior woman who clearly wants nothing but a thick can of coke from PumpkinPerson. WYD?
Hahaha genetically superior but naive
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/09/bill-clinton-a-fabulous-failure-nelson-lichtenstein-judith-stein/
Excellent very hiqh IQ critique of neoliberalism and the clinton administration (i.e. Robert Rubin’s economic policy), ironically the critique is done by 2 jews.
This is what a high verbal intelligence allows u puppy. To diagnose and make critiques. Not memorizing the official definition of words.
Frankly, for whatever reason it seems jews are the best critics of economic theories.
This is what a high verbal intelligence allows u puppy. To diagnose and make critiques.
And that ability is measured by many psychometric tests including the Wechsler Comprehension, SAT verbal, the Stanford Binet etc.
Not memorizing the official definition of words.
Only someone with a very low social IQ would think that’s how most people acquire vocabulary.
Frankly, for whatever reason it seems jews are the best critics of economic theories.
Do you have a shrine to them in your bedroom?
You have the low social IQ. Memorising words is exactly how modern human beings acquire language LOL. What do you think schools were built for?
Time to quote Jensen again especially the sentence I bolded (but Jensen’s half-Jewish so I guess you’ll ignore half of this):
In fact, vocabulary tests are among the best measures of intelligence, because the acquisition of word meanings is highly dependent on the eduction of meaning from the contexts in which the words are encountered. Vocabulary for the most part is not acquired by rote memorization or through formal instruction. The meaning of a word most usually is acquired by encountering the word in some context that permits at least some partial inference as to its meaning. By hearing or reading the word in a number of different contexts, one acquires, through the mental processes of generalization and discrimination and eduction, the essence of the word’s meaning, and one is then able to recall the word precisely when it is appropriate in a new context. Thus the acquisition of vocabulary is not as much a matter of learning and memory as it is of generalization, discrimination, eduction, and inference.
Children of high intelligence acquire vocabulary at a faster rate than children of low intelligence, and as adults they have a much larger than average vocabulary, not primarily because they have spent more time in study or have been more exposed to words, but because they are capable of educing more meaning from single encounters with words and are capable of discriminating subtle differences in meaning between similar words.
Words also fill conceptual needs, and for a new word to be easily learned the need must precede one’s encounter with the word. It is remarkable how quickly one forgets the definition of a word he does not need. I do not mean “ need” in a practical sense, as something one must use, say, in one’s occupation; I mean a conceptual need, as when one discovers a word for something he has experienced but at the time did not know there was a word for it. Then when the appropriate word is encountered, it “ sticks” and becomes a part of one’s vocabulary. Without the cognitive “ need,” the word may be just as likely to be encountered, but the word and its context do not elicit the mental processes that will make it “ stick.”
During childhood and throughout life nearly everyone is bombarded by more different words than ever become a part of the person’s vocabulary. Yet some persons acquire much larger vocabularies than others. This is true even among siblings in the same family, who share very similar experiences and are exposed to the same parental vocabulary.
You do not read dictionaries in social studies class pill.
You read stories about people doing things and people interacting with other people.
From age 5-13 you basically just do rote memorisation of what words mean. Thats literally the sole and total purpose of the textbook. Puppy thinks a person that aces his english tests in these years has a gigantic verbal IQ.
Higher level verbal reasoning to be very blunt is not taught in schools and not taught by socialisation. Its somewhat innate.
Jensen is talking about how we acquire later vocabulary after school which is maybe at most 50% of the vocabulary you take on as a human being.
I don’t disagree with jensen completely. I’m just saying, rote memorisation and checking the dictionary is how a lot of kids learn words.
Look testing someones vocab is basically like asking someone to perform a mental calculation in their head to gauge someones quant IQ.
Its not a great way.
“ironically the critique is done by 2 jews.”
So you should disregard it, per your own “logic.”
But this is left wing jews criticising jewish elites so I’m all for it.
I remember based soley on intuition rejecting neoliberalism as a teenager. I did it on the bus rides to Trinity College. I asked myself what would happen if you abolished welfare, pensions, educational grants, childcare benefits….the economy would totally collapse in the short and long run and actually the rich would get poorer.
