Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • —“Why do geniuses have a low EQ?”—

    THAT’S A MISTAKE. You’re attributing a skill to a similarity. In other words, very smart people understand each other just as well as ordinary people understand each other just as well as very stupid people understand each other. But just as you can’t understand very smart people, they can’t necessarily understand you. There are a lot more average people (66%) than there are exceptional people (the under 1%). This makes average people think they have a skill, rather than, that they are just surrounded by many people more like them. So emotions and others play a larger role in the life of ordinary people than they do very smart people. And it is harder to imagine why someone would rely on the opinion and intuitions of others when “they are so often wrong or foolish”. WHY? At 7 points (1/2 standard deviation) one can provide help to one another. At 15 points (1 standard deviation) the higher can provide management and leadership to the lower, but at 22 points (1–1/2 standard deviation) we have difficulting understanding each other, and at 30 points (2 standard deviations), we have a great difficulty understanding one another. We are just as different as types of ants. The difference is that our differences are cognitive and emotional not physical. EXAMPLE I had a very hard time understanding why ‘normies’ worried or had fears or concerns about trivial things, and how important trust of others was, and how much of their information and decisions they obtained from others rather than their own investigation, and moreover, what they found entertaining and interesting. I thought people were just plain mean and evil until I understood how … limited they were … and that they were just doing the best that they could. Once I understood it I was horrified, and depressed for months. )

  • My answer to Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a high

    My answer to Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence? https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-morphological-differences-between-the-brain-of-a-highly-intelligent-person-and-a-person-with-average-intelligence/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=0cb0e37b


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 17:13:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/980855833239179264

  • My answer to Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a high

    My answer to Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence? https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-morphological-differences-between-the-brain-of-a-highly-intelligent-person-and-a-person-with-average-intelligence/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 17:12:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/980855487586603008

  • PEAK HUMAN? —“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a h

    PEAK HUMAN?

    —“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence?”—

    Three positive factors:

    1 – greater neurogenesis

    2 – greater neural density

    3 – greater white matter (reduced friction)

    Three negative factors

    4 – Lack of defect in biochemistry (or other illness)

    5 – Lack of defect in personality trait (brain structure and chemistry)

    6 – Lack of defect due to trauma (of any kind).

    And one less obvious:

    7 – False knowledge or beliefs (non-correspondence). Certain sets of ideas are incredibly attractive but entirely destructive to our ability to think.

    We should note that so far, (as most of us expected)

    a) intelligence is influenced by a very large number of genes.

    b) unfortunately most influences are negative not positive.

    HOWEVER

    That means:

    c) that potential intelligence does not require we increase any substantial capacity.

    d) that potential intelligence can be incrementally increased by cumulative, specific, genetic corrections.

    AND

    f) Ot seems likely that intelligence then developed a long time ago by accident but through reproduction we have not been able to produce dominance in intelligence without controlled reproduction (like we do with animals),

    OR

    g) Or the innate possibility was there originally and we have actually devolved from it. This hypothesis isn’t as strange as it originally sounds. Its entirely possible that the rapid increases in our ability to communicate produced greater selection pressure on verbal ability than it did intelligence, and we began to function more as a collective (social) intelligence than individually intelligent agents who imitated each other. The relationship between brain size and intelligence isn’t linear but it exists, and we have smaller (less expensive) brains than both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon’s for example.

    In other words, we might have passed peak genetic ability in the past but because of verbal communication reduced the cost and size of our brains, and as such, increased the survival of our weakest.

    We don’t know yet.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 13:15:00 UTC

  • HUMAN? —“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-morphological-differences-between-the-brain-of-a-highly-intelligent-person-and-a-person-with-average-intelligence/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=0cb0e37b&srid=u4QvPEAK HUMAN?

    —“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence?”—

    Three positive factors:

    1 – greater neurogenesis

    2 – greater neural density

    3 – greater white matter (reduced friction)

    Three negative factors

    4 – Lack of defect in biochemistry (or other illness)

    5 – Lack of defect in personality trait (brain structure and chemistry)

    6 – Lack of defect due to trauma (of any kind).

    And one less obvious:

    7 – False knowledge or beliefs (non-correspondence). Certain sets of ideas are incredibly attractive but entirely destructive to our ability to think.

    We should note that so far, (as most of us expected)

    a) intelligence is influenced by a very large number of genes.

    b) unfortunately most influences are negative not positive.

    HOWEVER

    That means:

    c) that potential intelligence does not require we increase any substantial capacity.

    d) that potential intelligence can be incrementally increased by cumulative, specific, genetic corrections.

    AND

    f) Ot seems likely that intelligence then developed a long time ago by accident but through reproduction we have not been able to produce dominance in intelligence without controlled reproduction (like we do with animals),

    OR

    g) Or the innate possibility was there originally and we have actually devolved from it. This hypothesis isn’t as strange as it originally sounds. Its entirely possible that the rapid increases in our ability to communicate produced greater selection pressure on verbal ability than it did intelligence, and we began to function more as a collective (social) intelligence than individually intelligent agents who imitated each other. The relationship between brain size and intelligence isn’t linear but it exists, and we have smaller (less expensive) brains than both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon’s for example.

    In other words, we might have passed peak genetic ability in the past but because of verbal communication reduced the cost and size of our brains, and as such, increased the survival of our weakest.

