In psychology there is a long tradition of separating intelligence (cognitive abilities) from physical abilities and personality. But what exactly is the difference?
Jensen might have claimed that the difference between an IP (item performance) showing ability (physical or mental) vs one showing personality, is the former requires a standard of proficiency. From The g Factor, page 51.
However an article in Scientific American states:
If what DeYoung is saying is true, how then do we distinguish between personality and cognition, if both can be measured using mental tests using an objective standard of proficiency?
After thinking about it for a while, I’ve decided that what distinguishes a cognitive test from a personality test or even a physical test, is that a cognitive test requires you to correctly answer questions using only your fine motor abilities (i.e. talking, writing, manipulating small objects with your hand) or some equivalent. All cognitive tests, whether verbal or performance, require you to answer questions correctly, whether by defining common words, showing how two jig-saw puzzle pieces fit together with your hands, or telling the examiner from memory what number sequence she just read.
Athletic tests also require you to give the right answer to questions (show me how how to dance) but unlike cognitive tests, you answer using gross-motor abilities instead of fine motor abilities. Personality tests, like IQ tests, require you to answer questions using only fine-motor skills like speech or writing (would you rather go to a party or read a book?) but unlike cognitive tests, those questions have no right answer.
Pumpkin Person 
charisma is a perfected form of all things. so in this way we can see that it would impact how labels of unique or different things would be obsolete because there is a transcendence of the level of functionality or competency one has 2 apply!
I decided to formalize Lurker and RR’s arguments, because why not. I want you two to let me know if I mischaracterized anything. Maybe this can help you guys actually understand the other position more clearly. RR, can you explain how your argument addresses the paradox that Lurker brings up?
RR’s:
P) Analytical statements are statements that can be evaluated for truth or falsehood based on the meanings of their terms and logical reasoning.
P2: Knowledge is context-dependent, meaning that the interpretation and application of knowledge often rely on the context in which it is acquired or used.
P3:If analytical statements are knowledge, then the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” can be evaluated analytically.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is possible to support the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” analytically.
Lurker’s:
P1: If knowledge is context-dependent, then it is not possible to know that the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” is true in all contexts.
P2: The statement “knowledge is context-dependent” is an absolute claim about knowledge.
Conclusion: Therefore, the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” is a contradiction.
Yes my argument is as you posted. I also agree that “knowledge is context-dependent” can be evaluated analytically.
Knowledge about tautologies is context-independent for example. I know for certain that a bachelor is an unmarried man because of the definition of the terms. But of course those terms are embedded in an actually existing world with its own context. They don’t mean anything to someone who doesn’t know what the terms imply. And if you learned that the terms meant something else, then it is no longer a tautology. But the tautological nature still applies to things that are the same. A is A by any other name. Logical absolutes are context-free, because the very discernability of any anything that exists from anything else depends on them. So we know for certain, that when someone apprehends anything that the only way for that thing to be apprehended is if the logical complement of that thing is false, and hence that logical absolutes are true. So logical absolutes are examples of something that is clearly not context-dependent (since the existence of *all* cognition and hence contextual cognition actually depends on them being true).
Given that absolute knowledge exists, the question is whether application of logical inference can be theoretically measured from person-to-person… and it seems it can, and hence IQ could be a real context-free phenomenon.
I’ll let lurker tell you if you formalized his argument right, but in my view I think you got to the nature of both of them correctly.
If knowledge is context-dependent, then it is not possible to know that the statement “knowledge is context-dependent” is true in all contexts. So now let’s assume that this P1 is true. So if we accept P1, then it implies that our knowledge about the context-dependence of knowledge is itself context-dependent, and so we can know it to be true within it’s relevant context. The previous sentence follows from P1 and it’s a valid inference. So since our knowledge about the context-dependence of knowledge is context-dependent, it implies that this knowledge can be true within it’s relevant context, which aligns with the concept of knowledge being context-dependent. So my conclusion here challenges the conclusion of the argument by offering a different perspective. (If lurker disagrees with how you formulated his argument, then I will fix this argument I just made against the second argument.)
(By the way this is why you two are like the only ones worth talking to here. Along with PP.)
“So if we accept P1, then it implies that our knowledge about the context-dependence of knowledge is itself context-dependent, and so we can know it to be true within it’s relevant context. ”
That’s not true, because you are making an *absolute* claim within a *specific* context. You have to accept that there is absolute knowledge in order to make absolute claims. If you already take it as true that “all knowledge is context-dependent” you are taking it as proven in all possible contexts, which clearly, would require you know something you can’t know if everything you know is context dependent.
“it implies that this knowledge can be true within it’s relevant context,”
The statement “knowledge is context-dependent” applies to all contexts, not just a specific context.
We asssert truths based on our own knowledge.
We exist in a specific context.
Therefore, we cannot assert the truth of any context-independent knowledge in our specific context, including that about knowledge itself, unless we assert absolute knowledge.
You can’t even make a claim about tautologies, because that requires you to assert knowledge in the absolute truth that A = A by any other name. Giving something a different name has inexhaustible contextual possibility (we can infinitely name the same thing and hence place it in different linguistic contexts).
You have to have faith in the truth of logical absolutes because they are the only way anything can actually mean anything (or exist).
No, my assertion there is about the contextual nature of knowledge itself, and doesn’t require the acceptance of absolute knowledge. The claim is about the contextual nature of knowledge itself, NOT an absolute claim in a specific context.
The statement “knowledge is context-dependent” (let’s just abbreviate this is “NIC”) isn’t an assertion of an absolute claim, but it’s a description of the nature of knowledge itself. It means that knowledge can take on different meaning or interpretations in different contexts. So when I say NIC, I am acknowledging that it applies in all contexts, but I’m not asserting absolute knowledge; rather, I’m discussing the contextual nature of knowledge itself.
