DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Collapse
HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: RE Date: September 25, 2021, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The SAT is a thinly disguised IQ test, just knock off the last
digit and you have your IQ. So if you got a 1250, your IQ is
125. The story goes that the first question Bill Gates asked
Melinda when they met was what she scored on the SAT. This
explains why a high IQ is so valued: in large part it determines
what colleges you can get into, what connections you can make
and so forth.
Far as people here goes, my guess is everyone is over 120. This
is generally high enough to do well in any type of brain job in
industrial society, beyond that it's mostly about who you know,
how well you suck up and brown nose while climbing the ladder
and luck too of course. How much money you make is mostly about
what you picked to do. Twins, same IQ, one choose to be a
Teacher, the other a Dentist. Who will make more money? Duh.
RE
#Post#: 1022--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: K-Dog Date: September 25, 2021, 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=RE link=topic=60.msg1021#msg1021 date=1632600329]
The story goes that the first question Bill Gates asked Melinda
when they met was what she scored on the SAT.
RE
[/quote]
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.QYIZfB9oDUNSRL5Zdpu56AHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1[/img]
I don't think he asked every woman he met what they scored on
the SAT.
#Post#: 1023--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: K-Dog Date: September 25, 2021, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Brains and beauty: Scarlett Johansson reveals that her SAT
grades were 'above average'
HTML https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/30/article-0-18690A0000000578-385_634x377.jpg
She said: I think the way it worked when I took them was that
they were out of 1,600, so maybe you'd get a 1,240 if you were a
smarty-pants.
#Post#: 1024--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: Phil Potts Date: September 25, 2021, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=60.msg1020#msg1020
date=1632582722]
My sister and I, 2 years apart in age, have the same measured
IQ. Raised by the same single mom in the same backwoods trailer,
with no running water on the cold days in winter, on a diet of
venison and homegrown vegetables from grandparents hobby farm
mostly. Both of us left for college in other states at 18.
She couldn't finish her bachelors degree. Got married, had 2
kids, lives in a small house 20 yards from railroad tracks,
probably hasn't left it except to collect groceries for 20 years
now.
I did better.
It has always seemed that EI is of more value than IQ.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
[/quote]
Women cluster around the mean. There are a lot more retarded men
as well as genius men than women. That would lead to a
situation where women are as often the intellectual superior as
the intellectual inferior of their husbands. However, we had
(*past tense) as a legacy across cultures that men were (*past
tense) the head and final decision makers.
I see two ways of explaining this. First is that we know from
genetic studies that far fewer men passed down genes than women.
Possibly, very simple minded men were not partnered for most of
human history before monogamy and marriage became standard. When
it did become the norm, EI would be a definite means of
manipulation and exerting influence for women, especially where
they were married to a man with inferior analytical and hence
decision making ability.
EI, (not to be confused with moral reasoning) is not natural to
autism spectrum. EI is reading and navigating the emotional
sensitivities and intentions of people. For most people that is
natural, for the autist it needs to be learned. They are
hyperfocussed on what interests them and do not devote attention
and processing resources to reading people. It can take them a
lifetime to learn what women generally do instinctively. Women
generally could not use physical force or intimidation, but
could be subjected to it. Additionally, between themselves, they
are dealing with other women who also have sharpened skills in
influencing, so become even more adept. This shapes the
evolution of the brain differently. Only about one in five
autistic are girls and they have an easier time masking.
I became aware I employ heuristics, meaning short cuts in
thinking as an avoidance to EI. For example I used to just give
everyone the benefit of the doubt, until I found someone lying
about anything, then I would believe nothing they said. To most
people this is obviously wrong thinking, they consider the
possible motivation for saying anything at any given time and
weigh up its probability. My method was just oversimplifying to
streamline and in practice accept a lot of false information
before deciding someone is not reliable, also reject a lot of
true information after it. Why do that? Because doing the
opposite requires attention and concentration not just when
directly dealing with people, but also afterwards to process the
interaction, as there is no end to the possibilities in what
other people are thinking. Devoting cognitive resources to that
means you will be less able to detect patterns in events and
develop a more complex representation of the universe and
phenomena. You will then leave that to other authorities who
REALLY can't be trusted, and become aware of things as they
happen and react to them, rather than working it out ahead of
time. Of course it's no use working events out in advance if you
are depending on others to get things done and they can't see it
until it has come over the horizon.
#Post#: 1025--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: RE Date: September 25, 2021, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=60.msg1022#msg1022
date=1632600858]
[quote author=RE link=topic=60.msg1021#msg1021 date=1632600329]
The story goes that the first question Bill Gates asked Melinda
when they met was what she scored on the SAT.
