—“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: Original Site Post
-
“Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic”
By Danika Fears, NYP
—“Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong. The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. “The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction. “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.” In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism. The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones. The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame. “I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.” The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.” But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.” “The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.”—
-
“Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic”
By Danika Fears, NYP
—“Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong. The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. “The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction. “The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.” In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism. The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones. The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame. “I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.” The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.” But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.” “The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.”—
-
Production or Consumption?
by Ely Harman Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low level where their specializations are most helpful, or until marriage) are not participating in production but participating in consumption – especially the consumption of their genetic inheritance, in exchange for a single lifetime of careerism and sensation seeking. But all the status and memories they accumulate that way will die with them. I don’t see what was wrong with the post agrarian norms, where men were responsible for all of the war and politics and most of the economic production, while women were responsible for most of the reproduction and caretaking. That worked well enough for thousands of years. I think the main reason it’s been abandoned is that defection is individually rational, but collectively irrational. Nearly everyone would be better off, in their own estimation, if defection were effectively barred, though they may be better off still if they were able to defect while no one else could (fails existential possibility and reciprocity.
-
Production or Consumption?
by Ely Harman Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low level where their specializations are most helpful, or until marriage) are not participating in production but participating in consumption – especially the consumption of their genetic inheritance, in exchange for a single lifetime of careerism and sensation seeking. But all the status and memories they accumulate that way will die with them. I don’t see what was wrong with the post agrarian norms, where men were responsible for all of the war and politics and most of the economic production, while women were responsible for most of the reproduction and caretaking. That worked well enough for thousands of years. I think the main reason it’s been abandoned is that defection is individually rational, but collectively irrational. Nearly everyone would be better off, in their own estimation, if defection were effectively barred, though they may be better off still if they were able to defect while no one else could (fails existential possibility and reciprocity.
-
—“Are the far left or the far right more intelligent?”—
I did quite a bit of research on this in the mid 00’s when a number of left leaning surveys were published that I was pretty sure were wrong. They were. (Especially about mental illness, which appears to be a near monopoly on the left because of the dominance of women on the left. Why? Because males demonstrate anti social behavior by criminality and females demonstrate antisocial behavior by psychosis. Hence why a third of american women are on anti-depressants.) Here is the summary: a) Republicans are smarter than democrats.b) Liberals are smarter than conservatives.c) And libertarians are smartest of all. Moreover: d) People vote by moral intuition because they have no other choice under representative first-past-the-post, two party, government. (See “Myth of the Rational Voter”.) e) Men bias to organize by packs (precision at the cost of consensus), and women bias to organize as herd (consensus at the cost of precision). This means men are less likely to pursue consensus, and instead specialize. Hence the relative heterogeneity of the right compared to the relative homogeneity of the left. Ergo democracies always move left until failure while anglo civilization using hoses for the classes merely had civil wars to reorganize the law to include newly productive classes. f) People vote heavily by race and religion, with single white women the only group ‘defecting’. In some sense, single women determine most presidential outcomes for this reason. Without women voters we would never have had a leftist president. (See Pew.) Why? There are very (painfully) obvious reasons: 1 – Advocates use college degrees as a proxy for intelligence without mediating for the IQ distribution of degrees. In other words, a Phd in Education is rated more highly than bachelors degree in engineering or computer science, yet graduates with those degrees possess the inverse IQ relationship. 2 – Women at the lower end of the distribution disproportionately obtain (nonsense) degrees while men simply enter the work force without them. 3 – There are very few liberals, and very many conservatives. There are very few libertarians and very many democrats. In other words, when you compare democrats and republicans that’s categorically the same as comparing libertarians and leftists. The difference is that liberals will have soft degrees and libertarians will have hard (STEM) degrees. But if you mix categories (liberals and conservatives) then you are comparing vastly different distributions by very different criteria.
<- Liberal -- Democrat - independent - Republican -- Libertarian -> <- Female Reproductive Strategy <---> Male Reproductive Strategy ->
That’s why.