Imagine a multilingual encyclopedia that encompasses knowledge of multiple disciplines from the sciences to the humanities to religion. This encyclopedia is maintained by experts from around the world and is available in many languages. So although the information in the encyclopedia is written in different languages and upheld by people from different cultures, fundamental scientific discoveries, historical events and mathematical theorems remain constant across all versions of the encyclopedia. So this knowledge is context-dependent because it holds true no matter the language it’s written in or the cultural context it is presented in. But the encyclopedia’s entries are designed to be used in specific contexts. The same scientific principles can be applied in labs across the world, but the specific experiments, equipment and cultural practices could vary. Moreover, historical events could be studied differently in different parts of the world, but the events themselves are context-independent.
So this thought experiment challenges the claim that context-independent knowledge requires the assertion of absolute knowledge. Context-independent knowledge exists in the encyclopedia, but it isn’t absolute. It’s merely a collection of universally-accepted facts, principles and theories that are applied in different contexts taking into account linguistic and cultural differences. Thus the knowledge in the encyclopedia is context-independent in that it remains the same across the world, across languages and cultures, but it is used in specific contexts.
Now, likening this to IQ tests is simple. When I said “[ALL IQ tests are] culture-bound, and this means that they’re class-specific”, this is a specific claim. What this means, in my view, is that people grow up in different class-cultural environments, and so they are exposed to different knowledge bases and kinds of knowledge. Since they are exposed to different knowledge bases and kinds of knowledge, when it comes time for test time, if they aren’t exposed to the knowledge bases and kinds of knowledge on the test, they necessarily won’t score as high as someone who was immersed in the knowledge bases and kinda of knowledge. That’s it, it’s that simple. Cole’s argument that all tests are culture-bound is true. Thus IQ tests aren’t culture-neutral, they are all culture-bound, and culture-neutral tests are an impossibility. This further buttresses my argument that intelligence is shaped by the social and cultural environment, underscoring the idea that the specific knowledge bases and cognitive resources that individuals are exposed to within their unique socio-cultural contexts play a pivotal role in the expression and development of their cognitive abilities.
So my thought experiment shows that while there are fundamental scientific discoveries, historical events and mathematical theorems that remain constant throughout the world and across different languages and cultures, the encyclopedia’s entries are designed to be used in specific contexts. So the multilingual encyclopedia thought experiment supports my claim that even when knowledge is context-independent, it can become context-dependent when it is used and applied within specific cultural and linguistic contexts. This, then, aligns with the part of my argument that knowledge is not entirely diverged from social, cultural and contextual influences.
Okay, so it’s as I suspected. You guys are talking about two different things here. RR is not suggesting that there is no actual truth value to knowledge. Rather, those with more access to the “encyclopedia” are going to have higher IQs, and thus, IQ is heavily influenced by culture.
Is that right, RR?
“So this knowledge is context-dependent because it holds true no matter the language it’s written in or the cultural context it is presented in.”
I assume you meant “independent” here?
If not, I can reformulate again.
“No, my assertion there is about the contextual nature of knowledge itself, and doesn’t require the acceptance of absolute knowledge. ”
Yes it does because you are claiming to know something about knowledge in *all* contexts.
“The claim is about the contextual nature of knowledge itself, NOT an absolute claim in a specific context.”
All claims of knowledge are made in specific contexts, which may be what you mean when you say “knowledge is contextual”. But if it is something that holds true for all contexts (no matter the specific context it is claimed in) it is absolute knowledge. Therefore, the knowledge must be absolute in order for you to make any analytical claim, because you are making a claim that generalizes to types of things rather specific instances. (Because you are making claims about one property containing another property, as instances of things are only amalgations of properties).
“The statement “knowledge is context-dependent” (let’s just abbreviate this is “NIC”) isn’t an assertion of an absolute claim, but it’s a description of the nature of knowledge itself. ”
Description of its nature = Absolute claim.
The nature is the properties of knowledge. You are ascribing properties to the category known as “knowledge”.
“It means that knowledge can take on different meaning or interpretations in different contexts. ”
Does your sentence mean anything? You are basically saying “you can interpret my sentence any way you want, but this is how you should interpret it… which is to interpret it any way you want.” You realize this leads to absolutely no meaning. You have to show me why your interpretation is better and the only way you’re going to do that is to find some commonality with me which means we share contexts. We could share contexts trivially (randomly), but the very aspect of “sharing” and “context” are something that describes absolute mathematical or logical relationships… so we’re back to describing fundamental facts of reality that are context-free yet known to us. If a description corresponds to the only way we can know something (instantiation in some context in reality) then that description is absolute because to violate it is to violate the coherent existence of that thing.
So while it is true we must know things within a specific context, as everything that could possibly exist is “contextual” in some manner, we know that there are invariants or absolutes that describe what is necessary for a “context” to even exist, or for knowledge to exist.
“So when I say NIC, I am acknowledging that it applies in all contexts, but I’m not asserting absolute knowledge; rather, I’m discussing the contextual nature of knowledge itself.”
“The nature of” = absolute claim.
Applies in all contexts = the definition of absolute.
I understand if you are saying all knowledge claims exist in a specific context, but if something holds true for every context it is absolute.
“So this thought experiment challenges the claim that context-independent knowledge requires the assertion of absolute knowledge.”
But the claim that knowledge is context-independent is a claim that holds true for all contexts, meaning absolute.
I think what you are claiming is that “knowing” (as an active process) is always contextual, but knowledge/truth is not contextual. The act takes place in time and place according to some observer. But truth and knowledge as an object is timeless because it (by definition) describes something that is framed according to the outside observer as it has already happened.
So while knowing is a contextual process, when we know something that is invariant and true for all contexts or multiple contexts, we are apprehending truth outside of our context.
“This, then, aligns with the part of my argument that knowledge is not entirely diverged from social, cultural and contextual influences.”
But no one is disagreeing with the idea that knowledge is not entirely diverged from social/cultural influences, but that there is no objective basis to intelligence and hence to one’s ability to acquire and manipulate knowledge.
Everyone knows language and associations matter. Everyone knows that exposure to specific content matters.
But prior to exposure, associations and language is the cognitive capacity for those things, which is not bound by any specific language, association, or exposure. Do those cognitive capacities not exist differently among different people, just as they do between species?
I’m merely claiming that knowledge can be interpreted differently in various situations.
