I thought y’all could use a break from all these cognitive tests and might like to take a personality test which can be found right here. Please take it before reading the comments or researching personality tests because that might influence your scores which I would love for you to post in the comment section given all the interesting characters we have here. The great thing about this test is not only does it give you scores on six broad personality traits (written on the score report in capital letters) but also 25 subscales.
The broad personality traits are probably more reliable since they’re an aggregate of four subscales each but the subscales are interesting too.
Both the broad traits and the subscales are scored on a scale where Canadian university students (an equal number of men and women) have a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 1. Since university has become so common, I assume the sample is somewhat representative of young Canadian adults on the whole.
| Personality scaled score | Z score | Percentile (≈) |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 | -3.00 | 0.1 |
| 2.5 | -2.50 | 0.6 |
| 3.0 | -2.00 | 2.3 |
| 3.5 | -1.50 | 6.7 |
| 4.0 | -1.00 | 15.9 |
| 4.5 | -0.50 | 30.9 |
| 5.0 | 0.00 | 50.0 |
| 5.5 | 0.50 | 69.1 |
| 6.0 | 1.00 | 84.1 |
| 6.5 | 1.50 | 93.3 |
| 7.0 | 2.00 | 97.7 |
| 7.5 | 2.50 | 99.4 |
| 8.0 | 3.00 | 99.9 |
Pumpkin Person 
Well its true. Altruism is low. My idea of helping refugees is [redacted by pp, 2025-11-22]
As usual the top fairness score in the comment section. Only i am moral. I am the only philosopher.
“Only i am moral.”
only you can prevent forest fires
pill takes that literally,
kills anyone trying to prevent forest fires but himself
only you pill, only you
“My lack of (specific, monetary) altruism is more because I was raised in a lower-middle class family with health issues, substance addictions, went to a low IQ (majority non-White or Asian) school and was raised in a rural, low IQ town around me and only recently have I been in a situation where I could actually afford to give anything to people.”
Same tbh. But yet my altruism is enormous. Different people react differently to the same environment
“But the ironic thing is that the brown guy calling himself “melanated””
When did I call myself that?
“and comments with a picture of a black guy beating a White guy”
LMAO it’s a picture of Kendrick whipping Drake.
“the people who have been mischaracterized as the purveyors of the slave trade, majority slave holders, and were in fact the people to free black slaves from slavery until Jews and “Democrats” put them back into it, and are now helping let them destroy Western civilization”
You are [insult redacted by PP, 25-11-21]. You cannot back up a single thing you said with any kind of facts.
“is calling me racist, because I don’t waste more of my time “listening to the other side and considering their arguments””
No. I call you racist because [insult redacted by pp, 25-11-21]. You’ve literally said racist things.
melo said he has the right to hurt others, anyone he wants, because he is superior.
to me this does not make him altruistic at all
The test pp posted is self administered and probably not even construct valid (doesn’t measure what it purports to measure)
as i keep saying to pill, subjectivity is not a basis for scientific understanding (in a.i. terms its called expandability)
you need standards that work objectively which probably require millions of contextual data points on each person not just 100 ambiguous questions without context. This is why most people call “a.i.” biased against minorities because the low resolution of data prevents accurate predictions.
Accurate models require more data and better architectures.
Models would explain why the data leads to the conclusions they make.
Those exist, not in the public domain.
Do you ever wonder how much data mega corporations have on us?
If they can predict when to put milk on the shelf,
they can predict much more.
All you need is a profile
and some computer power,
linking everyone together.
I have not played videogames in a long time but the PlayStation 5 came out in 2020 and it can do alot more than PlayStation 4 (10 trillion calculations a second for PS5) I say the demo for PS4 in 2012
These computers are running 24/7 and the computer power doubles every 6 months.
I bet you can now realistically see movie quality stuff in the glasses.
(optimus prime could transform right in front of you as a real robot)
All you need is the math, many people know the math right now.
I still don’t have a PS5. I have a PS4 I bought ten years ago. Don’t see a need to buy the 5 yet, 4 is still fine. I will get it eventually.
To rr:
Braincells have shapes, they grow via the expression of genes to have their shapes and metabolisms.