Anyways, I got a new job working for the Bank of England. [redacted by pp, 2023-09-12]
Wow, Ireland must be really desperate for talent if they keep hiring you.
Your VIQ is terrible. I said the Bank of England. Where the fuck would that be? Take a guess.
You realize there are Bank of Americas in England right? So why can’t there be a Bank of England in Ireland? Think pill, think!
i have very high cognitive flexibility as well something Anime may have noted in our convos together
The irish and the scottish…both celtic…are definitely the most R selected of the white people. Pumping out babies and doing drugs (alcohol) and being generally dumber than the germanics or the southern europeans. I’m very open about that.
But we’re great warriors. And we’re brave. So thats important too.
And as fenoopy, the north african commenter said before he was banned by puppy…we’re not [redacted by pp, 2023-09-12] like the blacks who didn’t even invent religion or bows and arrows.
i wrote a book called “the Mafia” about a young man who is driven 2 insanity by yearning 4 luv from his father
i wrote it in 8th grade at the age of 14 and i had a unique character back then
How long was it?
8 pages
Its very weird that Irish people are excellent at high literature. Especially as english only became the majority language in about 1900.
We have zero philosophers, scientists, engineers, architects and so on but great writers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scotus_Eriugena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell
try again.
and recall the whole island has only 1/10th the population of great britain.
the pill personality is increasingly lame. because peepee is going senile. black senility starts at age 12. sad.
still waiting for actual commenter other than rr.
Bell was from a british ancestry and Scotus…was basically a priest. I thought you’d throw another british proddy descendant aristocrat at me like Berkeley.
Ireland’s population wasn’t always tiny dumbass. In the 1840s before the famine it was 8.5m. We bred like rabbits. The british scolded us for that.
arthur russell went the gay way (SUPPOSEDLY) because … money …
capitalism = GAY!
sounds VERY UN-gay:
or is my GAY-dar broke(n)???
ARTHUR RUSSELL WAS A GENIUS … WHO …
DIED IN POVERTY …
OPRAH STILL YET TO PROMOTE ARTHUR RUSSELL!
THE GENIUS IS ENOUGH.
THE SINCERITY IS EXTRA … CHERRY ON TOP!
OPRAH STILL YET TO PROMOTE ARTHUR RUSSELL!
PEEPEE (QUA SWANK) CLAIMED MONK WAS SUCH.
WRONG!
RUSSELL GETS A LOT OF SYMPATHY (OBVIOUSLY) BECAUSE THE WAY HE DIED.
BUT!
LIKE MONK!
THE EMPEROR IS NOT NAKED!
NOT!
RUSSELL NEEDED LESS ENCOURAGEMENT THAN OTHERS BECAUSE HIS HORRIBLY ACNE SCARRED FACE.
AND THE HORRIBLE FACT THAT HE WAS A PRETTY GOOD LOOKING GUY WITHOUT THAT … THAT … MUTILATION?
https://thevinylfactory.com/features/arthur-russell-changed-my-life-10-artists-pick-their-favourite-arthur-russell-records-of-all-time/
“My gay dar is broken”
“Pretty good looking guy”
My lord!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
yet another clever irishman.
pill: but those were actually english pipo.
mugabe: obviously! the “wild irish” have only been part of civilization for 150 years at most. in this period you expect too much from them. but today they’re rich. ireland is like singapore but with irish pipo.
and russian litterateurs are always reckoned the better of all, the best…shakespeare and dickens vs tolstoy? tolstoy wins.
Thats exactly my point, we were basically barbarians until the British came and ‘civilised us’ via raping the country.
We obviously didn’t evolve high IQs like the germanics and the southern europeans. But Irish men are more masculine. Its basically R selection.
If you compare the Scottish and the English its basically the same lesson.
I’m not an expert on high Lit but for a country where english wasn’t even the first language until 1900 and 80% people were banned from education until 1860 and the population being about 5% the size of russia, clearly we have much better writers than the russians.