Knowledge claims are made in specific contexts, but the understanding and interpretation of knowledge can change across contexts; my claim is about the nature of knowledge itself and how it interacts with contexts. Just as a car’s performance varies on things like weather and road conditions, knowledge’s nature can vary in different contexts.
I’m not suggesting that all interpretations are equally valid, rather, that knowledge can adapt it’s meaning to different contexts and it’s the recognition of certain invariants or absolutes that allow for this adaptability, the specifics of interpretation are shaped by cultural and contextual influences.
Yea I can agree with your interpretation about “knowing (as an active process) is always contextual. And you are right that knowledge being context-independent can in a sense be seen as absolute knowledge (in my article I used the phrase “universal common knowledge”), but as I argued in my analogy, even that type of knowledge could be used contextually in different social and cultural contexts.
So what I’m arguing is that while the process of acquiring knowledge is shaped by social, cultural and contextual influences, there are of course foundational cognitive capacities that enable this (that is, they are necessary), but what is sufficient is being engrossed in certain human cultures and societies to gain that certain contextual knowledge in order to live, survive, and thrive in that cultural and social context.
Good discussion, and I can see some parts of agreement between us now.
you can tell pill is a jew for his ABSURD OVER-THE-TOP hatred for jesus “jewish super hero”.
christianity is a FUBAR religion…how you know it’s TRUE…too FUBAR for anyone to maker up…
Jewsus cut is mostly responsible for taming white people but in wrong way.
It’s just sad anti jewish lies –people believing in Jewsus ridiculous narratives.
RR, do you actually discuss your views with other philosophy enthusiasts? Or do you just sit in your house all day and read books and never actually debate anyone about these topics? It would be really stupid if you get a kick out of debating people like Cat and Philo who have no understanding of philosophy. That’s like bragging about winning a COD match against a 2-year-old.
If intelligence cannot be quantified then it should be impossible for certain problems to be solved within the scope of human reason.
Why for example can AK only be able to compare 3 ideas together in his head at once yet other people can compare 25 ideas together in their head at once?
Some kids can replicate a simple 3D videogame from scratch with no help yet AK can barely open a pixel file.
Intelligence is about what you can do in your head and if you cannot do it in your head you cannot change your environment to make it the way you want it to be. Even with unlimited learning resources, there are just things AK cannot do mentally. AK cannot hold 16 numbers in his head at the same time. He cannot compare 25 shapes together at the same time. He cannot open a pixel file in Java.
It is impossible for certain people to do certain things not because of lack of development but because the window of what they can do is limited.
No one seems to understand this?
They dont want to admit blacks are dumber than whites. They do get that some people are inherently more intelligent than others.
“If intelligence cannot be quantified then it should be impossible for certain problems to be solved within the scope of human reason.”
This doesn’t follow at all. The claim that intelligence or any psychological trait is not quantifiable has nothing to do with being” impossible for certain problems to be solved within the scope of human reason.” The whole of human history attests to that.
Humans have a cognitive horizon. Some problems cannot be solved because of our limited levels of intelligence.
“If intelligence cannot be quantified then it should be impossible for certain problems to be solved within the scope of human reason.”
Yes you’re right. Our thoughts are obviously made up of repeatable, real elements (at least partially), or otherwise they would have no correspondence to other thoughts or the physical world. Is that quantifiable?
Information is quantifiable, but only if the information shares a common structure, and clearly our thoughts share common structure, most generally being that they are information themselves.
New types of information can be invented, but information remains information, and what G seems to represent is the ability to manipulate information in the most general sense (at least capable by humans).
Anything repeatable or shared is quantifiable, and even though there is an infinite amount of possible information types, that does not preclude the idea that there is always a set able to contain any set of information/knowledge and add to it, demonstrating relative quantifiable differences.
g isn’t a thing though, as evidenced by the refutations of Spearman and Jensen.
OK, keep being ignorant about what G could be even after people lay out a model on a silver platter for you.
Lurker is correct in that information people can mentally work with is not the same for everyone.
As I said, AK cannot compare 25 shapes to each other at the same time. (cognitive horizon)
It’s not ignorance. You’re implying a general factor exists when all evidence to the contrary refutes that notion. And when “general factor” is uttered, it’s generally understood to be derived from factor analysis. Richardson’s affective factors argument refutes the claim that there is anything “general” about intelligence. How do you know that g exists? Is it a latent variable? That’s how literally every single conception of it is.
“It’s not ignorance. You’re implying a general factor exists when all evidence to the contrary refutes that notion. And when “general factor” is uttered, it’s generally understood to be derived from factor analysis. Richardson’s affective factors argument refutes the claim that there is anything “general” about intelligence. How do you know that g exists? Is it a latent variable? That’s how literally every single conception of it is.”
We know there is a general factor to intelligence because cognition has invariant aspects, such as an information processor and information. Perceptions, experiences, logical reasoning, categorization, memorization, etc. all involve the manipulation, description, attribution, or acceptance of information. If there was no general aspect to intelligence there would be no concept known as “intelligence” that everyone understands.
I think I agree with Lurker here. Intelligence, to me, is just “applied consciousness.” The brain is a memory system that allows humans to pick any skills they want to excel in, and with enough practice, they will.
Since the mind and all of its extensions depend upon this organ’s limitations, there is an underlying commonality of Intelligence, not just in regard to the organ that catalyzes it but also the mechanism the organ uses.
That’s probably not the same thing as what Jensen and “IQists” mean when they say “general intelligence.” But the term is apt.
There are commonalities like information processing and intentionality but that doesn’t imply that there is a single, unitary factor. So the shared conception of intelligence arises through the commonality of human cognition, but it doesn’t necessarily imply a single, unchanging unitary factor of intelligence. So these processes are subject to dynamic cultural influences and could manifest differently across individuals and cultures which challenges the notion of a single, invariant, unitary factor of intelligence.
And Melo, if we can just agree that Spearman’s g is falsified and Jensen’s is an unfalsifiable tautology, then I’d be happy with our differences.
A person’s quant can increase but relative to their age. Quant should be compared to their peer group. No one said quant does not change with age, no one said quant is not increased with dynamic. Quant is a relative thing.
