thelion

A quick summary of the literature over lunch. IQ (and things like the SAT or GRE) are primarily based on working memory performance (as opposed to general memory). And working memory performance significantly varies whether it is tested under pressure. Such as a time limit. Although I am not a big fan of the nobel prize winning economist (he's paternalistic socialist) whose experiment this is, it's a nice demonstration of the issue. (For if you have no time limit, you can chunk random data and chunk the chunks and memorize arbitrarily long random sequences. See George Miller's famous review article, or his book with Pribram and Galanter.) The experiment Mentally, take a number, say eight digits, all different. Now, every four seconds, add one to one of the numbers, then after four more seconds, add one to the next order of magnitude down, and so on, until you get to the ones, then in the next four seconds return to the beginning of the sequence, the hundred millions, and keep going. Periodically you are quizzed as to what the number you have remembered is. When you make an error, the test ends. Notice how your ability to succesfully keep this up decreases if the adding is done every two seconds rather than four seconds. Or each second. Or each half second. This experiment however highly predicts IQ and SAT and GRE scores. Often, if you do poorly on this experiment, you will know in advance what your IQ or GRE score shall be without taking that particular test, the said experimenter found out. But is that really general intelligence, or is it solely working memory, which a very small part of what cognitive and social scientists comprehend as intelligence (below)? Working memory can be improved by exercise. Computers will always beat you at this however; it's ultimately pointless in a tool-using division of labor society, in our society. The excercise is a predictor of social conformity. The remaining minor deviation is due to vocabulary knowledge, most determined by daily social environment, since this too is tested. The natural genetic variation predicts natural ability to work under pressure, since the real key is the time limit on problems, not the mental challenge of the task itself. The brain is mostly an experience based model constructor, trying to predict the future state of its environment. It uses working memory to process afferent feed into the extrinsic nervous system; this is a small part of what determines adult general intelligence. But differences in experience, outside working memory, are "unfair" test material. I go to the library and read a book by accident, and my model updates based on what I learn. The kinds of inferences I can do are outside the scope of what another can do if they neither read the book also nor rediscover the material. So working memory, a very small subset of brain function, depending as it does primarily on how many hours you train it with pointless in themselves exercises, otherwise varying randomly in a bell curve for each species without further training, is "fair" to test. Because experience based gains are solely due to putting effort into generally boring and pointless tasks like mental arithmetic -- which have become magic tricks instead of something useful in an age of computers. (See Wolfram.) Computers do working memory better than humans. Humans have general memory, and can do what computers cannot do, but this is due to experience and experience varies nonrandomly. Whoever read more would win, having a more coherent model through which lens to interpret future experience and make predictions with less error. Garbage in garbage out is true, but "unfair". Testing working memory means really testing that part of intelligence which varies in bell curve and exceptions are what Darwin called costly signalling, a show of willingness to do useless work to signal sunk investment and good intent by such means -- conformity. This desired in lowlevel and midlevel workers by government and employers. (But not desirable in high level workers and researchers, but these are a minority of students.) IQ (and similar test like SAT and GRE, proxies) are used because they DO NOT measure not intelligence in general. Competent physicists or mathematicians who self selected through training will beat anybody on logical questions without a time limit. The standardized tests measure daily performance under pressure, which is what employers and governments are looking for. They are not measuring what the cognitive science community calls general intelligence, which is the ability to make true inferences and anticipate cause and effect truly in the natural environment. General intelligence doesn't even require effort, for people can learn by gaining experience they like to gain. So it's a bad proxy for work under pressure, since it's self selected. A nonhuman species cannot learn calculus but humans, who can, are not born knowing calculus. Yet the ability to make inferences is what human intelligence is about. Hebb considered that only a couple percent of human intelligence traits are genetic beyond the fact that they are what any trained person in the human species could do with proper conditioning. Another few percent are genetic disorders and result in retardation. The rest is experience. But again, most institutions don't need to test intelligence. They require prediction of goodwill and rule following plus ability to work under pressure ... and indeed this does predict performance at the undergraduate and graduate level plus entry level work performance.