RE
[/quote]
I don't think he asked every woman he met what they scored on
the SAT.
[/quote]
Are you insinuating BG is a closet queer?
RE
#Post#: 1026--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: RE Date: September 25, 2021, 6:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Phil Potts link=topic=60.msg1024#msg1024
date=1632605089]
[quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=60.msg1020#msg1020
date=1632582722]
My sister and I, 2 years apart in age, have the same measured
IQ. Raised by the same single mom in the same backwoods trailer,
with no running water on the cold days in winter, on a diet of
venison and homegrown vegetables from grandparents hobby farm
mostly. Both of us left for college in other states at 18.
She couldn't finish her bachelors degree. Got married, had 2
kids, lives in a small house 20 yards from railroad tracks,
probably hasn't left it except to collect groceries for 20 years
now.
I did better.
It has always seemed that EI is of more value than IQ.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
[/quote]
Women cluster around the mean. There are a lot more retarded men
as well as genius men than women. That would lead to a
situation where women are as often the intellectual superior as
the intellectual inferior of their husbands. However, we had
(*past tense) as a legacy across cultures that men were (*past
tense) the head and final decision makers.
I see two ways of explaining this. First is that we know from
genetic studies that far fewer men passed down genes than women.
Possibly, very simple minded men were not partnered for most of
human history before monogamy and marriage became standard. When
it did become the norm, EI would be a definite means of
manipulation and exerting influence for women, especially where
they were married to a man with inferior analytical and hence
decision making ability.
EI, (not to be confused with moral reasoning) is not natural to
autism spectrum. EI is reading and navigating the emotional
sensitivities and intentions of people. For most people that is
natural, for the autist it needs to be learned. They are
hyperfocussed on what interests them and do not devote attention
and processing resources to reading people. It can take them a
lifetime to learn what women generally do instinctively. Women
generally could not use physical force or intimidation, but
could be subjected to it. Additionally, between themselves, they
are dealing with other women who also have sharpened skills in
influencing, so become even more adept. This shapes the
evolution of the brain differently. Only about one in five
autistic are girls and they have an easier time masking.
I became aware I employ heuristics, meaning short cuts in
thinking as an avoidance to EI. For example I used to just give
everyone the benefit of the doubt, until I found someone lying
about anything, then I would believe nothing they said. To most
people this is obviously wrong thinking, they consider the
possible motivation for saying anything at any given time and
weigh up its probability. My method was just oversimplifying to
streamline and in practice accept a lot of false information
before deciding someone is not reliable, also reject a lot of
true information after it. Why do that? Because doing the
opposite requires attention and concentration not just when
directly dealing with people, but also afterwards to process the
interaction, as there is no end to the possibilities in what
other people are thinking. Devoting cognitive resources to that
means you will be less able to detect patterns in events and
develop a more complex representation of the universe and
phenomena. You will then leave that to other authorities who
REALLY can't be trusted, and become aware of things as they
happen and react to them, rather than working it out ahead of
time. Of course it's no use working events out in advance if you
are depending on others to get things done and they can't see it
until it has come over the horizon.
[/quote]
I don't think IQ is that big a factor in mating and reproductive
choices. Too many other factors. Looks, Physical prowess,
Personality and most of all, Class. I don't see it as very
productive to focus on IQ as an arbiter of anything, certainly
not the success or failure of civilizations. As I have said
before, individual intelligence does exist and can be found in
any society. What ALL Homo Sap societies lack is GROUP or
SYSTEMIC intelligence. In aggregate, no matter how intelligent
any individuals may be, Homo Sap has no more intelligence than a
hive of Bees or a herd of Buffalo.
We certainly do not choose our Political Leaders based on IQ.
George Bush, Trumpovetsky, Uncle Joe are all borderline morons.
The highest IQ POTUS in recent years was probably Barack, but
he was as ineffectual as the imbeciles. Globally, Merkel
probably has the highest IQ of recent leaders, with the possible
exception of Vlad the Impaler.
So overall, I consider IQ debates and Eugenics arguments to be a
waste of time. Individually, it is better to be smart than
stupid of course, but on an aggregate social level, it doesn't
make any difference whatsoever.
Here's a Though Experiment for you:
Imagine you are the Global Dictator for life who buys Eugenics
arguments, a Global Hitler, and send everyone with an SAT score
below 1200 to the Gas Chamber. Now you are left with a world of
just pretty smart people. Would this be any better? Of course
not. First off, who will pick up the garbage and scrub the
toilets? Hard to imagine High IQ Homo Saps happy with those
jobs! You'll still have the Lefty-Righty political divide, for
every Norman Mailer on the Left there is stiil a William F.
