Wuzzums

Here's a snippet of on of Jordan Peterson's lectures on this. The point of it is that there are no jobs available for people with an IQ lower than 85. Add to this that the sweetspot for criminality is IQ 80-90. However if you go lower than 80 you won't get much crime mainly because people are too stupid to do anything, including crime. The government says it fixes societal problems and most people believe it. The welfare programs are actually a very clever attempt at keeping the criminal elements of the population subdued. No jobs for the 80-90 IQ therefore let's give them money so they don't riot. The problems appear when 90+ start using welfare, and when welfare recipients want more welfare, and when the non-welfare recipients start making a lot more money making the welfare recipients more jealous thinking they're getting all that money from the gov'ment because they're too stupid to understand they worked for it, and so on and so forth... So the criminal elements request more welfare and the government asks the working people for more welfare in order to fix the problem, aaaand at this point it's just a vicious circle. The more we subsidize something the more of that thing we're gonna get therefore the more we subsidize dumb people the more dumb people we'll get. There are a lot of communists/socialists who are indeed good people and they're communists/socialists not because they hate the rich but because they think it fixes the problem of poverty. And if the problem of poverty is fixed then it means they'll live in a paradise because the criminal element won't invade their homes and rob and murder them. So given all of this the solution would be some sort of eugenics program (like family planning) where the household income dictates the number of kids you're allowed to have. If I'm not mistaken China has a similar program. Sounds do-able. BUT we also know that criminality is also DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to wealth inequality. This is bad considering that in any economic system if it runs for long enough the inequality gap widens more and more to astronomical proportions. This is true no matter the IQ's of the population. Now I don't know of any studies but my theory is that if crime is inevitable, high IQ crimes are white collar crimes whereas low IQ crimes are the violent kind (rape, murder, theft). Given this it's far better to get smeared in the press by high IQ communists/socialists than to get robed, raped, and murdered by some dumbass.

Yeah... Scott Adams talks constantly about this, that facts, reason, and evidence don't change minds no matter how much we wished they did. Scott says persuasion wins arguments, I agree. However this was something I have learned from Stefan prior though he didn't put it in the same words. He said it's far more effective to live by example that to just give out facts and logic. It's the whole fat guy selling a diet book analogy, yes the diet book might be good but in our minds we're better off not taking that risk. Another thing I have learned from FDR is to think like an economist, always look at the hidden costs and benefits in any situation. Scott Adams made a huge bet that Trump is a master persuader and he won. Now he's basically doing a huge victory lap cashing in on the bet. He says it himself. Sam Harris made his career with the left, he was on liberal shows, TED, his books explained how right he is about everything and so on and so forth. He basically made the polar opposite bet Scott Adams made and lost. So now he's forced to do one of two things: either accept the loss and start your "I'm always right" career from zero, or pretend he didn't lose any bet or the game is rigged. He chose the latter. He made an active choice of still thinking he's in the "i'm always right" universe and everything Trump does is bad but his high IQ recognizes how some of the things Trump does are good, hence the massive cognitive dissonance. It's funny to see because we're witnessing in real time a massive decline in physical appearance and mental ability. The cognitive dissonance is literally killing him slowly.

A lot of people are doing an 180 on Macron recently. I myself will go full 180 if we find out he was actually sleeping with one (or both) of his stepdaughters. Never trust a woman or cuck in power.

Sam looses his cool early on in the conversation and constantly goes on tangents and talks over Scott a lot of the time. Basically Sam bitches about how A, B, and C makes Trump look like literally Hitler (he goes for that argument btw early on) and Scott calmly reframes A, B, and C in a manner that makes Trump look like a master persuader. At which point Sam starts saying "but also D, E, and F" and Scott does the same thing with D, E, and F. And so on. At no point does Sam ever give any ground to Scott, he just moves on to something else. Scott said that it's a tell for cognitive dissonance when people start claiming knowledge of other people's inner lives and Sam retorted by saying that the Trump University scandal was proof enough for him. That that tells Sam everything he needs to know of how morally bankrupt DRUMPF is (he literally is screaming at Scott at this point). Scott asks him how Trump should have handled the situation in that regard so as to redeem himself in Sam's eyes. Sam says he should've given recompense to the affected parties at which point Scott points out Trump did exactly that even though Trump wasn't at fault. This is when Sam starts complaining that it's not about the recompense per se, it's about how the whole matter was settled, that it shouldn't have been settled in a court. The guy is as typical of an SJW as you can imagine. I am in shock.