In poetry and dramatic writing for the stage, we are also clearly outstanding.
Gaelic is a very very difficult language to learn and was tougher than learning math for me in school. I even did advanced math and had no interest in it and still scored better than in gaelic.
can i be unbanned now?
Okay but I’ll typically only publish a maximum of 5 of your comments per day (iceland calendar used to date stamp comments). Anymore than 5 and your quality tends to fall off a cliff.
PP do you think there is anything im uniquely better at than anyone on this blog?
Hard to say anyone because so many great minds here but I think you’re one of the best here at verbal fluency. I can picture you racing through the written essay section of an exam while the rest of the university students are just suffering from writer’s block.
You said you would fuck off. Why are you coming back? You said the blog was too boring so just stay away.
i came back because i think its appropriate
LOL! Good answer.
thanks PP. i think my verbal fluency is so great that if i understand something i can write tremendous compositions on any matter!
humans might have accomplished a lot but theyre so degenerate. theyre always trying 2 rectify things that dont involve them etc.
we have a psychological issue hidden deep within all of us as a collective species.
i think we should focus on being silent. because we as humans struggle with internal and external conflicts.
verbal fluency is such a concrete example of how to press forward when having a tough time with something
the stark difference between reality and what we conceive of in our minds is stark
PP : You realize there are Bank of Americas in England right? So why can’t there be a Bank of England in Ireland? Think pill, think!
I- Nope on this one. Phil ris right.
Bank of America as Bank of Ireland are commercial banks. Whereas Bank of England is a central bank like Federal reserve board or Central Bank of Ireland. A central bank has no business being outside UK.
—> Position is in the UK.
II- What’s weird is that if Phil is an Irish Republic citizen, I don’t see how BE would recruit him for a permanent non PhD research position. There are probably agreements with Irish people but it must be limited. Core jobs in central banks are always for nationals, except international students training.
—> So either Pill is going back to school or he has UK citizenship (including double nationality) .
III- Previous points are consistant with the fact that Travelers and Tinkers are close. And they may enjoy special programs like black graduates 😉
A bit to busy to follow the blog. Miss you all …
What’s also strange is that Pill lived in Singapore. What would someone from the backwoods of Ireland be doing in a country as cosmopolitan and cutting edge as Singapore? That’s why I sometimes think Pill is actually a South Asian immigrant to Ireland.
Theres nothing strange at all. I won an academic scholarship to study in Asia. Irish nationals don’t need visas to work in the UK because of the Good Friday Agreement. Brexit doesn’t effect us. Bruno keeps banging on about this traveler thing thinking hes funny lol.
Anyways even if I wasn’t irish there are plenty of people at the Bank of England who are non-nationals. The former governor 5 years ago was a canadian. The advisory board and executive committee have foreign nationals I think. The Bank of England literally trains people from 3rd world countries to eventually go back and run their countries central banks. The British invented central banking. At the start of the empire most central bankers in former colonies such as Ireland or indeed Canada, would have been involved with the Bank of England at some stage.
the short story i wrote had excellent communication between characters and a very profound story arc
i like 2 write things just 4 the sake of writing
Oprah interviewed Michelle 5000 times. Why didn’t she ask her if it was true that she was born a man?
Melo, lurker, and PP are the best people to discuss things with here. AK and Santo sometimes, but a lot of the time they’re nonsense generators. Loaded and “philosopher” are the bottom of the barrel. Mugabe… Is on a list by himself.
>a lot of the time they’re nonsense generators
No, you just have low social intelligence. You think you have a complete understanding of reality when you do not and cannot see beyond your own mind and into the minds of others. People think differently than you, but that does not make it nonsense.
Look into the term “sociology” if what I said confused you.
“you just have low social intelligence”
See? Nonsense generator. My job entails what “social intelligence” refers to, along with aspects of my daily life. Saying this about me from comments on a blog that I comment on to discuss certain things is…. Interesting, to say the least.
“People think differently than you, but that does not make it nonsense.”
A lot of what both of you say isn’t intelligible because it’s nonsense (it’s incoherent).