Again how many shapes can a person compare in their head at a time and what is that number relative to the peer group?
so dawkins says to a theology graduate “your degree is bullshit!”
and dawkins is right!
BUT!
the NT is like the ultimate logic puzzle…
theology is bullshit…
BUT!
it’s an accomplishment…
it’s no more useless than so many degrees in pure mathematics and less…
BECAUSE!
the subject is ultimate reality.
The ultimate reality is atheism. Atheism is the core of real religion which is the core of real philosophy.
All religions make the same universal questions but provided parochial answers. If religions are logical to what they asks, inevitably would lead to atheism. It’s not a Scottish fallacy typo exactly because the logic or coherence of making questions of universal nature and expecting to give answers correspondingly.
The true atheism is not the disbelief on deities but on metaphysics and eternal life, it’s like an aethernalvitalism. Most people only believe in God or a pantheon of them in order to expect being rewarded “after” life. God or deities are seeing as Stalkers.
Hahaha, even anime is more intelligent than you two clowns. Certainly quantitatively and maybe even verbally.
Yeah I would bet Anime has a higher IQ than you and RR.
Yea sometimes. I’ve tried talking to illusionists and physicalists on Twitter here and there.
Yeah, you should go on Reddit or find a Discord server. Twitter doesn’t really cut it and isn’t conducive to real discussion. Your brain is wasted here. What you do is like me trying to explain to these guys how to do step-wise version migration in eXR.
You didn’t understand that, did you? Well, that’s my point.
Sure, what you’re talking about is actually relevant, but it’s too over their heads. You’re just going to get bullied here and create your own little echo chamber instead of truly challenging your ideas. I love being challenged. Believe it or not, I don’t just enjoy being right all the time. My views have altered dramatically in the 7 odd years I’ve been on this blog. And so have yours, but I think you’ve outgrown it.
Not to say you should just leave and never come back, but there is no point in wasting your energy on some of these discussions. Why do you think I don’t? There is literally nothing you could ever say to Philo to sway him from irrational stupidity. And you know that so if you aren’t trying to convince anyone of anything, then what are you doing? What are you trying to prove? You know you’re smart. You don’t need to debate these morons to prove that to yourself.
True. That’s why l like discussing things with you, because although you disagree with me a lot, you understand where I’m coming from since we’ve known each other so long and have changed our views dramatically of the last 8 years. Reddit is kinda cringe, but maybe I will look for a discord server to join. Twitter has turned into a racist, white nationalist hold over the past few months, but there’s still some good stuff there.
I just like watching TP squirm and never answer questions, it’s funny to me.
when genius and charisma meet great things emerge!
I said IQ was a personality trait 5 years ago and Puppy banned the comment. Now he finally understands what the hell I was saying because some academic in danish media said it. Basically puppy doesn’t know anything like RR until danish academia prints a paper on it.
LOL! Did you even read the article. I explain why it’s NOT a personality trait.
You didn’t explain why. You just said it can be measured a different way. IQ is a personality trait because it effects a persons personality. Case closed. You can’t argue with that logic.
Melo can attempt to do philosophy….
But people with low verbal IQs will come out with bad conclusions and bad judgement. Hence, Melo refers to himself as ‘woke’.
Where would you rather live Melo? Africa or a western country among the evil white people?
Can’t wait to see the next porky RR comes up with….
There is no such thing as innate biological differences between dogs and cats!
In the context of the Big Five, Openness to Experience is often called, nowadays, Openness/Intellect. The Intellect facet, as far as I have understood, kind of includes intelligence. Not formally, but practically. More specifically, the Ideas facet of the domain correlates strongly to IQ.
You sometimes get moderate correlations (+0.35) and certain intellectual personality traits like openness or TIE (typical intellectual engagement) but these seem to be confined to verbal IQ. This may suggest verbal IQ is not a “pure” measure of intelligence, because people with intellectual personalities will seek out more knowledge, thus overperforming on crystallized tests and also overperforming in the real world.
This may also explain why Jews and whites appear more creative and accomplished than East Asians (despite similar IQs) at least within the last 500 years. The highest level of evolution requires making the leap from the individual to the group, and East Asians being more socially organized, evolved not to question the group so probably have lower levels of openness causing them to act less creative than non-Asians of equivalent IQ.
The causation could also run in the other direction; with high verbal IQ causing high openness. And so because of their high verbal IQ, many Jews become so open they endorse open borders (pun intended) and LGBT ideas. But whites assume they are doing this to destroy Western civilization but in some cases it could just be because high verbal IQ causes openness which causes social liberalism. We would need a control group of high verbal IQ high open whites to see if they were just as culturally liberal as their Jewish counterparts.
Personally, I don’t really put much importance to TIE because the similar and much more researched concept of Need For Cognition exists. It correlates to both Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence, but mostly with Fluid. And, iirc it correlates to the Ideas facet.
It correlates to both Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence, but mostly with Fluid.
citation needed
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259687951_Need_for_Cognition_is_related_to_higher_general_intelligence_fluid_intelligence_and_crystallized_intelligence_but_not_working_memory
Personality is less developable but more individually flexible while intelligence appears to be more developable but it is less individually flexible.
Personality appears to be more flexible but seems this development peak earlier than intelligence.
Personality is more reactive in nature while cognition is more perceptive.
Personality or psychological traits are basically reactive-adaptative traits (extroversion, neuroticism, openness…), how we tend to react to the environment we are but also how we tend to respond, characteristically.
There is an appearance of change of personality. But i bet in most of cases, if not in great majority, what happens is a change of social and or psychological canalization, not necessarily an intrinsic change. It’s like “i dont create something completely new about my personality. I just start to use some part of it i wasnt using before”. Who knows??
Athleticism is just a way to canalize intelligence (learning, reasoning, perception) to a more physically specific way.
But intelligence individual potential is no way limitless. All innate potential or growth of our cognitive abilities follows brain development and maturation and then stop when brain is fully developed. After this period, any new learning is not due to some raw intelligence growth but to already developed but not used potential.
One of the great example of it is vocabulary size which peaked during the period of plateau of cognitive performance and seems in most people is not possible to be continuously enriched, possibly because humans start to develop their linguistic abilities very early in life, because their fundamental role.