When these braincell shapes connect together they can transmit signals weakly or strongly and this make memory operate as it does.
This is called criticality where the signal resets itself so propagation of the signal is not strong enough to cause seizers and not weak enough that the brain does not function at all.
A brain can be over wired or underwired in different brain areas all by the expression of genes. Making them work together differently.
The more the brain area stays within criticality the more it can process.
(Inflammation reduces criticality among other things)
A braincell grows faster slower and in different directions by gene expression.
Thus brain areas requires more or less stimulation to create density of connections that keep criticality going by the growth of brain cells.
Because braincells function better or worse by the connections they have to other brain cells the maintaining of criticality to perform different brain functions with have a threshold by which the wiring of these connections maintains it.
The rate of connections responsiveness to signals then is why the growth of the density of brain areas can be more or less.
Criticality then in a denser cortex will process more than criticality is a less dense cortex given the operating growth factor of braincell responsiveness to signals.
This explains why Intelligence can be more or less.
Why working memory can be higher or lower.
Why people see more or hear more than others and have higher executive functioning to deal with more information in the environment than others to solve problems.
If this was not true then everyone would have the same intelligence.
Einstein would not be smarter than everyone else at age 25
5 year old’s would have the intelligence of 40 year old’s because their brains would be exactly the same in signals processing.
All people would go to Harvard and take the hardest math classes at age 12 but in reality only a few 12 year old’s can do that.
Unless you believe intelligence does not exist then you need to explain why the geniuses exist. Its not training, it has to do with signals processing in the brain that makes people different from each other.
(melo still thinks I don’t understand anything)
I clicked on one of your advertisement links of your blog pp
BlossomUp IQ test
Gave me a certificate of 132 IQ
I don’t know if that is accurate.
They say online tests are bad at measuring IQ but this site seems high quality and well funded. Its been many years since the internet has been around so good online tests should exist by now.
Since it was advertised on your blog pp could you give me some input on it?
also, the online Stanford Binet test costs $69 well BlossomUp was just $2 – Its certified by Harvard and Sandford University.
I don’t have any control over what wordpress advertises on my blog
But is BlossomUp a good IQ test?
Maybe you can take the test yourself.
They do sign you up for a subscription though which I had to cancel.
Stanford Binet IQ test website says Elon Musk is 165 but since the Binet test is SD 16 that is actually 161 – still it also says Einstein is 190 (184 SD 15) so its making me question these tests validity.
PP says Elon Musk is 140 but Harvard and Stanford say 165?
Well if I am just 114 and PP is 135, 140 makes sense.
But If I am actually 132 and pp is 142 that means something else.
I’d still go by the SES of musk where he is 150 (half a trillion dollars)
IQ is so variable that we really don’t know.
Different tests put people in different locations relative to the sample population. And doesn’t account for context of people lives.
I bet Elon Musk has doctors that help him increase his IQ with smart drugs. Me, I am on depression meds that make me slow.
Stanford Binet IQ test website says Elon Musk is 165
Sounds made-up. I never heard of him taking the Binet.
But its from Harvard and Stanford university?
They are reputable organizations. Why would the bullshit people then?
Did they just get the math wrong?
Even if they did not give him the test they made the test. Why would they make sh*t up about people when they are the group who standardized the Sandford Binet?
Just look at the website:
https://www.stanford-binet.org/
They say he is 165 but I don’t know why?
No it’s not from Harvard and Stanford. They just put the Stanford log on their website because the test they’re ripping off was developed at Stanford 90 years ago. They’re just a bunch of grifters lol. They said Einstein has an IQ of 190. Zero evidence he ever took a test. They said Tarantino scored 160. Howard Stern gave him an IQ test on air and he got every question wrong and then he said the 160 was probably a rumor his mom started lol.
Would that not mean Stanford and Harvard could sue them? Along with the makers of the SB5 test.
That was 22 years ago
No one has made a 6th addition?
I do not mean to be annoying, whatever pops up on the first google page is not always legitimate but I would assume something like this would not be so easily scammed. Its why I ask if online IQ tests are any good?
