1-probably ;).
2-Zeihan has Sam Harris levels of TDS. (eye roll)
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 15:53:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918333058664808884
1-probably ;).
2-Zeihan has Sam Harris levels of TDS. (eye roll)
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 15:53:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918333058664808884
1-probably ;).
2-Zeihan has Sam Harris levels of TDS. (eye roll)
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 15:53:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918333058664808884
Reply addressees: @DRolandAnderson @LukeWeinhagen
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918317902379495617
again, empirical rather than theoretical. great work. still empirical (descriptive).
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:29:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918206134986653889
again, empirical rather than theoretical. great work. still empirical (descriptive).
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:29:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918206134986653889
Reply addressees: @bierlingm @Hitchslap1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918202430593929538
Tests were softened to be more equally distributed between verbal and mathematical in order to reduce the sex difference gap. I am not sure this wasn’t a useful correction.
The average is less meaningful than the narrower distribution of females vs males. The same is true of personalities (nature experiments with men, and maintains stability with women).
The meaningful difference is more a matter of verbal-pictoral-discrete-empirical vs physical-spatial-rotatioal-theoretical.
The meaningful difference is more a matter of the value of masculine (stem) vs feminine (relationship) fields.
The gap increases at the tails where there are literally no revolutionary thinkers among women – we can’t produce a single one despite all our efforts.
The test improvement I ask for is predictive capacity which I observe is a failing in the test system because it is difficult to test.
That’s the TLDR version 😉
Reply addressees: @Hitchslap1
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 06:56:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918197871943524352
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918161122886296022
IN REPLY TO:
@Hitchslap1
@curtdoolittle Thank you Curt. You’re a man of many talents. Since you mentioned it, may I ask briefly, if you believe the roughly 3 point mean IQ gap between men and women is due to differences in (g) or test constitution?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918161122886296022
ok. thinking.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 04:18:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918158031294288024
Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918157220514050429
IN REPLY TO:
@LukeWeinhagen
“So just as I am separating my personal website from the institute, in order to give the institute breathing room – distance from my early research work”
Really dislike this outcome.
I am against any “distancing”.
Move early work to an archive like
archive(.)naturallawinstitute(.)com, sure, to make the main site more navigable and make the search feature there more specifically functional to institute business.
But hiding from early work, i.e. “distancing”, is not at all what I was hoping to see.
I already believe too much has been removed from public access. I don’t want any of the harsh and ugly process of discovery hidden. I was hoping moving earlier materials to an archive branch of the site would allow for even more of the early efforts to be restored for public access.
It’s unfortunate that this has become the motivation.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918157220514050429
Of course. I try to stay current with the field. And additionally I can explain the neuroscience, and can delve into sex differences as well as cognitive differences as (g) increases
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 03:59:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918153410899263523
Reply addressees: @Hitchslap1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918128017345585659
IN REPLY TO:
@Hitchslap1
@curtdoolittle Thank you Curt. Very perspicacious reply. Have you read the results of the SMPY study as they relate to performance at the 99th percentile and above?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918128017345585659
That’s the upper end of midwit range. Benefits continue to accrue through the 140s, though specialization tends to increase, and therefore normative divergence, especially up to 160 – which is about the max testable.
There are declining economic returns in most cases, which is…
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 01:58:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918122787715325952
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918111598960656753
IN REPLY TO:
@Hitchslap1
Many people believe the benefits of IQ have an upper limit. That above 120 IQ you get diminishing returns.
Do you agree?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918111598960656753
Yes.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 00:08:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918095275006279866
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918091190114640030
IN REPLY TO:
@AutistocratMS
@curtdoolittle I’ve agreed with this, except just a few days ago, I started considering the possibility that AI might develop self-interest without anyone’s intent simply by being being trained on human data which do express our self-interest.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918091190114640030
RT @JohnHolbein1: Studying economics and business in college makes students become much more conservative. https://t.co/niCLriciOc




Source date (UTC): 2025-05-01 23:47:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918089899955331290