Although I disagree a lot with Melo, lurker, and PP, they aren’t nonsense generators and can have clear, nuanced discussions on different concepts. Those three are the best to discuss things with. And I did say that both you and Santo are fine to discuss with sometimes, just not all the time.
>See?
no, you do have low social intelligence because:
>A lot of what both of you say isn’t intelligible because it’s nonsense (it’s incoherent).
You use language incorrectly. That is why you say this. Or you think I use it incorrectly but that is not the same as nonsense. Your claims that I am unintelligent is from your cultural dependent word use. If your social intelligence were higher then you would understand what others say within that persons cultural reference frames. And so you neglect to understand what I say almost all the time. You claim that IQ tests are middle class knowledge tests and that means you should know I am not in your cultural range. You are an academic I am on welfare. Santo is not even from the USA he is from Brazil.
You cannot have it both ways rr, you cannot be a sociologist and call what I say nonsense just because my background culture had me learn language in the way I did. Either I am factually incorrect (ignorant) or I use words incorrectly (cultural background), but I am not stupid. Same goes for you.
It’s not about “using words incorrectly”, it’s about how you string them together and form your ideas. A lot of the time it’s incoherent. I did also say that “sometimes” you two are good to discuss with (like now you’re being very clear and coherent), but other times it’s just nonsense to me. And I said to Santo the other day that he’s a bad writer and that it’s not the language barrier that is causing it. I just think you sometimes can’t get your ideas across clearly and it comes out incoherent.
>it’s about how you string them together and form your ideas.
That is a syntax issue with nothing to do with a well-formed grammatically correct way of doing language.
If you want clarity then perhaps you should read more about linguistics, that way my slang will not be as cryptic to you as it is now.
>I just think you sometimes can’t get your ideas across clearly
You keep saying my ideas are wrong and I have to reword everything to fit your tiny verbal window of acceptable terminologies and semantics.
The barrier is cultural because I am not middle class or whatever imaginary class you are. Even if I went to a science middle school and was in the gifted high school programs I did not read what other people read or watch the TV other people watched, I was poor and had to accept the free launch programs in school.
You are the one whose ideas are incorrect because you do not understand how culture works or linguistics or philosophy or science or anything else, your view is too narrow to understand anything close to its full range. Yet you cannot get what I say time and time again calling it what you will. You have no creativity/imagination or empathy for people with either of those things.
I am aware I sound harsh but I do not have any more patience for people who are just going to repeat and repeat and repeat to me like an indoctrinated robot that they are right and I am wrong.
“That is a syntax issue with nothing to do with a well-formed grammatically correct way of doing language.
If you want clarity then perhaps you should read more about linguistics, that way my slang will not be as cryptic to you as it is now.”
I’ve obviously read some linguistics. It very well may be a syntax issue, but I don’t think it’s “cryptic”. It’s just my opinion about how you write.
“you do not understand how culture works or linguistics or philosophy or science or anything else, your view is too narrow to understand anything close to its full range.”
See, this is what I mean. You’re saying I “do not understand” how things work. That’s ridiculous.
“I am aware I sound harsh but I do not have any more patience for people who are just going to repeat and repeat and repeat to me like an indoctrinated robot that they are right and I am wrong.”
My guy, I merely stated my opinion on who is worth discussing things with here. You’re being pretty clear and not incoherent now, but I believe a lot of what you say is incoherent with no flow. That’s just my opinion, maybe I’m wrong but I’m just calling it how I see it.
>I believe a lot of what you say is incoherent with no flow.
Almost every recent guest post I made on pp’s blog you just bullshited all over it in the comments section saying exactly what you said above: dismissing and calling it nonsense when it is not. I have no respect for anything you say in that regard.
>See, this is what I mean.
>You’re saying I “do not understand” how things work.
yes, like feedback loops involvent with intelligence, I repeated for months every time you strawmaned me about reductionism. remember I have studied a.i. since 2001, Nothing you write on your blog about “development” or “interactions” is new, it has been known since before you or I were born, You just do not get it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
stop calling what you do not understand nonsense.
