ticketyboo

Female education is inversely correlated with number of children. Education is positively correlated with IQ. IQ is mostly genetic. Feminism is heavily dysgenic for IQ.

My own idea is that having large numbers of people capable of and interested in acting ethically (UPBs) is downstream from group selection, and group selection is downstream from a K-selected environment. Western civilization has been r-selected for a long time now, which is why the people are so terrible. You can't make a good civilization out of bad people. Anyone that cares about virtue should be seeking to destroy the West, not save it. Or rather, they should be seeking to completely remake the West, which is something that can probably only be done after the present civilization has been destroyed. The most intelligent people gather the most resources for themselves and create the most r-selected environment for themselves. Intelligence is hereditary, so this carries on for multiple generations. This is why the elites are so r-selected and so against the people (e.g., the Clintons). Scott Adams has the Moist Robot Hypothesis, which he more recently started referring to as the Persuasion Filter (I guess that's better persuasion than calling people "robots"). I believe most people are not educable, but merely trainable (or "programmable", under the Moist Robot Hypothesis). The West has trained its people to hate their race, hate their nations, and hate their culture. Government schools, the elites, and the Hollywood entertainment industry have trained Western people to self-destruct their civilizations. And so they will. Stef says it's a revolutionary technology that has a chance to defeat the cycles of historical civilizational rise and fall. I don't think Stef is an optimist, however. He merely says it offers a chance.

Equality: The Impossible Quest, by Martin van Creveld This book looks at the history of "equality". The summary is that equality has never existed. It's never been defined consistently.

"cowardly but actually it's good" barn responds to an argument about passive aggressive behavior with more passive aggressiveness. He is unable to communicate in any other way. It's actually quite funny. Poster boy for passive aggressiveness.

Some of the entries in this list are just silly and amusing and some of these are worthy of nomination to sainthood. Consider this call-in show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYmogRO8HzI Stef carefully works the father through an example. Stef is patient. He complements the father (says something about him being an intelligent guy). Demonstrates negotiating with the kid by negotiating with the father about negotiating with the kid. Which is the only sane way to do it. This whole episode is just an amazing display of skill and virtue.

I have nothing specific as a counter argument, but the scenario you describe is similar to South Africa. The white South Africans control the food production, but they still allow themselves to be murdered and raped daily. It looks like the only thing that will interrupt food production is confiscation of land from the farmers. White people won't defend themselves. They prefer death.

A passive approach definitely will not work. In dating relationships, women take the passive role and expect men to take the assertive role. Church groups come to mind. Be Red Pill aware. Read the Rational Male books by Rollo Tomassi.

This conclusion sounds very bad. ie. - Presumptuous, and its logic's erroneous. At least from 'no Chinese basketball player...' - perspective, it appears as an oversimplification. Maybe it wasn't/was intended to generalise to all people within a specific group? As in: I think it takes more than just one metric to evaluate a professional's ability. Blacks with lower scores than members of other races are admitted to medical schools, therefore blacks doctors will be less competent on average, therefore you should not trust your health to a black doctor, unless you know his scores. What is wrong with that logic? Why is it "presumptuous"? Why is it "very bad"? What is "oversimplified"? Be specific. Negative adjectives are not an argument. You need to support your claims. Working with your Chinese basketball player example, if the only thing you know about two people is their race, say one is black and the other is Chinese, then the black person is more likely to be a better basketball player. If you can actually evaluate their individual performance, then you know more than the race, and can make a more informed decision. This is analogous to knowing the MCAT score of your doctor. Most people will never know the MCAT score of their doctor. In the absence of that information, and in the presence of the knowledge of your doctor's race, you should rationally avoid black doctors, because a black doctor is more likely to have a lower MCAT score (be less intelligent, capable, and competent as a doctor). This is the only part of your reply that looks like an argument. If you can evaluate a doctor's professional history and know their record, then you probably have a signal stronger than race or MCAT score. Can most patients do this? What about emergency room patients and doctors? The entire point of the certification process that doctors go through is to ensure that doctors meet a certain minimum standard. If they lower this standard for black doctors, then you shouldn't trust black doctors. Negative adjectives are not an argument.

See Affirmative Action Hoax, by Steven Farron. They already have lower standards for certain groups in the MCAT (standardized test for medical school). No rational and informed person should ever trust a black doctor (unless you know his MCAT score).

barn is the poster boy for passive aggressiveness: From Google (emphasis added): Reminder of barn's quote: "This just further adds to my suspicion that the way you argue is less than preferable by intelectually honest standards." From the Guidelines for this forum: Consider this a case study in making an argument. Also from the Guidelines: This is why I am addressing everyone in this thread except for barn.

Stef, congratulations on the good health news and thank you for always telling the truth. If youtube shuts you down, I'll follow you to bitchute or whatever platform is next. Keep speaking the truth!

Just point out all the times governments have shot their own people. If he believes British people are excepted: American revolutionary war. British soldiers shooting British colonists. American civil war (when Americans were genetically British)

From An Honest Conversation About Marriage, some life lessons learned from gold prospecting and panning:

Since poverty and lack of education are often caused by low IQ, so would ability to detect those things be useful?

They should. But how? Most people haven't done a test. So, take a 2-3 hour IQ test before a doctor's appointment? IQ is pretty stable over a lifetime, so you could do it once and store it in a database doctors can access. You can also get a pretty good idea of the IQ range of someone with just a short conversation. Doctors are probably, in practice, already taking into account patient IQ. They just do it through indirect measures. SES is pretty apparent after a short conversation. So is IQ. Doctor takes that into account and diagnoses and treats accordingly. Most people have an automatic IQ detector and treat other people accordingly. It's not as precise as a formal test, but a precise IQ score isn't needed in most cases.

Aeschylus, is that you? Welcome back, if so! Otherwise, welcome newcomer!

Delorted!

You should see what Vox Day has to say about Jordan Peterson. What were the circumstances that caused your job loss?

How would a doctor know his patient's IQ?

I haven't read the study you referenced, so I'm not commenting on that specifically. I have only a general comment. Other factors have to be accounted for, like socioeconomic status. For example, blacks have a lower IQ on average, which causes them to be poorer on average, which causes them to eat worse diets or live in cheaper areas where exposure to carcinogens is more likely. So, while cancer might correlate with race, the causative factor might be IQ. For example, while blacks on average have a lower IQ, there exists high IQ blacks. Do high IQ blacks have a higher risk of cancer? What happens to risk for cancer and race when you control for IQ?

In case you missed the controversy: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump layer

https://www.google.com/search?q=medical diagnosis race Top results are "The Misuse of Race in Medical Diagnosis".

Epic type-o. Thank you. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1017164990099415041

No refugees for Israel? I'm shocked I say, just shocked!

Doctors are even under pressure to not consider race while treating patients, even though there is a correlation between race and certain conditions. The doctors are supposed to pretend race doesn't exist ("only a social construct"), and throw their patients' health under a bus, for political correctness. Ridiculous. For example, look at what this retard is doing: https://www.npr.org/2017/02/10/514150399/what-s-race-got-to-do-with-medicine