Eat the weak. They waste the world’s resources and they inhibit our transcendence into the gods we seek.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:54:00 UTC
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
A GENTLEMAN APPLIES STOICISM TO MANNERS The art of being a gentleman is merely t
A GENTLEMAN APPLIES STOICISM TO MANNERS
The art of being a gentleman is merely to apply stoicism to one’s manners and grooming. An entertaining gentleman learns a bit of humor. A gentleman of good company reads a few good books. A gentleman of merit accumulates accomplishments.
Unfortunately, hollywood has taught generations to seek attention like fourteen year old girls with no chance of a finishing school.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 17:55:00 UTC
-
“Give birth to at least 3 copies of the change you wish to see in the world.”—
—“Give birth to at least 3 copies of the change you wish to see in the world.”—Adam Voight
(i’m gonna use that quote a dozen times a year, no question)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 14:12:00 UTC
-
MORE ON IQ What would you rather have, a 20 point increase in demonstrated intel
MORE ON IQ
What would you rather have, a 20 point increase in demonstrated intelligence because you’ve learned to think empirically, and another 20 point increase in demonstrated IQ because you’ve learned to think Testimonially? Or the belief that your demonstrated IQ is an inescapable limitation on your possibilities? All great eras provide people with the ability to use technology of thought to augment natural abilities.
Learn testimonialism and stop worrying about your IQ.
You can’t change how fast you process. But you can dramatically narrow what you must process in order to obtain insight and advantage.
Acquisitionism(psychology/metaphysics), Propertarianism(sociology/ethics), and Testimonialism(truth/epistemology) and Natural Law(Law/Politics), and Group Evolutionary Strategy (competition/war) will make the world transparent to you.
And no, it’s not easy. And yes it will take a long time. But when it all ‘starts to click’ you will see a different world.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 12:13:00 UTC
-
WHAT’S YOUR IQ? I don’t find it constructive to go there. as far as I know incre
WHAT’S YOUR IQ?
I don’t find it constructive to go there. as far as I know increases over 140 make little substantive difference, and decreases below 60 make no substantive difference. Above 140 and below 60 other personality factors (I consider IQ a personality factor) determine demonstrated intelligence.
For example, I can tell that, say, Chomsky (and many highly intelligent jews for that matter) can express ideas – which is a trait that starts at 105 and seems to flower at about 130 – and do it far better than I can. But this only lets him (like Wittgenstein and Marx) ‘get it wrong’ elegantly. However, those people can do that because their empathy for frames of reference is higher than mine. Whereas I don’t ‘pay that cost or gain that return’ because I can’t. Yet, conversely, I don’t make the errors that others that empathize with frames of reference do. But what I notice is that they matured emotionally earlier than I did (or I much later than they did). And I think that’s where their advantage played out over mine.
If you have a lot of general knowledge, an IQ over 105, and a no disruptive personality traits, and an interest in learning, you can pretty much learn the important concepts in this world. You may need to have 115 to learn them more easily, and 125 to learn them on your own, 135 to explain them, and 145 to discover them. Sure. But the ideas are available to you across the spectrum. It’s below 105 that we incrementally develop limitations, and below 95 where functional utility starts to rapidly decline.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-24 05:05:00 UTC
-
(on race and IQ) … Flynn, Lynn, Vanen, and as far as I know the vast majority
(on race and IQ)
…
Flynn, Lynn, Vanen, and as far as I know the vast majority of specilists agree with the difference in racial distributions.
What is not obvious is simply the consequence of size of the bottom of the distributions. Meaning, that whites and east asians, because of climate, agriculture, and government, have literally killed off large portions of the underclasses for more than one thousand years, and in both societies used reverse redistribution to increase rates of reproduction in their upper middle, and upper classes.
As far as I know, the difference between the races is largely a function of the rates of reproduction of the classes. This heavily affected by the difference between the burden of particularist thought (memory) and the advantage of generalist thought (general theories), plus the increase provided by education and nutrition.
However, the deltas between the racial distributions raised universally across all races maintaining the relative centers of the distributions.
Futhermore, ashkenazis, whites, and east asians, have succeeded in selective breeding for pedomorphism producing much lower testosterone levels, and much lower impulsivity and aggression than the warmer(temperate) and more competitive (africa) regions. So much so that this appears to be a reproductive problem for east asians in modernity. (impulsivity and lower intelligence in the absence of subsistence pressures produce higher rates of reproduction, while lack of impulsivity and higher intelligence produce lower rates of reproduction.)