By the way, you don’t need a test to have an intelligence level i.e. an IQ – no test is ever accurate but that doesn’t mean people at 180 don’t exist it just means no test can tell us who those people are.
Im glad its finally been proven im the most moral person here. I was actually starting to wonder if I was crazy for seeing things so clear. So black and white.
And now I see, the problem is other people can’t see.
Do you have mugabe’s email? Maybe I can convince him to bail out the blog.
Once when I banned him he started harassing me by email but it was likely a burner email he created only for that purpose.
Ok can you email me that account.
just found his email and the second you send me your WAIS scores, I’ll press send.
Kripke’s reading of Wittgenstein shows how hereditarianism is false.
No fact about an individual -neither mental content nor physical structure – uniquely determines the rule they are following. So rule following isn’t fixed by internal states. So rule following is socially – not genetically – constituted. Normative abilities cannot be genetically distributed. So hereditarianism is false.
(1) H -> G -> P
Hereditarianism -> genes/g -> normative intelligence
(2) P -> R
Normative intelligence -> correct rule-following.
(3) R -> ~G
Rule following cannot be fixed by internal physical/mental states.
So ~(G -> P)
So ~H.
Cognitive ability is normative and what is normative is communal.
You’ll persuade more people if you comment in plain English instead of philosophy jargon
First para is English. The rest is logic jargon.
Intelligence is the ability to get it right. Getting it right is a social status conferred by participation in communal practices. No amount of genetic or neural causation can confer that status – because no internal state can fix the normative fact. So “genetically constituted general intelligence” is incoherent. So hereditarianism is logically impossible. QED.
Getting it right is a social status conferred by participation in communal practices.
Rightness exists independently of community. If you grew up alone on an island, you’d still learn some behaviors were right because they solved the problems of getting food, shelter and water. But your verbal and social IQ would be permanently and incurably retarded I agree.
No amount of genetic or neural causation can confer that status – because no internal state can fix the normative fact. So “genetically constituted general intelligence” is incoherent.
That’s just a fancy way of saying genes are neccessary but not sufficient which no prominent HBDer has ever denied. Attacking strawmen wont persuade people.
Its jargon all right. But not logical.
IQ tests and the concept of “general intelligence” in hereditarian theory are built almost entirely out of rule-following in abstract, symbol-mediated, language-heavy, school-derived tasks. These tasks are strongly normative in the Wittgensteinian sense (a child on an island can’t acquire the practice of addition or any other symbolic rule system because there is no one to initiate them into the system—they will never grasp the normative distinction between “correct” and “incorrect” addition because that is constituted by communal training and correction). Thus, the very abilities that load highest on so-called g and that hereditarians treat as the core of “general intelligence” are impossible without social initiation.
The type of survival intelligence on the island is real but not the same kind as the normative, symbolic, rule-governed items used on IQ tests. Thus, what hereditarians talk about when referring to IQ tests is logically dependent on communal practices, and therefore it cannot be reduced to or even meaningfully rank-ordered by one’s genetic endowment.
GWAS gene-searchers (and by proxy the hereditarians that use such studies) clearly implicitly treat genes as sufficient causes.
GWAS gene-searchers (and by proxy the hereditarians that use such studies) clearly implicitly treat genes as sufficient causes.
How so? High heritability means something like if you have 100 embryos with high IQ genes and 100 embryos with low IQ genes, and you implant each one randomly in 200 women all in the same randomly chosen country, the ones with high IQ genes will be much smarter on average. How much smarter is a function of how heritable IQ is in that particular country, but the fact that in no country would the low IQ gene embryos be smarter ON AVERAGE (we assume) would prove that the genes are causal by any scientifically falsifiable definition.
Now if you put them all in a society that was so sparsely populated that they were essentially growing up alone…hmmm good question… they’d all end up mentally retarded on even culture reduced tests like the Raven, but if creative psychologists found a way to measure cognitive abilities in even this population (tests used on toddlers and apes perhaps) they would perhaps find that the genetically enriched ones scored higher, because g is not necessarily symbolic or abstract, that’s just what it loads most on in our society. Of course such a study would be unethical so hard to know.