What i said above, it’s not something completely new but something already developed or available and not yet used or explored.
Intelligence is specialized to learn and adapt to environment in proactive way while personality is specialized to react to it. Actually, emotional intelligence is the inevitable and constant interaction between our reactive and perceptive “systems”.
honesty is very important 2 function intellectually something a lot of people wouldnt be cut out 4 even if they did have the IQ!
like my mom 4 example has a very high IQ but she is so dishonest and irrational it serves no higher purpose!
Sophistry, the pretendness of philosophy or intellectualism, is not philosophy. So it’s perfectly possible to say Judith Butler is not philosopher neither Lew Vygotsky was because they failled in the most fundamental of philosophical praxis, reason.
Vygotsky basically believed children are TOTALLY influenced by social environment, an extraordinary claim, not different to say God or Mind exist.
Butler believes “gender” traditional roles are TOTALLY a social construct while it’s obvious that it has been based on the appeal to specific and predominant psychological (and hormonal) tendencies of each sex.
These people you quote are ideologues. In the older days, they would have been called communists. They are not stupid enough to actually believe those things.
correct!
lion said that jews (his parents) regard white goyim as LAZY…
that is an accurate observation.
that is, lazy in comparison to jews. yes. obviously.
Why are you talking about Vygotsky’s theory when it’s clear you don’t understand it?
“However, [Vygotsky] argued that beyond a certain point in development, biological forces can no longer be viewed as the sole, or even the primary, force of change. At this point there is a fundamental reorganization of the forces of development and a need for a corresponding reorganization in the system of explanatory principles. Specifically, in Vygotsky’s view the burden of explanation shifts from biological to social factors. The latter operate within a given biological framework and must be compatible with it, but they cannot be reduced to it. That is, biological factors are still given a role in this new system, but they lose their role as the primary force of change. Vygotsky contrasted embryological and psychological development on this basis:
The embryological development of the child … in no way can be considered on the same level as the postnatal development of the child as a social being. Embryological development is a completely unique type of development subordinated to other laws than is the development of the child’s personality, which begins at birth. Embryological development is studied by an independent science—embryology, which cannot be considered one of the chapters of psychology … Psychology does not study heredity or prenatal development as such, but only the role and influence of heredity and prenatal development of the child in the process of social development. (1972, p. 123)” – James Wertsch, Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind
Guys I did a very complex and elaborate puzzle for Fallout 4’s Far Harbour mission where you enter the mind of the robot. Puzzle number 5. I dare any of you to attempt it.
It took me a lot of divergent and weird thinking but I solved it. I think you need at least a 130 IQ to solve it.
It took a lot of time. A lot of spatial intelligence actually.
i thought being a schizo and all your spatial would be retarded. is this an accurate description of you or not?
One of the reasons video games got easier is because they started making games for the mass market from the 80s on and so the IQ level by definition has to be a lower bar for people to enjoy them. That far harbour puzzle was a throwback to the 90s for me.
If you play the original Donkey Kong on the gameboy, you basically need to be a nerd to complete that game. Zero chance someone like Melo or RR or some other random person at the bus stop would get far in that game or even want to play it.
That game is archaic today. I’m into JRPGs and strategy games.
Back in the day the standard FPS (first person shooter) was a lot harder too. Sometimes you had to rely on the AI glitching out to win. Thats how severe the test was.
Very rare to see rock hard games being made today. I will name the latest Crash Bandicoot as an example of a rock hard game but generally developers know they will get poor sales if they create something only a nerd like me can play.
This made me think of the Serbian stereotype I’ve read about here. A math genius who admits “I do enjoy violence.” lol
>If what DeYoung is saying is true
It’s unlikely to be true. If such tests were created we would find them to be IQ tests. Agreeableness isn’t the ability to successfully engage in perspective-taking, it’s the desire to do so more often for its own sake.
Thank you for making this excellent point. Perspective taking seems more like a test of Theory of Mind than of agreeableness and ToM is clearly a cognitive ability not a personality trait. On the other hand, tests of impulse control, like the famous marshmallow test, I would not necessarily classify as cognitive, which is why my new criterion for cognitive test is you must correctly answer a question (implicit or explicit) (using only fine motor skills).
Sounds right. The simplest thing in practice is simply to control for IQ, but in theory the difference appears to be whether someone is inclined to ask the question in the first place (personality) vs. the ability to answer the question (intelligence).
but in theory the difference appears to be whether someone is inclined to ask the question in the first place (personality) vs. the ability to answer the question (intelligence).
Interesting. I have often said that intelligence is the part of the brain that solves problems and emotions (or we might say personality) is the part that generates problems that need to be solved. Sounds like you have a very similar perspective.
This is wrong otherwise whites would be agreeable
Fun fact. I was cited in a journal article in 2020, New avenues in epigenetic research about race: Online activism around reparations for slavery in the United States
“Consequently, social scientists’ opinions about epigenetic research dealing with race and slavery have sometimes been scrutinized by blog authors. For example, the article untitled ‘Race, medicine, and epigenetics: How the social becomes biological’ published in 2019 on the blog Notpoliticallycorrect features a long discussion on whether race could be seen as a viable variable to discuss the epigenetics of trauma, especially relating to slavery in the US.14 After summarizing the views of legal scholar and sociologist Dorothy Roberts, who has argued repeatedly in her works against the use of the concept of race in biomedical sciences, the author sides with philosophers Michael Hardimon and Shannon Sullivan, who are both enthusiastic about the inclusion of race to discuss genetics and epigenetics:
Race and medicine is a tendentious topic. On one hand, you have people like sociologist Dorothy Roberts (2012) who argues against the use of race in a medical context, whereas philosopher of race Michael Hardimon thinks that we should not be exclusionists about race when it comes to medicine. If there are biological races, and there are salient genetic differences between them, then why should we disregard this when it comes to a medically relevant context? [. . .] So, we should not be exclusionists (like Roberts), we should be inclusionists (like Hardimon). [. . .] Furthermore, acknowledging the fact that the social dimensions of race can help us understand how racism manifests itself in biology (for a good intro to this see Sullivan’s (2015) book The Physiology of Racist and Exist Oppression, for even if the ‘oppression’ is imagined, it can still have very real biological effects that could be passed onto the next generation – and it could particularly affect a developing fetus, too). It seems that there is a good argument that the effects of slavery could have been passed down through the generations manifesting itself in smaller bodies.
