I.Q. IN THE HIGH RANGE CORRELATES NEGATIVELY WITH INDICATORS OF DISORDER AND DEVIANCE by Paul Cooijmans This result has surprised me, and for years I thought it might be due to sampling error and would disappear as more data came in. It did not, and I am now fairly confident that there is indeed a significant, albeit small (about .3 to .4), negative correlation between high-range mental test scores and indicators of disorder and deviance such as the actual presence of psychiatric disorders, the presence of such in relatives (which reveals genetic disposition), and personality test scores related to deviance. The main reason I had not expected this result is the persistent notion in “giftedness” circles that “gifted” individuals often experience psychosocial or psychiatric problems and may need special treatment and help. At events related to “giftedness” one can nowadays see committees of all sorts of (often quack) therapists, eager to “help”, and whenever they spot someone “diagnosed” with “giftedness” those vultures come down from the trees. I have believed in this interpretation of “giftedness” until about the late 1990s, but gradually became sceptical as I saw the statistics build up, and as I got in contact with many people with known I.Q. scores on many tests; my experience in such contact is that, within the high range of intelligence, those with higher I.Q.’s are more normal, less deviant, undergo less psychosocial suffering, than those with somewhat lower I.Q.’s. Do notice that the fairly small size of the negative correlation certainly allows some part of the population of intelligent to be deviant, disordered, or suffering; but it is apparently not the intelligence that causes their problems. Also, this result by no means excludes the possibility of a positive (genetic) link between intelligence and certain disorders, like schizophrenia and Asperger syndrome. The eventual correlation may result form a complex of mechanisms, such that a possible positive genetic relation is turned into negative by for instance (1) the fact that a high I.Q. suppresses the expression of the disorder, and (2) the fact that, in cases where the disorder does become fully expressed, the disorder depresses one’s I.Q.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?
Mar 20, 2020, 10:22 AM
—“Bill, Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?”—
RELIGION I think the religion question result from the conflation of two necessary psychological functions: 1) belonging and cohesion to the community (running with the pack, ritual behaviour increasing amiability to cooperate, signaling between group members) And; 2) creating personal meaning for ones life. This represents the conflation of public and private functions, which makes the problem difficult. I see this as an artifact of the role institutional religion played in the past as a catch all institution for communities which over time we’ve spun off higher resolution institutions as we began to see the need more clearly. The former relates to extended identity – identify with our community,find our place with in it then contribute from it… contribution in both directions (what you get from your community, what you give to your community) provides the seeds for this identity (for example the role of “professionalism” with in the military) The later is for each person to develop on their own. its for the individual to discover and develop a meaningful relationship with their life. I think the difficulty or rather resistance we find with religious groups stems from using the former (community functions) to lower the costs for the later (as the later exists as a personal responsibility- adopting a personal god allows one to grab a prepackaged product to fulfill what one needs to create on their own). APPLIED P Now, as for applied P. I see this as really really simple because its really just a set of three or so heuristics for guiding personal and interpersonal decisions. 1) everything is a proxy for violence resulting in trust commons i.e. use trust as a means for measuring others behaviour and your own. 2) reciprocity as the measure for “contract” and in assessing moral behaviour 3) view everything by a measure of property. measure costs, investments etc. And i add this in regarding parenting (and use all of the above for parenting)… autonomy follows demonstrated ability therefore i grant freedoms to my child after they’ve demonstrated responsibility (and thus must give opportunities to demonstrate responsibility) and remove them based on the same criteria. …I mean these are the ones I have explicit thought into, there maybe more elements which I do intuitively and haven’t realized yet. I see the above points as essentially dimensions of the same “thing” that being property en toto, and thus can calculate life choices based on these means of measurement (rough measurements) Trust, reciprocity, property… Did that behaviour increase or decrease trust and why… am i reciprocating, are they reciprocating? if not why (do i need to renegotiate the terms of the relationship). Is this my property, their property, or ours? (For example: it’s not in my purview to judge how my boss runs their business because its their property – not my “business”) (is that friend demonstrating investment in this friendship? or am i the only one investing… if so then they don’t see value in this property so my investment is misdirected (a malinvestment).) … this one has worked wonders for my daughter navigating teenage dramas.
-
Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?
Mar 20, 2020, 10:22 AM
—“Bill, Why is the religion question not hard? And why is applied-P simple?”—
RELIGION I think the religion question result from the conflation of two necessary psychological functions: 1) belonging and cohesion to the community (running with the pack, ritual behaviour increasing amiability to cooperate, signaling between group members) And; 2) creating personal meaning for ones life. This represents the conflation of public and private functions, which makes the problem difficult. I see this as an artifact of the role institutional religion played in the past as a catch all institution for communities which over time we’ve spun off higher resolution institutions as we began to see the need more clearly. The former relates to extended identity – identify with our community,find our place with in it then contribute from it… contribution in both directions (what you get from your community, what you give to your community) provides the seeds for this identity (for example the role of “professionalism” with in the military) The later is for each person to develop on their own. its for the individual to discover and develop a meaningful relationship with their life. I think the difficulty or rather resistance we find with religious groups stems from using the former (community functions) to lower the costs for the later (as the later exists as a personal responsibility- adopting a personal god allows one to grab a prepackaged product to fulfill what one needs to create on their own). APPLIED P Now, as for applied P. I see this as really really simple because its really just a set of three or so heuristics for guiding personal and interpersonal decisions. 1) everything is a proxy for violence resulting in trust commons i.e. use trust as a means for measuring others behaviour and your own. 2) reciprocity as the measure for “contract” and in assessing moral behaviour 3) view everything by a measure of property. measure costs, investments etc. And i add this in regarding parenting (and use all of the above for parenting)… autonomy follows demonstrated ability therefore i grant freedoms to my child after they’ve demonstrated responsibility (and thus must give opportunities to demonstrate responsibility) and remove them based on the same criteria. …I mean these are the ones I have explicit thought into, there maybe more elements which I do intuitively and haven’t realized yet. I see the above points as essentially dimensions of the same “thing” that being property en toto, and thus can calculate life choices based on these means of measurement (rough measurements) Trust, reciprocity, property… Did that behaviour increase or decrease trust and why… am i reciprocating, are they reciprocating? if not why (do i need to renegotiate the terms of the relationship). Is this my property, their property, or ours? (For example: it’s not in my purview to judge how my boss runs their business because its their property – not my “business”) (is that friend demonstrating investment in this friendship? or am i the only one investing… if so then they don’t see value in this property so my investment is misdirected (a malinvestment).) … this one has worked wonders for my daughter navigating teenage dramas.