Yea that assumes that genes are causal for psychological kinds and that GWASs can locate such genes.
“How much smarter is a function of how heritable IQ is in that particular country, but the fact that in no country would the low IQ gene embryos be smarter ON AVERAGE (we assume) would prove that the genes are causal by any scientifically falsifiable definition.”
I don’t see how that inference can be drawn, since there’s a difference between the first-personal and the third-personal. And there are quite a few questionable assumptions smuggled in there as well.
“because g is not necessarily symbolic or abstract, that’s just what it loads most on in our society. Of course such a study would be unethical so hard to know.”
Right, the way to “measure” g is through such symbolic, abstract, school-derived items. But, even then (on the most “culture-reduced tests”), those, too, have rules to follow and are derived from certain social strata.
I’m surprised it took me so long to put Kripke’s Wittgenstein to the hereditarian programme, since it’s such a strong argument to show how hereditarianism isn’t logically tenable.
right and wrong as social constructs only involve ethical considerations.
With intelligence that’s different because its more about the ability to achieve a goal or not.
We live in a technological society so if you can use and understand technology they you can get what you want.
Medical doctors can memorize tons of things about the body and this helps them cure people that non memorizers could not do.
People at NASA need math to get people safely back to earth so the need spatial intelligence to understand spaceship technology that normal people cannot understand. Going to space requires intelligence. If you do not have intelligence you don’t have space travel.
The expression of genes play a role in the brains ability to achieve goals – its why 10,000 years ago people we bigger stronger and hunted woolly mammoths with better brains. Intelligence is a matter of survival in most cases. Only those that breed or help there families survived harsh conditions of the environment. Living in Space will be even harder than on earth.
Kripke’s reading of Wittgenstein shows how hereditarianism is false.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’m starting to think RR is a really really high IQ neocon’s satire account.
Thats not philosophy puppy. Its actually not even logical in any way.
Care to explain how it’s not logical? Does the conclusion not follow? Is any premise false?
Seevre Epistemology error.
How so?
Its not about semantics. Its about using the scientific method or not.
It’s an a priori argument.
No you used a bs assertion to knock down. You a priori’d yourself.
Heredity is proven/unproven with Popper’s method not word games.
Intelligence has nothing to do with normativity thus nothing to do with “hereditarianism”.
a priori then is being used falsely
You cannot deny super geniuses exist that can do things normal people cannot intellectually. That means intelligence exist objectively.
You cannot just say a priori this and a priori that and claim to be reasoning correctly, its all bullshit what you said about intelligence not being objective.
Intelligence is objective because you either can understand and get stuff done with your intellect or you cannot.
You cannot operate a microwave without some intelligence.
You either can or cannot do a math problem by yourself.
Math is objective so people can do math without need of anyone’s help because some people are better at understanding how to get the answers which are objective answers. So some people are objectively going to get better faster because we see people doing that. The only reason you would call a math problem right or wrong is because its objective not because its evil or good.
Normative means its right because people say its right but that is like saying gravity is right because people say so not because it actually exists. No, math is correct the way gravity is correct and we can see some people be better at it than others if they try.
What rr is saying is that intelligence is subjective but no, its objective like gravity. This leads into why Marxists always fall prey to subjectivisms and relativism and “no right or wrong answers”. 1 + 1 = 2 God damn it so intelligence does exist.
rr will say a priori 1 + 1 does not equal 2
That’s the only way he can deny intelligence is objective.
People can be more intelligent on other things besides math but what rr is doing is eliminating all objectivity from intelligence. Like he will soon say gravity is normative a priori thus not real or objective.
If intelligence was only subjective then people would not be able to solve objective problems in reality because they’re be not link from the intellect to reality to understand physics and how to get things done.
Because some people understand physical reality better than others it is because they have a means to do so. that means is called the brain thus dualism is false. We cannot separate understanding of reality from the brains better or worse functioning because if we did we’d need to explain what was making us understand if not the brain and the only answer is pixie dust i.e. nonphysical stuff telling the brain how to understand reality. Pixie dust they would need to be understood why some of us understand better reality than others. What makes some pixie dust better than others for understanding reality?