Buckley Jr. on the Right. No matter how smart, EVERYBODY is
still in competition for shrinking energy supplies. Same old
issues, just with a higher average intelligence overall.
RE
#Post#: 1027--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: Phil Potts Date: September 25, 2021, 6:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=60.msg1019#msg1019
date=1632579513]
The 2013 study co-author Martin Richards, an archaeogeneticist
at the University of Huddersfield in England, said that while
Ashkenazi Jews have lived in Europe for many centuries, the
results of the study using DNA samples show that most European
Jews descend from local people who converted to Judaism, not
individuals who left Israel and the Middle East around 2,000
years ago.
Which a smart guy could have figured out all on his own. So not
to worry (not that I was). You can't go hundreds of years with
the normal dose of family secrets without the history working
out any other way. I figure I got what R. Fineman joked about.
The 125. My bragging rights on the Graduate Record Exam
support that number. Any more than that is wishful thinking.
But try running this quote through this Steven Hawking torture
device.
[quote]People who concern themselves with IQ are losers.[/quote]
HTML https://lingojam.com/StephenHawkingVoiceGenerator
It is interesting that everyone wants high a IQ number. A
number that says more about the genetic lottery than the soul of
any man. My actual accomplishments reflect a better character
the lower my IQ is measured to be. More bang for the buck sort
of thing. I think everybodies desire to have an IQ number far
beyond the actual mathematical probability of reality goes to
show our greatest fear is social inadequacy. We don''t want to
be on an inferior step of the social ladder. Who wants a 150 IQ
when the fantasy of 160 is so much better. But fewer than 1 in
2000 measure at 150.
(If I used rung instead of step in the ladder description above,
it would reflect a larger vocabulary. Large vocabulary is
associated with high IQ.) Should I change it?
[/quote]
Hawking is correct. Who often talks about "low IQ brown people",
while at the same time saying the world is run by a Jewish
conspiracy? U can see this displayed any given Sunday in places
like TBP, ZH and Alex Jones comments sections. They pride
themselves on their national average being higher than places
with no free education, culture of competition, or often even
writing and insist that is all a matter of limited ability. If
they applied the same reasoning of IQ explaining status, there
is no Jewish conspiracy, as they are simply more capable. I
doubt they know that US Jews were about 1 SD above mean, but
lost ground in the 21st century. If you assume the same shape
curve and "fatness of the tails", then you have 5% of them at
142-145, because you have shifted their distribution to the
right by almost 1SD with a mean of 112-115 (with a mean of 100,
2SD is 130 and the 95th percentile. We would need to get the
data to know if the distribution does follow the same pattern.
It gets even worse, because the US Jews are inflating the entire
US average, so the anti Semites should correct their average
lower.
Next we have a huge gulf between rural and urban IQ scores as
well as college vs high school. A farmer or factory worker who
believes IQ average reflects innate ability, can't claim they
are as clever as an accountant or engineer. There's also the
matter of Catholic immigrants such as Irish and Italian being 10
points to 1SD below average at the time they were discriminated
against in a Protestant majority, but catching up by 1990 when
this no longer mattered.
I'm sceptical of the theory that Europeans converted to Judaism,
except for purpose of marriage. Why would people renounce
Christianity which does actively proselytize and join a religion
that gets persecuted and I don't think actively seeks converts?
Let's assume that the European Jews were at least 50% Semitic,
50 yrs ago. In the late 19th C, there were many German/Austrian
Jews who made a lot of contributions, such as Sigmund Freud.
That was in a safe environment at the time. I will contend that
the ability had been developed not only through tradition of
learning RE mentioned, but also natural selection for a doomer
gene. With persecution and pogroms on and off over the
centuries, it would be the less smart who could not read the
writing on the wall and succumbed to normalcy bias. Eventually,
Nazism and then communism were responsible for the final tests
of intelligence in escaping.
#Post#: 1028--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: Eddie Date: September 25, 2021, 10:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Phil Potts link=topic=60.msg1013#msg1013
date=1632384072]
[quote author=K-Dog link=topic=60.msg1012#msg1012
date=1632364787]
Richard Feynman's IQ Score Was 'Only' 125. He liked to joke
about it. Steven Hawking said people who concern themselves
with IQ are losers. With 1.3 billion China has a few bright
bulbs. But the cultural revolution was a frontal lobotomy.