“Almost every recent guest post I made on pp’s blog you just bullshited all over it in the comments section saying exactly what you said above: dismissing and calling it nonsense when it is not. I have no respect for anything you say in that regard.”
I respect your opinion.
“yes, like feedback loops involvent with intelligence, I repeated for months every time you strawmaned me about reductionism. remember I have studied a.i. since 2001, Nothing you write on your blog about “development” or “interactions” is new, it has been known since before you or I were born, You just do not get it:”
Uh, I just proposed a novel philosophical framework integrating action potentials as the interface between the mental and the physical which relies on feedback loops. A cornerstone of DST thinking is feedback loops. You said above that “^^^Thinking/intelligence is a brain mechanism” and this implies a physical mechanism but the mind isn’t mechanistic and that claim is defeated by the Ross-Feser immaterial aspects of thought argument. Necessary doesn’t mean sufficient.
The troll who writes like Judith Butler or Foucault is not in the position to evaluate other people’s writing quality without analysing himself firstly and, surprise, he doesnt.
The main reason for anguage is a better communication. Human language itself was developed (not necessarily suddenly “invented”) exactly to improve it. So sophistrycated unwriting style is a complete backward of thousand of evolution and development. Only a privileged person or a complete fool who could adopt it in any instance if professionally or not.
youre beyond irrational some people on this blog just happen 2 be im hyperrational
i am above and beyond the smartest person i know the cookie never crumbles
PP if you see my bigger picture why do you doubt me!
Looks like I’ll have to enforce your 5 comment limit today since the quality of today’s comments is below community standards. Better luck tomorrow
why are the people here so spiteful and angry all the time. the hate is unbearable from these folks not only targeted towards me but also all of humanity.
PP your blog attracts misanthropes and just outcasts in general myself included but i think im remedying myself while these old folks stay stagnant!
leno’s mother was scottish, craig ferguson, seth meyers (jewy irish), colbert, o’brien, fallon, will ferrell, adam mckay, …
the celts have comedy locked up.
recent phenomenon.
peepee: no network late night jews for same reason no jew presidents.
mugabe: then why one irishman (phil donahue) vs geraldo, raphael (i sware she said she was a(n) MoT), springer, povich?
peepee: [makes RIDICULOUS oprah promotional comment because lacks self-control.]
no ACTUAL irishman thinks irish pipo are innately dumber than…
than…
ANYONE!
BRIAN BARU BTFOed THE VIVKINGS!
THE FUCKING VIKINGS!
pill personality = LAME!
Yes there is a lot of Irish talk show success:
#1 late night show: Leno
#1 cable news talk show: O’reilly
#1 syndicated talk show of the pre-Oprah era: Donahue
First talk show to give Oprah serious competition, both in ratings AND head size: Rosie O’Donnell
peepee: [makes RIDICULOUS oprah promotional comment because lacks self-control.]
sad.
the POINT about ARTHUR RUSSELL is…
1. you can listen to his interview … sounds … NOT gay.
2. his music is DIFFICULT … BUT not intentionally so … he’s the monk of east village disco … [crow caws] … [car door closes … party next door] … [oven beeps … it’s over! it’s over! it’s over!] …
spaghetti pipo = the COOLEST pipo != rr = sad …
mugabe is more spaghetti than rr!
FACT!
Leno went to school at the private university i attended for a year. so did Charles Taylor the infamous despot of Liberia. so did many other successful entrepreneurs since it is a business school.
its a really up and coming school and will gain prestige if not academically just in terms of how much tuition is since its about 40000 a semester just for classes!
its elite per se.
anyways i also got a marketing job. i will be working with this very attractive early 30s marketing director who was really impressed with my interview performance.
i have a way with words and women.
what i meant by this is that Jay Leno went there for a year i went there for quite a few years actually and got my degree there.
speaking of tuition isnt it crazy how i have such good intuition. my intuition is the only reason im still alive and one of the many reasons im so great at everything!
it is now a different day in iceland so im going to post my comment about aliens reptiles mammals etc. in terms of neuroscience.
aliens are very expansive in their openness while lacking associative horizon. probably a very K-selected species.
humans are obviously mammals. so mammals are warm blooded.
aliens could be reptilian meaning theyre cold blooded. cold bloodedness circulating the brain leads to cooler thoughts or in other words rationality.
aliens are hyperrational.