(que melo trolling I don’t understand rr)
It is very simple why the brain understands reality.
It creates a model of it and runs simulations.
You don’t need quantum woo for that
even if the math is the same we use in QM
you just need networks and there connections
which requires understanding biology of functioning
the criticality I talked about in in braincell fractal trees
the dynamics of gene expression and signals responsiveness
Intelligence by simulation of possible reality makes you better at manipulating reality.
thus people are more or less intelligent
(reality can have differences in different places)
Man I haven’t laughed at a comment on the internet like that in a year.
I think greed scores are a very interesting one. It basically predicts whether other people can control you. Your boss, your partner/family, and you can be bribed to shutup and play along.
THe buddhists are 100% that (pronounced) materialism is the gateway to slavery.
10000% correct ancient wisdom.
Of course, as the only philosopher here, only I can see that.
No other person in the comment section due to neurological problems, IQ problems, or being employees of foreign intelligence agencies can see that.
I 100% guarantee neither Melo or RR are foreign agents. Although your premorbid IQ is 130, you’re now making silly mistakes like thinking Marsha is real, every Hollywood casting is a neocon conspiracy, and that RR and Melo are Mossad.
IQ test the other commenters with these questions.
‘Marsha’ is real. True.
lol. This gives new meaning to the saying “characters take on a life of their own”
Well you can read the above. You said RR’s reasoning is 140IQ level.
Your so called ‘account’ said 80IQ.
It turns out your account has a much lower opinion of a co religionist than you!
I said he’s very high on at least ONE subtest: Information (aka general knowledge). There’s a lot more to IQ than being good at Trivial Pursuit.
An open book test that he used google for. Even a 5 year old could do that
Well maybe you can both take a second information test on zoom where you can’t cheat
I already did one where I didn’t cheat dumbass. It should be asking RR who the [redacted by pp, Nov 22, 2025] was. Not the other way around.
Well RR says he didn’t cheat also. We should take you at your word but not him?
Look at my honesty score bro
I wonder what would happen if RR met an actual philosopher from pre-neocon days.
Like Neitszhe or Heiddegger or Sartre.
I think they might ask him politely to move to Israel. Heiddegger 100000% would say that. Probably Neitszhe as well.
Sartre I dont know.
I see Chomsky and EPstein are really really great pals.
In an interview with MSNC 2 years ago Mehid Hassan asked Chomsky what the reason for the Iraq War was. And 170 IQ Chomsky said ‘oil’.
Hmmmm.
What a second.
If youre vacationing, taking money from and spending lots of time wiht Mossad’s number 1 agent….and youre also jewish….wouldn’t he have told you why the Iraq war happened? Chomseky never asked???
Haha.
H 3.92 ( extremes : greed avoidance 3.44 / fairness 5.69) Em 4.73 (sentimentality 4/dependance 5.61) Ex 4.16 (liveliness 3.66/ social boldness 5.84) A 4.6 (forgiveness 4.07/patience 5.08) C 5.35 ( diligence 4.25/ prudence 7.1) O 6.61 (creativity 5.81/inquisitiveness 6.53) (altruism 4.49) Now I hope y’all trust me a lil bit more 🙂
Thank you Chris for your support on these Epstein files. Once [redacted by pp, 25-11-12] cancelled chris I knew mainstream media was over.
Its opbvious the jews have identified celtic genes as a ‘problem’ demographic and are wiping them off our tv screens.
Obv St Mel Gibson was the first.
But banning Chris was just way over the top. Megyn Kelly. Stephen Colbert.
I’m actually starting to think the last guy left – hannity. Is going soon.
In fact I predict Hannity will be replaced by a black person within 1 year
Who cares? Blacks only started surviving on TV talk shows once television lost all its power to social media. Oprah was virtually the ONLY black to survive on TV talk shows back when American TV was the most powerful force on the planet, and she didn’t just survive, she TOTALLY DOMINATED FOR DECADES and mostly before the telecommunication act when she had tons of competition from both Celtics AND Jews and she slaughtered them all, day after day, week after week, year after year: The Michael Jordan of broadcasting
And nobody’s kissed more Israel ass than Hannity with Megyn Kelly not being far behind until recently.