So as far as I know (and I am pretty completely informed), the issue remains not one of necessarily material differences (although there are some) but largely a matter of the size of the underclasses in the relative groups, and the degree of ‘domestication’ through pedomorphic reproduction that has been possible in the territory of racial occupation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 20:52:00 UTC
-
Josh Jeppson —“It’s stereotypical at this point, but perhaps because it’s larg
Josh Jeppson —“It’s stereotypical at this point, but perhaps because it’s largely true: intuitive minds are the best at penetrative insights before others get there, and serial/hyperlogical minds are best at double-checking the visionaries’ claims.”—-
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 18:14:00 UTC
-
FIVE PROPERTIES OF DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE Demonstrated intelligence consists
FIVE PROPERTIES OF DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE
Demonstrated intelligence consists of a set of primary functions any one of which will fail you, but if none of them fails, compensates substantially for differences in IQ.
All people with demonstrated intelligence are the same, all demonstratedly unintelligent people are different.
1 – Intelligence, esp, verbal. (rate you reduce information to patterns)
2 – short term memory (the ability to maintain states, and therefore sustain comparative searches and comparisons)
3 – general knowledge (inventory of patterns that intelligence can search for patterns)
4 – “wants”, (wanting correspondence with or difference from reality, or force you to select general knowledge that confirms the biases.)
5 – genetic intuitions (genetic influences that harmfully bias wants)
If all of these work to some degree you will be functionally intelligent’ regardless of your IQ. If any one of these is substantially defective it will not matter what your IQ is.
BY ANALOGY, DOMESTICATABLE ANIMALS:
All domesticatable animals are the same, all undomesticatable animals are different.
1 – cannot be picky eaters
2 – reach maturity quickly
3 – willing to breed in captivity
4 – docile by nature
5 – conform to a social hierarchy
If any one of these fails the animal is not domesticatable (in numbers).
BY ANALOGY, HAPPY FAMILIES
“all happy families are the same, all unhappy families are different”. As Dostoyevsky stated, if any one of the criteria for a happy family is absent the family will be unhappy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 17:12:00 UTC
-
The reason for festivals and rituals is to provide opportunities for those for w
The reason for festivals and rituals is to provide opportunities for those for whom suppression of impulse is very costly to recharge their inventory of discipline in an environment that is sanctioned by the polity, while under their eye, showing you are not a danger to them; and to provide opportunities to learn the suppression of impulses necessary for the polity through safety and insurance in its shelter. And to demonstrate one is worthy of their sanction. The reason for law is to punish those impulses where not sanctioned by the polity. Both the sanction of excesses and the practice of indoctrination into the sacred, use the pack response to bind us through ‘thick plenty, and thin scarcity’.
Men demonstrate the behavior of pack animals, and women, herd animals. But these are non-trivial emotions we feel. And our celebrations of release in plenty, and disciplines of sanctity in scarcity provide opportunity for outliers to show themselves, and opportunity for everyone else to find sanction, and opportunity for our elites to provide venues for their imitation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 14:09:00 UTC
-
If you’re selfish, stupid, and ugly, you’re undesirable for cooperation, associa
If you’re selfish, stupid, and ugly, you’re undesirable for cooperation, association, reproduction, and employment. I realize this frustrates the female intuition. Because just as a gay man desires the attention we give to females and is ‘hurt’ by its absence – because men are disposable, and their sexual attention unwanted – an undesirable woman feels the same ‘hurt’.
But because of the reproductive necessity of feminine solipsism, these women lack agency: they are unable to distinguish between, or unable to tolerate, their undesirability and need for self-reformation, from active hostility toward them. Absence of attention is not the same as the presence of malice. Instead, the fact is, that if you are impulsive, selfish, stupid, and ugly, you’re just a dead weight cost on the rest of humanity. And no one pays you any attention until you change yourself.
(The more I understand the differences in male and female agency the more disappointed I become with the prospects. men evolved greater agency because we’re dangerous to one another if we can’t develop it. Women’s lack of agency was tolerable before politics and nearly disappeared when they had multiple children. In that sense women’s lack of agency is an evolutionary asset for women with three or more children, and a detriment without them.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 10:05:00 UTC