The point was aimed rather at the pattern downvoters. They seem to be unaware that an effective rational discussion aimed at knowledge looks something like this : http://mathoverflow.net/ The thing to notice there is not the mathematics. In fact, ignore that. Notice rather that nobody downvotes answers or responds negatively in case of especially long verbose posts whose content include further arguments about definitions etc, simply following rules of logic one after the other, wherever that leads. There are only downvotes if and only if a definite error is found. This was my point, nothing more (and nothing less). All patterns besides that one are very soon noticed by people knowledgable about the topic professionally and they stay away. Many scientists are libertarians, but they won't bother to write substantive arguments if they find behavior contrary to the above. Consider if I go to a union rally, get on the podium, and argue that unions can't raise income without leading to unemployment -- because of the way partial derivatives work for any production function. This is literally the case, but for my effort I'll simply be pushed into a fight. So I won't bother to go to a union rally, to argue there. I don't want to get into fights. In any substantive debate, technical nitpicking, constructing precise definitions, bluntly following logical operations, it all needs to be encouraged, not discouraged with downvoting. ---- If you were not downvoting in the first place I think we agree on the values themselves and the point was not aimed at you: don't take offense. ---- As regards the charge of pedantry, from the perspective of plain speech, the majority of well constructed essays or speeches or technical pieces are utterly pedantic. Merely it is not easy to speak like that in real time, so it's rarely done. Since it's rarely done it's considered a faux pas. But there is nothing praiseworthy about this fact. Blunt and unambigious prose ... that's a good thing, in a purely content oriented communication, is it not?

Couldn't have said it better than Rothbard. He said all that can be said on the topic. Anarchistcommunists hate anarchistcapitalists more than they hate anything else, and argue on economic topics primarily via slanders and insults. I remember a typical piece of anarchocommunist or anarchosyndicalist nonsense on Boing-Boing. (Almost all the tech people who are not themselves highly educated engineers---the pop-tech people---are anarchosyndicalists. Which is a shame, but so are many other things.) It's the reason why Charles Stross or Cory Doctorow, for example, aren't and is unlikely to become, as good a writers as Vogt or Heinlein or Vance; to write science fiction you need more knowledge of economics than you do of physical science.

I suggest visualizing Herbert Spencer going :< and imagining yourself looking straight at his mutton chops while reading this comment. That is the spirit in which it is written. So in this thread I point out an interesting "folks reacting negatively to Howard Roark for behaving like Howard Roark" phenomenon going on. That is, in reactions to MMX's perfectly fine and valid arguments. I refer to the downvotes. Do you see what I'm talking about? One cannot be wrong for responding with a valid argument. Yet many people respond negatively to other individuals who naturalistically bring calm and composed reasoning to every situation, for the very act of doing so, despite this being most productive behavior (read: ultimately want satisfying behavior) they can bring to that situation. (This is why science is so productive in such a short time: it consists of endless anarchistic disputes at least half of which are done in this useful manner.) The endless negative responses to "cold logic", and resulting illogical disputes which led nowhere, unimpressive clutter one does not want to be associated with, was the reason the LvMI closed their forum. For example, MMX said that ostracizing people for making valid arguments, instead of reacting emotionally, is not a productive form of osctracism. It shouldn't be done. (That is true; such behavior leads away from knowledge of truth. But knowledge of truth is the only thing going for the human species compared to other living heat engines.) His comment got downvoted. All similar comments too. My comment as well. This I found noteworthy. It's behavior typical of the category of socialists or nonthinkers, but isn't this a libertarian philosophy forum? Who cares if a train of infererences is "mere logic" or "mere reasoning"---whatever that means by the way? And so what if that's what it is? (The response made famous by Edwin Cannan.) In an argument the sole criterion of good is truth, or at least proper inference. What problem can anybody have with somebody posting logical well constructed arguments? Yes, it's an emotional topic. So what? Bullshit baffles brains. And, again, our brains are the only thing going for us as a species. Reminds me of an anecdote. Saunders MacLane could never get any support for his positions or initiatives on the various committees he was in, despite being often in charge. He felt making the correct argument and being right should decide things in his favor, given the fact everyone on the committee selfidentify as scientists. But no, the more solid logically his position, the more negatively the majority of participants reacted to it, resulting in nothing getting done. Science typically involves prediction and retrodiction. My prediction: this comment too shall be downvoted. RECOMMENDED READING: Schopenhauer's Art of Controversy.

This is a really interesting thread, for another reason besides the discussion itself -- from the perspective of a social scientist, making observations of their fauna of interest so to speak. If I understand correctly, the little RED and GREEN boxes with numbers indicate upvotes / downvotes like on other forums. (By donators?) If so, then notice that although MMX is consistently making logical and generally true arguments, staying away from vague language, all his posts consistently get negative votes ... in a philosophy forum ... yes?