[/quote]
Researchers talk about the "East Asian Exception" for Taiwan,
japan, SK, NK and china. This is because their roughly 10+
point average IQ advantage over ours is stable in spite of
malnutrition and nobody knows why. I'm not sure if they have had
free education in all those places for the duration of the
testing, which must be less than about a hundred years as the
Stanford Binet was only developed in WW1. I will bet they have..
To me free education is a huge factor in averages as well as a
culture of competition. Confucianism has been mobility based on
exams for thousands of years. If you don't have free education
or a culture of individualism as acceptable, average IQ is low.
White supremacists who are always talking about being replaced
by low IQ high melanin people display the dunning Kruger effect
that hawking is referring to. Tell them that theres a huge gulf
between rural and urban or college vs high school education.
Tell them Catholic whites such as Irish and Italian were 1SD
below average for as long as they were discriminated against. If
Catholics could close the gap in the 1980s, so can the people
who invented the Arabic numerals used to express the scores. If
you insist IQ is inherent, then farmers and factory workers are
not just as smart as accountants and engineers.
I don't know if China's pollution problem is getting worse or
improving, but they have been living with it for a while and
pump gigalitres of fresh water out of the great lakes and at
least one place here that I'm aware of. That's drinking water,
but if industry needs cleaner water than they have, they can
move, promising hundreds of thousands of jobs to some other
place like we did to them. They're a 5k years continuous
civilization that's had some dark age dynasties, but never a
collapse back to anarchy. If we are going to still have
technology, industry and globalisation in future, they're
definitely exerting the largest gravitational field.
To win more medals they should just poach Kenyan marathon
runners and Jamaican sprinters. This one will defect for free:
HTML https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100475354
[/quote]
The absence of a written language as an explanation for the
lower IQ’s in Africa seems to make sense to me. What do you make
of that explanation?
I always tested well, but then I lived far from town and had
nothing but books to entertain me as a kid, so I read an awful
lot. Not surprisingly, my verbal skills outshined every other
category.
#Post#: 1029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Economy Errata
By: RE Date: September 26, 2021, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sigh.
PP is obsessed with IQ, and more broadly that it is important
whether a group of people such as the Chinese or Jews are on
average more *intelligent*, at least as this attribute is
measured by IQ. He completely ignores my posting on the topic,
because it does not synch with his theoretical model. It does
not compute, so to speak.
I have been through this shit pile so many times in so many ways
I can't even count them all. I've been tested a zillion times
with almost as many test types. I designed test questions for
The Princeton Review. I've met super high IQ people, medium
high, average and complete idiots too. I have endlessly become
embroiled in this debate across the internet for years.Idiots
swamp out geniuses in any society, to begin with.
Practically speaking, as Eddie mentions, literacy is the NUMERO
UNO thing in testing for IQ. It's not just hat the questions
often reqire good reading, it's that the INSTRUCTIONS for
approaching the problem require this too/ You can do some IQ
tests all verbal, but they re not well standardized.
How do I KNOW William F Buckley Jr was kick ass smart? Because
he had an absolutely astouding vocabulary. He could use the
most abstract and uncommon words in a sentence while speaking
off the cuff and not even pausing, and he always used them
correctly. Which means he also had a terrific memory, but that
is not exactly the same as high iQ, which should ideally
measyure how good you are at solving problems.
WFB however is a real good example of someone outrageously smart
who was also a complete idiot. He drew conclusions that were
totally self-serving to his own political POV. In science you
often get the problem of really smart folks who are completely
amoral, all they care about is solving a particular problem and
could give a shit about the consequences.
When you talk about Politics, you get into a Popularity contest.
Why do you think we get Actors as politicians, like Reagan and
Schwartzenegger?
Far as the numerical scale is concerned, no number over 160 is
valid, because there aren't enough people around to standardize
a test for that. An example of this problem would be the IOWA
Tests I took in elementary school. According to my results, I
had "college level" reading and math skills, but I really did
not, at least in math at that time. I simply outscored what the
test was designed to measure, which was through high school.
In the final analysis, it just doesn't really matter on the
social level how smart or stupid the population happens to be.
You could easily make the case it is WORSE to be smart, since
when smart people screw up, they do so BIG TIME. Just ask J.
Robert Oppenheimer.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40htk9JqlB8
RE
#Post#: 1030--------------------------------------------------
China’s power crunch is next economic shock beyond Evergrande
By: RE Date: September 26, 2021, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Those inscrutably brilliant Chinese playing the Long Game are in
a Pickle.
China’s power crunch is next economic shock beyond Evergrande
HTML https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/09/26/business/china-power-supply-crisis/
The Chinese are TOAST.
RE
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page