Did you listen to the Scott Adams one? For me it was the final nail in the coffin for Sam. At this point I don't want Stefan to debate him on anything or ever have to listen to that mouthbreather ever again on any podcasts I follow. I'm SHOOK AF.

Ha! I was gonna start a thread about this exact topic. Listening to the podcast right now, halfway in and I'm completely triggered by Sam. Was he always this much of an idiot? I have read everything he has ever written and watched all of his debates and considered him one of my heroes a few years back. Now he's just a petulant loser in my eyes. Was he always like this? If so what does it say about me that I used to admire such a person? I watched a couple of minutes of his most recent Joe Rogan appearance and he literally looked like a homeless person (see pic). Did he also get a stroke or something? At this point it would be his only saving grace. Scott: Trump is a master persuader. Sam: No he's not! He didn't persuade me! Scott: But he's the president against all odds. Sam: Doesn't matter! He's a liar and morally bankrupt! Scott: How do you know he has no morals? Sam: Because of the things he says! Scott: How can you trust the things he says if he's a liar? Sam: [autistic screeching] Sam's level of debate is abysmal. WTF.

Whenever I read @steljarkos posts this phrase from Catch-22 comes to mind: "He was one of those people with lots of intelligence but no brains."

Using the word "entropy" is a little pet-peeve of mine because I have no idea what people mean by it though in this case you pointed it out. It's a word that should be banned from the dictionary just because it's so confusing. It's both one thing and its opposite at the same time. Equilibrium is synonymous with entropy, chaos is synonymous with entropy, however equilibrium and chaos are not synonymous with each other. This makes no sense. Just so you know, I was the one that downvoted your comments. You come into a thread, start a conversation, people engage in that conversation, they start disagreeing with you or are asking for you to explain yourself, then you shut down the conversation because >tfw too intelligent and nobody here would understand because we're armchair whatever that watch documentaries. The only thing you forgot to do is to tip your fedora.

You still haven't said why epigenetics is flawed. You just said it is flawed and then made more baseless assertions to prove your point. Yes they do. There is no real anatomical/physiological difference between the conscious and unconscious. You can't have one without the other, it is one. But in order for us to understand the complexity of the brain it is very useful to divide it into two categories. Therefore an IQ test that measures one but not the other makes no logical sense. You throw in these wacky phrases like "the big picture". The big picture of WHAT? What are you talking about, that some people have the ability to see forests but not trees and others trees but not forests? Please be more specific. I call bullshit on this. Answer this question, it's a very simple question so please give a very simple answer. Assume you have a child, assume you have the ability to choose their IQ, do you want them to have an IQ of 50 or 150? This is FAKE NEWS. Feynman still holds the highest test score ever in mathematics at Stanford. He also holds the lowest test score ever in English at Stanford. This is probably the only formal testing of his intelligence that it is known. Though he was widely regarded as a buffoon and an average bloke (including himself) the consensus of most physicists and mathematicians is that he was far smarter than anyone than everyone assumed including those that assume he was a genius. There's this story of him doing some research and coming across a useful math formula relevant to his work but he couldn't find the proof for it so he scribbled the proof in the textbook itself next just for fun. Later on as his research paper was being reviewed it got rejected because of that formula on the basis of it being yet unproven. So are you really sure this is the guy you wanna claim has an average IQ? Second, I love how you claim Feynman has average intelligence in the same breath with calling him "among the brightest physicists of our time". How did you determine this "brightness" of his. Is there any test that would quantify in some fashion this trait called "being bright"?

Nice try, copper.

I'm a huge Todd Solondz fan, watched all of his movies. They're all connected in some fashion, "Life During Wartime" is the direct sequel to "Happiness" and all of his other movies have reoccurring characters. His style is unique, his movies have very, very dark themes however he presents them as a comedy. He presents this bizarro world in which the important things are trivial for the characters and the trivial things are important. For instance he adds happy/fun music when a character is going through a crisis or a tragedy takes place. Like in "Wiener Dog", during the end credits the most uplifting song ever plays all throughout. Or in "Welcome to The Dollhouse" the bullying and threats of rape to the main character (which is a child) turn out to be something very innocent in the end. "Incidentally" the character's nickname in "Welcome to The Dollhouse" is Wiener-Dog. The way I see it he's trying to say something, maybe the same truth in every movie from different angles, but it may be such a horrible realization that he has to sugarcoat it for the audience by masking it as a formulaic comedy. I can't say I "get" his movies but the feeling I have after them is similar to when you try to remember a word and it's right at the tip of your tongue but you simply can't say it out loud. You mentioned how much you saw yourself into the main character of "Dark Horse", you're not alone. I think it's by design, I saw myself in a lot of very different characters from all of his movies. In "Dark Horse" for example I saw bit of myself reflected back from both Abe and his brother. It's as if he he touches on an universal human trait and creates a whole character around it. (...) Haha. I just looked a little bit into "Welcome to The Dollhouse" and just now realized "Wiener Dog" is the direct sequel to it. Puts some scenes in a whole new light. For me there's almost a 10 year gap between the two but my mind still made an unconscious connection.