Relying also on Jasienska’s research, the author of this blog post therefore dismissed the idea that race should not be applied to the medical field, while using the words and legitimacy of humanities scholars such as Hardimon and Sullivan to back up their claims. These contributions show the way journalists and various blog authors write about epigenetics by mixing together scientific articles in various fields (the social sciences, philosophy, psychiatry, social work) in an effort to bring more legitimacy to the topic. This process highlights the ways in which lay circles produce new connections between various papers and texts dealing with epigenetics, no matter how different their fields of expertise may be. While the spread of these articles of vulgarization, starting from 2008, does not prove that they directly contributed in fuelling new hopes and specific demands for activists, they certainly accompanied this trend.”
And PP, your “incredible correlation between IQ and income” article was cited in this book, but it’s not on libgen so I can’t see the context.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mind_Matters_In_Children/oQuhEAAAQBAJ?hl=en
I’ll have to find the book
It doesnt matter what the book says. You would still disagree with it no matter how robust the study was. Because at heart you don’t like the idea of blacks being stupid. It makes you sad.
What is the avg IQ of Travis King, PP??
Philo is an autistic cuck. Elon bought Twitter because he’s a megalomaniac and he bit off more than he can chew.
He believes in free speech unlike you.
Guys, Melo just called RR a ‘great mind’.
LOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I think we should keep Melo around for comedic relief but ban RR.
Act like an other’s nonsense lawyer and other’s bullshit translator = super cringe.
If Phill starts to overpraise black people, i bet Melo will change radically his opinions about him…
Remember one thing: sophistry is not intelligence, it only appears…
If someone make the following statements:
Objectivity doesnt exist or is not possible
Objective truth doesnt exist or is not possible
Truth is only subjective
Morality is only relative
This person, to be minimally coerent and then intelectually honest, should just stop to defend any of her point of views and leave any debate or agree with everyone. If not, this person, anyway, is acting in very dumb manner, no matter how aware she is about her own contradictions. Or she leave the debate or agree with everyone or other people just stop to waste their time with herr.
Are you going to admit you were wrong about Vygotsky yet or what?
PP, can you write an article about the meme of black people being unable to replace smoke detector batteries? It’s probably the most important anthropological discovery of the century after Oprah’s head size.
I;m going to be brutally honest and say that I would be surprised if blacks were sophisticated enough to use smoke alarms. I bet if you surveyed the ghetto you’d get maybe 5% take up of smoke alarms.
I dunno how 2 do that and im more intelligent than you
Anyone see Suella Braverman’s speech. I agree with every single word. At the same time I will never vote for Tories.
Bizzarely, Braverman is married to a dane so I’m confused why he would support a border for the UK. Thats weird. As we all know the only border that is allowed in the world is Israel’s.
Mother Israel. Master of the Middle East (via US millitary/CIA).
So I looked up the most hours I’ve put into a game.:
Elden Ring – 172 hours
Assassins Creed Valhalla – 243
Elder Scrolls Skyrim 107 hours
Fallout 4 – 127 hours (and counting)
Football Manager 2018 – 150 odd hours
and the world champion:
Age of Empires 3 – 2500 hours (but mostly multiplayer)
In AOE 3, which I encourage everyone to try, you need at least 100 hours of practice to get to an even acceptable level for online play. I mean its outrageous how good these asian kids in Korea and China are at strategy games.
I’m watching chess games live between top players and there are some mini interviews, and Magnus Carslen and Anish Giri got asked about their IQs.
Carslen (I think smartly) said he has nothing to gain by measuring his IQ. He likes that people see him as smart and wants things to stay like that.
Giri said he completed a random online test and he got a 139 IQ. Because that test suggested that you’re a genius if your IQ is higher than 140, he did more tests (same website? I dunno) to reach the “genius” level but he kept getting 130-139 scores. Fuck practice effects, I guess, lol.
rr is a trans egyptian princess. sad.
Lol
Miley Cirus Photo vibes…
So cringe
Nefertilt
Show your face coward.
It’s Mug of Pee
Nobody asked to see your ugly photoshoped face.
And we are not that malignant narcisistic as u woke zombie.
“Photoshoped face” hahaha
yes! the best chess players ever are all goys or in the case of kasparov half armenian.
buffett CRUSHES all the jews who tried to be like mike.
yknow im enough Armenian 2 be good at chess
Reading an article in the Economist about how the danes set up all the major publishing houses in the west. Obviously the Economist (which is owned by the Rothschild family) is not going to say that this had a massive effect on the morality of whites and our knowledge. Anything resembling race science was banned in books.
It was only until the internet that people could finally rediscover race science without danes prodding and yelling at them.
Its really interesting to wonder why danes basically set up the entire western media system – movies, books, tv, newspapers, blogs…even comic books. What is going on here? Is this something that was planned as mentioned in the Protocols or is it just Mugabes theory that jews just happen to love the media.
I think 99% of gentiles don’t know that every Hollywood studio, major book publisher, and most tv networks were founded by jews. Incredible.
Many of the financial firms too, but notably (a) not retail banks (b) not insurance of any sort.
You see jews invent most of the financial instruments, the techniques, and the business models though. I would say at least 50% of ‘high finance’ i.e. hedge funds/PE is jewish.
Well Chris Langan is wrong Teffec. Jews really are smarter than gentiles and its not the environment and their ‘education’. Its 100% genetic.
and you are 100% NOT irish!
[redacted by pp, 2023-09-29]
suprise! surprise!
WHY HASN’T PILL BEEN BANNED PEEPEE?
Basically Soros is the best hedge fund manager of all time. And Schwarzmann or Kravis/Roberts (both jews) are the best PE investors.
“Knowledge is contextual”
Translating Dumblish
The tribe of Orurus believes a rain is a tears of god Lhulhuxi.