Dominated women’s television. And gay men’s tv.
Never met, saw or heard of straight men, even straight black men, that watched oprah. Never.
Millions of straight black men worship Oprah. I remember the Chicago Bulls were like “even though we’re taller, we look up to you”. Black men even write songs deifying Oprah. Her target audience was white women but at her peak she was so huge icon she had fans in every demographic. Even Trump worshipped her:
Oprah’s audience is 99% women. How can ‘millions of black men’ ‘worship’ her if they didnt watch her.
More like 75% women. And back in her trashier days in the 1980s, early 90s, the show was much less female-centric.
You can see the audience in her shows. The only men there are gays or studio employees.
Well the ones in the audience were the fanatics. The ones who would call the ticket line 20 times a day for months to get a seat. But there were plenty of straight men, especially straight men of color, including a lot of conservatives who just admired Oprah as a minority entrepreneur of just a moral leader and dignified role model for blacks. A lot of liberal straight white men, especially teachers, professors, book store owners, publishers, admired Oprah for getting people to read. Chris Mathews admired her for bringing the races together. Bill O’reilly admired her for pulling herself up by her boot straps to become the most powerful woman on Earth and using her great wealth to help others.
Even George W. Bush said “she’s combatting a lot of the trash on TV with a show that’s so uplifting and positive. Very important woman for America!” He even invited her to lead a tour of girl’s schools in Afghanistan but she declined. Rudy Juliani admired her so much he had her lead a spiritual ceremony after 9/11. Trump wanted her to be his VP.
For decades she was the only super admired woman in America who wasn’t a former or current first lady.
Oprah will be a host on Fox News in my lifetime. Banging on about white supremacy.
Unban the comment about oprah on fox. Its a 10000% prediction. Totally stand by it. Take a photo and frame it.
You will start to see ‘democrat’ pols on fox more in general too. Especially neocons like schiff, slotkin, wasserman-schultz.
They might even bring back Joe Lieberman from the dead and have his corpse talk about white supremacy.
The fox dementia audience will love it.
Puppy will become a fox viewer.
pill,
if you are INTJ then you have Fi (Introverted Feeling Function)
you call it instinctual because /(“you get a bonner hating on black cock”)/
anything emotional you call it instinctual.
its why people drink, have sex and just do anything animalistic really.
Unfortunately you justify your beliefs by your emotions as always correct.
Me on the other hand many, many websites tests say I am INFJ
Fe (Extraverted Feeling) is the reduction of emotion from being non reactive to it. I work hard refining everything I think about to be aligned with the truth as possible. You just see everything as making you horny or not.
What sets me off is people that have bad intentions because I can recognize them. Like how you don’t care about logical explanations and are just lazy with what you beliefs.
pill: “I hate group A and B, my dick is so hard”.
That’s the only standard you go by.
some women do get off by violence but you don’t understand.
not everyone has Fi – haff have Fe, we are non reactive.
lies piss us off, hypocrisy, logical inconsistency, and “agendas”.
When things like that happen is the only time things get bad with me because people want to spread lies on purpose and don’t care and we look into that as something that must be delt with but people that don’t care use subversive methods to make us more angry, i.e. more lies and bulling. You cannot reason with those people: (pill, rr, melo) they just lie more and bully more.
You made the mistake think that’s autism or libertarianism because you have a false sense of identity that makes you believe your own crap.
Thinking is not always about knowing what’s true but about suspending judgment until we know for sure. You pill believe everything you think is true by default, thus don’t recognize what you don’t know and are wrong most of the time when claiming you are not. Your delusions are your biggest weakness as you lack the meta cognition to think outside of your hard dick logic.
put simply money doesn’t turn most high IQ people on so the high IQ people don’t chase it. Some do some don’t.
When a person is like you pill or rr or melo being unreasonable turns you on.
Its why I hate those behaviors so much I act as i do.
Because all of you would bully a three year old in real life given the chance. You all are sick.
Fortunately I am not a bad person so you don’t see me doing what (self redacted) did. He genuinely hates people. I don’t. I just get angry but would never hurt anyone. (because of that you call me autistic)