    We don’t know yet.Updated Apr 2, 2018, 1:12 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 13:12:00 UTC

  • My answer to What makes white girls so attractive judging from a lot of models a

    My answer to What makes white girls so attractive judging from a lot of models and famous actresses? They are almost always white or at least half white. https://www.quora.com/What-makes-white-girls-so-attractive-judging-from-a-lot-of-models-and-famous-actresses-They-are-almost-always-white-or-at-least-half-white/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-01 17:50:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/980502570862030852

  • Apr 1, 2018, 5:07 PM

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-geniuses-have-a-low-EQ/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b339d81c&srid=u4QvUpdated Apr 1, 2018, 5:07 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-01 17:07:00 UTC

  • No, I prosecute disapproval, ridicule, shaming, gossiping and rallying as an inf

    No, I prosecute disapproval, ridicule, shaming, gossiping and rallying as an infantile substitute for argument – it just so happens that (as you demonstrate) women have a far higher proclivity for emoting rather than debating. Which is why women have the deserved reputation for resorting to instinctual disapproval as if their approval mattered, rather than doing the work of reason to produce truth and truth alone, regardless of their approval or disapproval – which likewise dominates male discourse. Much to the frustration of feminists everywhere who desperately try create pseudosciences and excuses for justifying worthless opinion over valuable argument.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-01 10:12:00 UTC

  • The underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal.

    1 – IQ produces many incremental ‘goods’ (morality, cooperation, adaptation, invention, cost of learning) 2 – Neoteny/Pedomorphism/Juvenilization produces lower rate and depth of maturity, more aquiline features, longer development times, and greater ‘distance’ from impulses. 3 – The balance between the male brain and the female brain produces behavioral differences. Populations vary in this distribution of biases, just as they vary in the distribution of maturity. (Climate and disease gradients largely determine this.) 4 – Asymmetric reproduction (upward reproduction) improves these conditions, and symmetric reproduction does the reverse. Hence why cities are dysgenia-factories. 5 – ‘Something wonderful happened’ either before (black sea) or when we combined horse, wheel, and bronze. But it ‘appears’ that the black sea -caspian created a rapid recursively improving gene pool. Same with yellow river. Most but west and far east were also isolated. 6 – So the answer is that when the original people moved west into poland and germany, and developed a trading civilization among the north sea baltic peoples that they already possessed a genetic and possibly cultural advantage. 7 – The roman empire destroyed celtic civilization (as they did carthaginian and east mediterranean), which appears to have been the ‘core state’ of europe – and created opportunity for the high germanics to migrate, and eventually conquer rome. 8 – Now, nordic peoples practiced a form of late marriage and manorialism for a long time, possibly ‘always’. But by 700 the people of the low countries institutionalized it, and this formalized reproductive eugenics. Bipartite manorialism is demarcated by the Hajnal Line. 9 – Beginning with the redevelopment of major trade lines, about 1000, and certainly by the establishment of the Hansa in 1200, europeans started aggressively hanging ‘troublemakers’. 10 – downward movement of middle class reproduction meant that by the late medieval/early modern period much of european population above the Hajnal line was genetically middle class. Add literacy, and redistribute the dead capital in the church hands – and magic happened. 11- So it appears that the advantage is genetic and long standing, but is amplified substantially by (a) heroic culture, and (b) culling of the underclass through systemic eugenics, starvation, war, and disease. 12 – Ergo, the underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal, and the untrainable one’s ‘removed from the breeding pool’. And we have reversed those IQ gains in just 150 years.

  • The underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal.

    1 – IQ produces many incremental ‘goods’ (morality, cooperation, adaptation, invention, cost of learning) 2 – Neoteny/Pedomorphism/Juvenilization produces lower rate and depth of maturity, more aquiline features, longer development times, and greater ‘distance’ from impulses. 3 – The balance between the male brain and the female brain produces behavioral differences. Populations vary in this distribution of biases, just as they vary in the distribution of maturity. (Climate and disease gradients largely determine this.) 4 – Asymmetric reproduction (upward reproduction) improves these conditions, and symmetric reproduction does the reverse. Hence why cities are dysgenia-factories. 5 – ‘Something wonderful happened’ either before (black sea) or when we combined horse, wheel, and bronze. But it ‘appears’ that the black sea -caspian created a rapid recursively improving gene pool. Same with yellow river. Most but west and far east were also isolated. 6 – So the answer is that when the original people moved west into poland and germany, and developed a trading civilization among the north sea baltic peoples that they already possessed a genetic and possibly cultural advantage. 7 – The roman empire destroyed celtic civilization (as they did carthaginian and east mediterranean), which appears to have been the ‘core state’ of europe – and created opportunity for the high germanics to migrate, and eventually conquer rome. 8 – Now, nordic peoples practiced a form of late marriage and manorialism for a long time, possibly ‘always’. But by 700 the people of the low countries institutionalized it, and this formalized reproductive eugenics. Bipartite manorialism is demarcated by the Hajnal Line. 9 – Beginning with the redevelopment of major trade lines, about 1000, and certainly by the establishment of the Hansa in 1200, europeans started aggressively hanging ‘troublemakers’. 10 – downward movement of middle class reproduction meant that by the late medieval/early modern period much of european population above the Hajnal line was genetically middle class. Add literacy, and redistribute the dead capital in the church hands – and magic happened. 11- So it appears that the advantage is genetic and long standing, but is amplified substantially by (a) heroic culture, and (b) culling of the underclass through systemic eugenics, starvation, war, and disease. 12 – Ergo, the underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal, and the untrainable one’s ‘removed from the breeding pool’. And we have reversed those IQ gains in just 150 years.