Folks in socialist countries aren't very happy. They simply get used to a lower standard of living. I was in Europe and I chatted with a professor from one of the "happiest" countries in world. (Not the happiest place, that would be disneyland apparently.) He was shabbily dressed and his car was rubbish and yet he earned much more than I did in pretax income. When I asked him if he dresses like that on purpose, he said that's what he can afford, thanks to beer being elevan euros in bars, mandatory retirement savings plans managed by the government, and income plus VAT taxes being >90%. But he said he was very happy since he "doesn't need so much stuff". Stuff which of course he cannot afford to buy. Reminds me of the fox in Aesop's sour grapes parable. There is no mystery about happiness statistics if these are self reported. And as for what life in a real socialist country, not merely a social democratic country, is like: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43661-gruz-200-closing-eyes-my-joy-what-life-in-a-socialist-country-really-looks-like/ That's where the world was and where it's heading again apparently. You decide if it's a happy place.

People often have trouble imagining what society would look like if the western world continues drifting into socialism. They say the Soviet Union wasn't *so bad*. In reply I'll often point them to these very realistic (and extremely entertaining) films. Stef often talks about moral degeneracy and how early life shapes people, how it affects their intelligence and moral agency or lack thereof. Consider the basic example of the Soviet Union. This is the future current politicians are constructing and say they are looking forward to. Life during socialism after two generations already lived in socialism: GRUZ 200 (the studio itself shared it free worldwide) Life after socialism (complete moral degeneracy in the population). Closing Eyes (the studio itself shared it free worldwide) What most of the country still looks like even twenty years after existing under socialism for eighty years. My Joy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9cDrm-7OhU Vice News BTW it's quite obvious what's going on even if you don't know Russian. Subtitles are available on the internet however if you want them. A family friend produced one of the films

Exactly!

By the way, everyone here realizes that the subject of dispute is basically whether argumentation ethics is true or not? Argumentation ethics comes from Hans Hermann Hoppe, and Molyneux basically agrees with it. So do I (whatever that is worth). When a person honestly argues with another and attempts to persuade or demostrate her point, she by virtue of arguing accepts his ownership of his body (and from there all his other freedoms and ownerships in the usual way). If she did not, then instead of arguing, she would attack, and force him to admit what she wants to hear, or at the least, not argue, or rely on dialectic tricks. But this she does not do in the first case. There is no ad hominem when she says that he accepts her freedoms and ownerships and she accepts his freedoms and ownerships from the nature of their arguing peacefully and honestly together, for neither can or would refuse to do this and at the same time argue peacefully and honestly... Of course, the weakness of argumentation ethics, is that the argument eventually ceases ... and then .... Like they say in Japan, the customer is God, but that is only while he is in the store and buying ... once he leaves ... Many (most?) people do not argue but charge on ahead with arms raised and weapons in hand, maybe shouting something, or muttering it, while they advance. In that case, so long as they are not actually in an argument, they needn't accept freedoms or ownerships of anybody besides them ... Hence we need (and have) the other sources of ethics to defend life and liberty in all other cases except the honest debate, do we not?

Which FDR is that from, do you know? Anyway, from 2671, a nice quote: "Most people cannot think. And the worst part? Most people cannot think, and so they don't know ... that they cannot think."

I agree with with the post just above this one. When people are young however, Robert Heinlein is typically correct when he said that if a healthy man and woman are together long enough, and friendly, they will have sexual intercourse---its mutual pleasure and for fun, why not? He also agreed with the view that men and women typically are not merely friends in a relationship, but there is attraction in the end. Or already in the beginning. But outside the (obvious) evolutionary psychology, which does not determine but does predispose, I ARGUE men and women are often friends and only this and no more iff they share hobbies. When their hobbies are not the same, but they like each other's conversation, or beliefs, or presence, or even are similar intellectually, then typically one of them or both wants to be romantically involved with the other party. At least that's my experience, personal and from observation. Most often men and women have different hobbies but spend time together. In that case they cannot be 'just friends', but I agree it varies with age. So basically, it's a function of several variables, a branching tree of options.

Singapore is a pretty regulated economy despite all the praise that it gets for being free market in some areas. Does anyone here live there, or has been there for work, and can comment about how Singapore's mix of "pragmatism" and free market is working out. Pragmatism sounds rather unpleasant, just as most other excuses for regulation, except that this can mean potentially arbitrary regulation as any time, especially with a political party structure like in Singapore. Or am I wrong? How is their internet for instance? Do they censor? Etc. I've heard mixed things about life in Korea, Singapore, and so on.