There are 2 types of physicists, theoretical physicists and experimental physicists. Theoretical physicists come up with theories that are mathematically sound (logically consistent) and experimental physicists devise experiments to see if those theories are valid in the real world (gather empirical data). This is science. Sometimes you can skip one of those two and still make a valid claim on the world. You can come up with a theory that if the math adds up then it act be treated as a truth without any empirical data. This is what happened to the Higgs Boson/theory of mass thing. Scientists were 99.9% sure it was true but it was only recently they could gather any empirical evidence for it. Other times you can gather data then afterwards come up with a theory that would explain the phenomenon. This is basically how the whole of the medical industry works, "evidence based medicine". (I use math and logic interchangeably because any logical problem can be reduced to the 1+1=2 axiom) Empiricism takes precedence over logic because you cannot argue against reality. Reality is always right and if it is right and it's contrary to your theory then it means your logic/math is flawed. This statement is of course a logical one that can be put to the test of empiricism. So far I know of not a single case where the theory is mathematically (logically) correct and the real world data contradicts it. Therefore I can safely say that reality and logic are strongly linked to one another, inseparable even.

I posted this not to hammer in the familiar talking points, I posted it to point out that a lot more smarter people have identified the problem more than 20 years ago. It's a condemnation of those that just stood by and did nothing and an exaltation of those that have been fighting against it till this day.

>1996 >imagine my shock

No. A picture is a picture. Words are words. A speech is not a picture, it is words. Also you earlier: A more recent post you've made. After someone asked how you determined one was smarter than the other you said: You're a pretty duplicitous guy. You make these threads and ask a question that has a hidden criticism of Stefan and after people point it out in some fashion you pretend you've never said the things you've said and play dumb. That tells me the whole point of these threads are to take gratuitous shots at Stefan. If you want to criticize him make a thread criticizing him, don't be a weasel about it. I may not know what Richard Spencer's deal is exactly but I've been noticing a certain pattern with his supporters...

Who's Richard Spencer? Are people distancing themselves per se from Spencer or is Spencer trying to come in contact with the prominent heads of the movement and failing? I'm very skeptical of people who push forward Spencer because it looks to me like some hipster BS. "I was into Richard Spencer way before you guys were so neeh!". Why is it that every time Spencer is mentioned he's mentioned in name only? Does he have a YouTube? No. Does he have a book? No. Even you, OP did the same thing. You mentioned Spencer without explaining who he is as if everyone knows who he is, and you mentioned white nationalism as if we know what it is and what the arguments for it are. I cannot engage in a conversation about him if you're gonna leave it in name only. I have no idea what his deal is. Is he saying the same things Stefan is saying? Yes? So what? Lots of people are saying the same things Stefan is saying who have a much bigger audience than Spencer and they have not been invited in the alt-right circle of friends (so to speak). Is FDR distancing themselves from PewDiePie? It's a shame PewDiePie has been left to hang by everyone. I guess its just easier to go for the low hanging "CNN is fake news" fruit over and over rather than risk being condemned for straight forwardly advocating for the interests of whites.

Free will is on a spectrum. Generally speaking the more self knowledge you have the more free will you have. The fact that a person does not seem to have any free will it does not mean that no one has free will. And vice-versa, because someone can choose how to behave it does not mean anyone can choose just as easily how to behave. Given this always assume that in 100% of cases the person making the choice has full free will. If they don't have any free will then that makes them a mindless automaton and we do not apply human rights to machines. The whole basis of the legal system revolves around people being responsible for their own actions and I don't want to live in a world where we get to choose who is responsible and who is not. Determinism and absolvement of sin are one and the same. Determinism is the atheist version of divine forgiveness because people who are determinists are 1) atheists and 2) are looking for their own or other's redemption.