Kevin, the whiteevilsociallyconstruct, believes rain is just an atmospheric phenomenon, based on what posivistic evilscientists have had studied, observed, analysed and concluded.
But who is more OBJECTIVELY CORRECT??
Joe Mezziogiorni, PHD on constructivist bullshitism, claim that, (((based on wokescience))) and Jewcy and Blacklist, both are right because, after all, Knowledge is contextual…
The tribe’s belief on the how and why it rains is irrelevant to the fact that rain is an atmospheric phenomenon.
Are you going to admit you were wrong about Vygotsky yet?
NO TAP ON THE SHOULDER….
”The tribe’s belief on the how and why it rains is irrelevant to the fact that rain is an atmospheric phenomenon.”
=
Knowledge is not [absolutely] contextual…
never forget!
the chicoms (genetically superior) wanna clone mugabe.
chicom: because IQ.
uber chicom: no. too independent. just trouble in the ant colony we want to make.
exactly!
ramaswamy…
obviously has the highest IQ of the retards…
but he made his money in a very FISHY way.
he makes the YUGE point that MLK was a LIAR!
skin color is 100% IRRELEVANT!
Another Indian ripped Ramawamy to shreds to the point where he has no credibility left:
WHAT A JOKE!
MAHDI IS NOT AN INDIAN.
HE’S A WANNABE JEW.
AKA A FAKE MUSLIM.
HE’S A SOCIOPATH.
MUSLIM INDIAN = FAKE INDIAN
MAHDI = FAKE MUSLIM
SO [redacted by pp, 2023-10-01] IT’S SAD.
Mug i know you know being very knowledgeable in all aspects or facets of esoteric thought processes that the Mahdi is actually the one who will help the Jesus who in Islam was never crucified but instead brought 2 Jannah aka Heaven by bringing about the end of Dajjal the Antichrist and will bring a reign of peace and prosperity 2 the true believers!
islam is for indians what christianity is for europeans, an alien semitic religion.
(((Many))) Jews: If you are successful, it is because you exploited other people or were lucky and should give that wealth back.
*Jews don’t give back money and the diaspora gains more and more power*
Jews: There is an exception to the exploitation explanation of wealth and success, which is that if you claim you are for the little people and critique the surrounding majority culture, you must be a good person who made money through hard work and intelligence and so you are being rewarded by G*d.
Wow, they must be good guys then! They are successful but they resent the idea of success even though they keep trying to be successful by apparently any means necessary (such as pornography, garbage media, manipulative journalism, Marxism, and other timeless classic wordcel “Jewish accomplishments”!)
in his The Pillars of Hercules theorux quotes an israeli explaining why isrealis are UN-impressive. btw theroux is part amerindian. about as much as deal with herpes.
jews score higher on tests. fact!
but…
1. if you knew ANYTHING about jewish culture you expect the to score higher…how much is still a question.
2. if you knew ANYTHING about the history of IQ tests in the US you would know that it was only in the 60s that jews started to score higher than WASPs.
CONCLUSION: ANYONE who says jews are smarter and it’s 100% genetic needs to be banned [redacted by pp, 2023-09-29]
even more…if you have actually met high IQ jews…you notice they are NOT smart in the way high IQ goyim are smart.
they are ENERGETIC and their intelligence is STUDIED*.
whereas gentiles with very high IQs can appear to be totally ordinary in many ways…PHLEGMATIC!
PHLEGM** is a virtue.
no jew has it.
ESPECIALLY the high IQ jews.
*3
: produced or marked by conscious design or premeditation : calculated
**noun Sluggishness of temperament.
noun Calm self-possession; equanimity.
ALL of the most IMPRESSIVE people i’ve met…were goys.
regarding PE: forstmann said what KKR did was something he had no motivation to do.
PE is a recent (1980s), but obvious, (investment) industry.
goys grok it…but they don’t have the CHUTZPAH to take it to the absurd limit blackstone has.
it’s CHUTZPAH…
it’s NOT IQ.
jews like pill don’t know the difference.
forstmann died at 71 from brain cancer iirc. he’d never married and he had no chirren. but he had adopted two ZA chirren.
near the end of his life he said…
i want my life to have been more than raising money for pension funds.
a jew would never say such a thing.
he was a billionaire who regarded himself as a FAILURE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_J._Forstmann
jews are smarter than you — fake irishman
have they always been smarter?
or is it just the ashkenazim over the last 1,000 years?
and where did the ashkenazim get their smart genes?
nowhere? they were there/theirs always? just a matter of change in frequency?
and why have the ashkenazim been selected for IQ?
right…could be…
or maybe they got them from northern italy!
cunt!
but yes!
obviously!
ashkenazic jewish culture was EUGENIC…
in the sense that (supposedly) young men were rewarded with the rich jew’s daughter for his IQ…
and by “his IQ” i mean his performance in the yeshiva.
BUT!
1. just 1,000 years of this EUGENIC practice may not result in much GENETICALLY speaking.
AND!
2. it may result in what we who know jews know … a selection for intellectual energy and loquacity and other things … but NOT a selection for general intelligence.
Just so you know Mugabe, even though the Talmud refers to Gentiles as sub-human, we should not link that with the “Chosen People”-esque treatment of non-Jews in Israel and the diaspora. That would be anti-semitic.
i can prove its a simulation just by examining shadows! shadows are the glitch in the Matrix i believe! im not sure if its the only one but possibly one of the major ones!
Context implies specificity but Science is all about going beyond specific circumstances to extract an objective, impartial or universal truth. That’s why knowing that rain is an atmospheric phenomenon is not contextual, because rain and its variations are the same in any place at least on this planet.
As a result, saying “Knowledge is (only) contextual” is not true.
We can agree that Knowledge is only possible to be found under contextual or specific circumstances but it’s doesnt tell about its own nature, the opposite of being contextual.
Even thought there are different types of legitimate knowledge which is not absolutely universal because it is arbitrarily defined, as for example, any human-made fiction by pragmatic reasons, like any geographical and political demarcation: Berlin, Lagos, Lesotho…
If knowledge is not contextual, then science, seeking objective, impartial, or universal truth does not transcend specific circumstances. Science weeks objective, impartial, or universal truth. So knowledge is contextual.