-
But What About Everything Other than Moral Reasoning?
Mar 20, 2020, 10:28 AM BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING OTHER THAN MORAL REASONING?
—“Brandon, Why is applied-P simple?”—CD —“P’s not hard cause it asks one thing: reciprocity. It’s just hard for people to spot when it’s not interpersonal. Don’t cheat people with your words; warranty your actions… What’s hard?”— Brandon Hayes
So moral-reasoning in P is not hard. But what about the Grammars, Testimonial Truth, Operational Language, Strictly Constructed Laws, and the Abrahamic Method of Deceit?
-
But What About Everything Other than Moral Reasoning?
Mar 20, 2020, 10:28 AM BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING OTHER THAN MORAL REASONING?
—“Brandon, Why is applied-P simple?”—CD —“P’s not hard cause it asks one thing: reciprocity. It’s just hard for people to spot when it’s not interpersonal. Don’t cheat people with your words; warranty your actions… What’s hard?”— Brandon Hayes
So moral-reasoning in P is not hard. But what about the Grammars, Testimonial Truth, Operational Language, Strictly Constructed Laws, and the Abrahamic Method of Deceit?
-
Moral *and* Epistemic
Mar 20, 2020, 10:47 AM by Yiannis Kontinopoulos
What people don’t get in Propertarianism is that the scientific method with testimonialism is not an epistemological criterion, but an ethical one: these are all the ways that you might be prone to error or attempt to lie and if you don’t adhere to these standards you will be assumed to have lied.
Operationalism is the actual epistemological criterion: what we can know is what we can reproduce in recipes of actions and measurements.
—“This helped me.”—Andrew M Gilmour
-
Moral *and* Epistemic
Mar 20, 2020, 10:47 AM by Yiannis Kontinopoulos
What people don’t get in Propertarianism is that the scientific method with testimonialism is not an epistemological criterion, but an ethical one: these are all the ways that you might be prone to error or attempt to lie and if you don’t adhere to these standards you will be assumed to have lied.
Operationalism is the actual epistemological criterion: what we can know is what we can reproduce in recipes of actions and measurements.
—“This helped me.”—Andrew M Gilmour
-
Why Women Got the Vote
Mar 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Women got the vote because they were entering the workforce during the war; out of a feeling of moral gratitude for their having done so; and the government wanted to tax them, and the reason for the american revolution was ‘no taxation without representation’. In addition, they wanted to reduce the conflict postwar. women weren’t happy just ‘going home’ now that they could find work. Men wanted them to go home so that they could have their jobs bad. The politicians found women were more pliable (open to political manipulation) and so both parties cooperated on the integration of women. That’s the reason. There is nothing more complicated than that. War, labor shortage, women filled the shortage, tax revenues could be increased by women working at the cost of number of children. The only mistake was not giving women a separate house. This wasn’t such a big problem until the pill. The pill and jewish anti-male feminism were concerted efforts by the jewish socialists to undermine the family institution so that women could be used to undermine men. This is all well covered in the literature. Everyone knew what was going on. But it was regarded as a conspiracy theory. It was, but it was true.
-
Why Women Got the Vote
Mar 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Women got the vote because they were entering the workforce during the war; out of a feeling of moral gratitude for their having done so; and the government wanted to tax them, and the reason for the american revolution was ‘no taxation without representation’. In addition, they wanted to reduce the conflict postwar. women weren’t happy just ‘going home’ now that they could find work. Men wanted them to go home so that they could have their jobs bad. The politicians found women were more pliable (open to political manipulation) and so both parties cooperated on the integration of women. That’s the reason. There is nothing more complicated than that. War, labor shortage, women filled the shortage, tax revenues could be increased by women working at the cost of number of children. The only mistake was not giving women a separate house. This wasn’t such a big problem until the pill. The pill and jewish anti-male feminism were concerted efforts by the jewish socialists to undermine the family institution so that women could be used to undermine men. This is all well covered in the literature. Everyone knew what was going on. But it was regarded as a conspiracy theory. It was, but it was true.
-
Train the Elephant – All the Way
Mar 20, 2020, 11:33 AM The more agency the have the less intuition to rely on to choose, the more you rely on intuition to falsify. I think that’s the net of it. “What does my intuition say? Ok. how can that be false? What’s the evidence that falsifies my intuition? And repeat that endlessly.” I mean, I know that’s how I think. Free association, falsification, loop until I have a first principle. Normal human reaction is just to seek a response from intuition. You have to train the elephant.
—“It’s like an OODA loop for combat with the self.”—Kris Rue