Free Speech is just available in the US. My country has free speech too but it's not the very first thing in its constitution, it clearly states censorship is forbidden aaaand also threats, inciting violence, defamation and so on are illegal. This is the case with most countries. "Free speech is a right" but all the amendments to it turn it into a very gray area so the authorities can still get you if they don't like you. The culture of victimhood is a clear-cut attack on free speech. I'm no legal expert whatsoever but a threat is illegal in most countries and I know in the US it's a questionable issue. A threat is a threat only if the person receiving it considers it a threat, i.e. they're "feeling unsafe". If the law allows you to claim a status of victimhood solely based on your testimony then practically speaking self-censorship becomes a duty of any law-abiding citizen. It's a pretty clever idea, you can't censor other people over something specific, but other people can censor themselves, therefore if you make it illegal for people not to censor themselves then you have effectively killed free speech.

Well it's not as if I have any other choice...

No, no, medical included. It might actually be the biggest offender of wasting taxpayer money. The medicine we use today is almost exactly the same as the medicine we used 100 years ago. 1000$ controls about 1 million $ in the forex market. If the value of the dollar goes up by 0.0001 cents you earn about 100$.

Are you familiar with Nassim Nicholas Taleb? He's one of those true geniuses. In one of his books he criticizes science and scientists as pointless people. Specifically those that have a PhD or work in academia. The example he give kinda gave me a shock and kinda disenchanted me with the whole idea of research, me wanting to be a researcher and all: Picture how many scientists passed through the gates of airports or train stations going to one conference or another, carrying their luggage from place to place, discussing science stuff since the dawn of science until 1970 and it was just some luggage salesman that thought of putting wheels on those damned heavy suitcases. How much taxpayer money is being poured into research and how much return on investment are the taxpayers seeing? If I were to snap my fingers and make all the astrophysicists in the world disappear, would we even notice? What about nurses, would anyone notice if all the nurses in the world disappeared, or as many nurses as there are astrophysicists disappeared? I also got really into forex trading at some point but Taleb cured me of that idea too. Fair enough. Biologically speaking you're wrong. Practically speaking that would cut the "human" population by half.

Societies are built and kept by people with IQ's between 90 to 120 (this covers professions from garbage men to doctors). Above and below are where the dangerous parasites lie. I'm gonna have a new rule for myself. Whenever someone IQ-signals I'm gonna assume it's 100% BS until they prove it by showing off their accomplishments.

Ok, ok, ok... everyone please stop this right now. I've noticed this little trend coming up these past weeks. Let's not turn the whole IQ conversation into a IQ-signaling circle-jerk like we're fucking Mensa or something. C'mon, guys, we're better than that !

Tendies as legal tender.

"On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins is one of my favorite books. It's a book on AI that's so simple, clear, and elegant that most pundits who like to talk about (the dangers of) AI will never read. Relevant here is how he defines "intelligence" as the "ability to accurately predict the future". Any living creature that can predict the future can be described as intelligent. A lion can accurately predict a zebra's run pattern thus a lion is intelligent. A flower will grow straight up and get cut down over and over again forever thus a flower is not intelligent. Therefore life does not require intelligence. The reverse is true also. Intelligence does not require life. A firewall on a computer is a very basic form of non-living intelligence. It can accurately predict your security preferences but it doesn't have any of the proprieties a living organism has. When people say "intelligent life" they're usually talking about a non-conscious being performing similar actions to that of a conscious being. Nobody really knows what consciousness is. It's sort of like the term "pornography". We can't really define it but we can accurately identify it when we see it. Is it linked to intelligence? Well not exactly, gorillas and aborigines have a very similar IQ, we're not gonna give gorillas human rights any time soon nor will we see gorillas engaging in building huts or using language any time soon. Is it linked to life? So far we know life is necessary but no sufficient for consciousness because no plant is conscious. So what is it? The best description I have found for consciousness is also from that book. Consciousness is like a conductor in an orchestra. An orchestra with a conductor is almost identical with an orchestra without a conductor. When we see an orchestra performing beautiful music (problem-solving) but we see no conductor we're of course amazed. It raises the questions why a conductor is needed in the first place, where did the conductor come from, and what would happen to us if we removed the conductor altogether. This is why I believe human are so fascinated with "intelligent life". Nobody is impressed with an aboriginal driving a car or using a credit card, but we'll lose our minds to see an ape doing those exact same things.