Hi pp,
I was just on a call with Loaded and I am trying to help him improve his comments. He is writing an essay about intelligence from a neuroscience perspective because he was going to become a neurologist but went in a different direction with a business degree. He studied the subject for a semester and knows some things about it. He is a very nice guy and I would say his mental abilities in quant is higher than mine. I think rr is correct that development matters but also that quant is a real thing as Loaded potential is very high. I simply had more self-development but Loaded has potential.
Here he is and me also:
Nice photo of you both but lose the beard, you’re looking a little January sixish.
Only RR can rock the beard.
Loaded looks like he has lost a lot of weight but sadly also a lot of IQ.
Like you and pill he may have experienced a psychotic break which can shave off dozens of points.
i do indeed have tinier intracranial volume according to my genetics but my head size is rather large and im very brachy and broad faced.
i also have a very good forehead width to accompany my 23 inch head circumference.
I know you said it’s 23 inches but it looks small in the photo but could be the camera angle.
They have polygenic scores for intracranial volume? I’ve been waiting for that for years. They’re probably very inaccurate at the individual level but might tell us something about population level trends.
its cuz my forehead is sloped
i also have a very long skull
LOL, why does Loaded look like he’s in his 30s?
God, I look so young compared to you all. It’s that Asian.
Yeah, Cat lose the beard. Get a haircut, and tidy up the beard. You might get pussy.
Loaded’s hair makes him look a bit older than he is but other than that he looks good. But he appears to have a tiny brain which I suspect made him vulnerable to a psychotic break.
i have a 23 inch head circumference ive mentioned this many times!
Yes but don’t forget your lean-body mass article, which hypothesizes that the IQ correlation with brain size mass should be compared to lean-body mass not whole body mass.
Good point
im just a massive dude in all body parts.
You look like a beta.
doesnt mean im not a big dude.
Nah bro, don’t let the beard shamers get to you. Sick beard.
you guys are all weird. crabs in a bucket mentality simply put. have some more respect for yourselves.
i am intellectually superior to many of you ask Anime!
Cringe.
no youre cringe RR you know how weird and stupid you sound most of the time?
and youre like 40 something years old youre a loser dude!
Cringe.
OK PP that’s his 5 comment limit for the day.
okay I’ll cut him off
RR is so disrespectful its actually intolerable.
I’d say the conversation between these 2 clowns must have been riveting.
you took to your wall all day
How delusional people tend to be here.
Now Anime thinks he is an expert on neuroscience just because he is obssessed on it. Another interesting traits: such narcisism at the point to post his own photo, fourth time here, obviously related with self obsession. This prove you dont need to be a “social butterfly” to be very narcisist.
About the other, if he is not trolling… i ask how he could get to high education??? Parent’s money??
no i studied hard
go away santo, you do not want to have real conversations about topics.
I said from day 1 that anime was a narcissist but then I changed my mind and said it was autism. The guy just constantly talks about how his brain works. Its ridiculous.
Autism, intelectual narcisism and pedantry are positively correlated. Seems common autists thinking they are great on some topics just because they are obsessed on them.
It’s more likely to find inteligent life in some Jupiter’s moons than on multiple loaded comments.
santo if you are not going to be constructive in discussions then do not bother. calling me autistic is a copout. you do not have anything better to add when it comes to trying to understand things.
just add something better, don’t project your own insecurities.
Sometimes we just need to reinforce than add.
PP remember my unapproved comment about my genetic results for intelligence and a variety of other traits from cognidna:
here it is it predicts a 141 IQ score genetically a 99th percentile likelihood in math and 82nd in reading comprehension.
this must mean i am Ganzir level intellectually capable.
take a look at this it says my genetic IQ is 141! thats frickin crazy!
and you all said i was a dummy….well now youre the dummies lmao!