So were you right or wrong about Vygotsky? Why won’t you answer?
“If knowledge is not contextual, then science, seeking objective, impartial, or universal truth does not transcend specific circumstances. Science weeks objective, impartial, or universal truth. So knowledge is contextual.”
This is like saying “if there is no context for some knowledge, then it has no meaning or utility or doesn’t even exist because there is no context to place it in”. In this case contextuality is used differently as I mentioned before.
You are referring to the actualized knowledge in some context, whereas Santo is referring to the content of that knowledge and whether we can make claims that the content of our actualized knowledge is absolutely true.
Whether we can state that something we know is absolutely true is important when we are discussing about whether we can objectively test knowledge (as in an IQ test). The fact that act of knowing something must exist in some context does not seem to be especially important.
Yea I acknowledge the distinction you made. One recognizes the context-dependent nature of the content of knowledge while the other relates it to the act of knowing within a context.
The argument’s focus pertains to discussions about the objectivity and universality of knowledge. So while the act of knowing does occur within some context, the key question, then, is whether the content of what is known is universally objective or if it depends on context. So yea, I do recognize the distinction you made and thanks for making it. The nature of knowledge itself and the act of knowing are distinct but interrelated concepts.
Though I think it’s important to go back to my original argument, which is about whether the content of knowledge is inherently contextual. Does the meaning of what we know depend on specific circumstances? As an example, scientific knowledge can change significantly with paradigm shifts. The earth was believed to be the center of the universe before Copernicus, and after he proposed his heliocentric model, the interpretation of celestial bodies completely changed.
Jewgotsky believed human behavior and cognitive development were entirely a product of sociocultural environment = just wrong.
Knowledge’s NATURE is conditionally non-contextual. Knowledge PRODUCTION is based or started under specific circumstances or contexts.
Knowledge itself, what it is = rain is an atmospheric phenomenon, can’t be only contextual. Knowledge is an universal or objective truth, if a technique which was invented and can be replied by anyone who learn it properly or something from natural or human/fictional world which was discovered through correct perception and cultural transmission.
So knowledge is only contextual by the way it is primarily produced not by what it is, a transcendence from parochiality.
Under certain contexts, ancient humans from different geographical groups, observed, perceived and described, using their available understanding, the same atmospheric phenomenon and its variations.
So you’re going to double down and not admit you were wrong and that you don’t understand his theory? Again, you should read more and write less, because your ignorance is very apparent.
Fallaciously sad
What’s sad is that you can’t admit you’re wrong even when I showed you a direct quote from Vygotsky on how he doesn’t discount biology, but that biology loses its primary role post-natally. (I disagree with that framing, of course but it’s just to show you that you’re wrong about his theory.)
Words, Just words.
Anyone who think biology is not more determining on human behavior and development than environment is just wrong.
Nobody is limitless and our limitations/potentialities are determined by our biological systems. But to believe in human limitlessness is conditional to think environment is more influencing than biology.
This determinism doesnt mean we are not influenced by environmental factors at all, only that this influence is limited by our biological limitations.
“Anyone who think biology is not more determining on human behavior and development than environment is just wrong.”
What do you think Wertsch meant and what do you think Vygotsky meant? What’s the argument and do you have any references? (I know you have neither.)
Biology ISN’T deterministic. I mean, I disagree with his framing, but he was writing 100 years ago and grew up in a different time under different conditions, so I understand where he’s coming from.
“This determinism doesnt mean we are not influenced by environmental factors at all, only that this influence is limited by our biological limitations.”
The same BS claim as “genes load the gun and environment pills the trigger.” Straight nonsense. Learn about biological relativity. Actually read Vygotsky and Vygotsky scholars and you’ll see you’re wrong. I know you won’t do that though.
Get a live Loser…
This mentally retarded is so but so dumb, only PP and her sociopathy to keep him here to shit her own blog. But we know why…
Again and lastly, if biology is not deterministic, humans could fly and rretards could think.
Even when appears environment is having more impact it’s only possible because the biology of affected organisms.
You are retarded as a religious fundamentalist, exactly like one.
Back to “not wasting one minute” with this pseudo.
RR, please allow Santo’s above comments to be the last word.
Why dont you just ban that freak? He is trolling everyone.
there should be no political talk on here as society will probably experience nuclear war b4 the next election! how sweet!
Mugabe you are deluded. [redacted by pp, 2023-09-30] We can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend they aren’t smart.
If I wanted to measure my IQ with an MRI scan, how would I go about doing that? Does anybody know the size, width, dimensions, and standard deviations?
I’m tired of all this .8 correlation, testing effect, regression to the mean, lucky fluke, skewed cognitive profile nonsense. Just scan my brain and pull g from that.
Puppy as an IQ scholar what is the estimated IQ of the average jew and is this because of biology?
And James Joyce would love my comments.
I read Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Interesting book. It is almost more about philosophy than an autobiography.
PP stop playing games with me you said i was allowed five a day this is ridiculous why are you censoring me!
Not my fault you can’t think of 5 intelligent things a day to say. I’m not going to post any crap you have to say.
i am posting five things a day that are intelligent its just that sometimes your prejudices blind you.
i am sorry if i offended you. that was not my intentions.
again i am sorry. please dont treat me badly 4 it.
i take back what i said. you are a good guy.
i am sorry if some of my comments are below your standard i will try posting better comments. is that okay?
Apology accepted but that’s your limit for today. Hopefully you’ll be feeling better tomorrow.
So I’m 137 hours into Fallout 4 and nearly there. My main settlement has a fusion reactor and a bunch of shops. Its very ugly though. I saw on youtube some guy spent 24 hours making a castle in Fallout haha wow thats dedication!
peepee is a low IQ [N word redacted by pp, 2023-10-01] lesbian. FACT!
she hates black men.
she says black people are inferior.
she says chinapipo are superior.
yet she won’t approve the word [N word redacted by pp, 2023-10-01].
WHY?
BECAUSE LOW IQ [N word redacted by pp, 2023-10-01].
SAD.