-
—“Are the far left or the far right more intelligent?”—
I did quite a bit of research on this in the mid 00’s when a number of left leaning surveys were published that I was pretty sure were wrong. They were. (Especially about mental illness, which appears to be a near monopoly on the left because of the dominance of women on the left. Why? Because males demonstrate anti social behavior by criminality and females demonstrate antisocial behavior by psychosis. Hence why a third of american women are on anti-depressants.) Here is the summary: a) Republicans are smarter than democrats.b) Liberals are smarter than conservatives.c) And libertarians are smartest of all. Moreover: d) People vote by moral intuition because they have no other choice under representative first-past-the-post, two party, government. (See “Myth of the Rational Voter”.) e) Men bias to organize by packs (precision at the cost of consensus), and women bias to organize as herd (consensus at the cost of precision). This means men are less likely to pursue consensus, and instead specialize. Hence the relative heterogeneity of the right compared to the relative homogeneity of the left. Ergo democracies always move left until failure while anglo civilization using hoses for the classes merely had civil wars to reorganize the law to include newly productive classes. f) People vote heavily by race and religion, with single white women the only group ‘defecting’. In some sense, single women determine most presidential outcomes for this reason. Without women voters we would never have had a leftist president. (See Pew.) Why? There are very (painfully) obvious reasons: 1 – Advocates use college degrees as a proxy for intelligence without mediating for the IQ distribution of degrees. In other words, a Phd in Education is rated more highly than bachelors degree in engineering or computer science, yet graduates with those degrees possess the inverse IQ relationship. 2 – Women at the lower end of the distribution disproportionately obtain (nonsense) degrees while men simply enter the work force without them. 3 – There are very few liberals, and very many conservatives. There are very few libertarians and very many democrats. In other words, when you compare democrats and republicans that’s categorically the same as comparing libertarians and leftists. The difference is that liberals will have soft degrees and libertarians will have hard (STEM) degrees. But if you mix categories (liberals and conservatives) then you are comparing vastly different distributions by very different criteria.
<- Liberal -- Democrat - independent - Republican -- Libertarian -> <- Female Reproductive Strategy <---> Male Reproductive Strategy ->
That’s why.
-
—“Are China And Russia Military Allies?”—
CHINA HAS NO ALLIES, ONLY DEPENDENTS **China has no allies. She only has dependents.** This principle is central to east asian thought. There are no equals. In all circumstances someone is superior and another is subordinate. When confucius could not solve the problem of politics he directed all men to organize into a paternal hierarchy, from the emperor on down to the new born child. When chinese history says ‘middle kingdom’ they mean ‘the center of the world’ with them at the top. Chinese thought requires the preservation of harmony – meaning non disruption of the status hierarchy. Even if that means doing everything possible to avoid speaking the truth. Chinese strategy, is to delay and deceive, while building up offensive and defensive capability, until a competitor can no longer even negotiate, but simply obey. This is a very paternal model of thought. It is not necessarily a bad one, for the simple reason that chinese pursuit of harmony, and parenting is somewhat grounded in their (rather questionable) morality. That said, they will kill millions of their own happily if necessary, and have far less regard for human life than westerners (or indo europeans in general) do or can even imagine. So no, **China has no allies, she has only enemies, subordinates, and candidate subordinates.** This is all you really need to understand about Chinese policy, culture, and civilization. Just as heroism sovereignty, reciprocity and truth are all you need to understand the west. In this sense we are not very compatible civilizations.
-
—“Are China And Russia Military Allies?”—
CHINA HAS NO ALLIES, ONLY DEPENDENTS **China has no allies. She only has dependents.** This principle is central to east asian thought. There are no equals. In all circumstances someone is superior and another is subordinate. When confucius could not solve the problem of politics he directed all men to organize into a paternal hierarchy, from the emperor on down to the new born child. When chinese history says ‘middle kingdom’ they mean ‘the center of the world’ with them at the top. Chinese thought requires the preservation of harmony – meaning non disruption of the status hierarchy. Even if that means doing everything possible to avoid speaking the truth. Chinese strategy, is to delay and deceive, while building up offensive and defensive capability, until a competitor can no longer even negotiate, but simply obey. This is a very paternal model of thought. It is not necessarily a bad one, for the simple reason that chinese pursuit of harmony, and parenting is somewhat grounded in their (rather questionable) morality. That said, they will kill millions of their own happily if necessary, and have far less regard for human life than westerners (or indo europeans in general) do or can even imagine. So no, **China has no allies, she has only enemies, subordinates, and candidate subordinates.** This is all you really need to understand about Chinese policy, culture, and civilization. Just as heroism sovereignty, reciprocity and truth are all you need to understand the west. In this sense we are not very compatible civilizations.
-
—“If you were the President, and you wanted to destroy America’s power in the world and unity as a nation, what would you do?”—
This assumes American power is good thing (empirically, we have pretty much always been wrong in every single conflict). And it assumes it’s not a good idea to withdraw from the burden of continuing the British Empire’s network of finance and trade despite having dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, poverty, and disease in the face of competition from marxism, communism, socialism, and its modern variation: islam. We are no longer asymmetrically advantaged either technologically, economically, or militarily, and we have even lost our demographic superiority through vast underclass immigration. So while the minds of children make moral and emotinoal judgements, those of us who have adult minds make empirical judgemnts. The answer is pretty simple: we can’t finance the world transformation from superstition to empiricism any longer because enough of the world has adopted our aristotelianism (empiricism, science, technology, law, markets) that it has been costing us quality of life since the 70’s. in other words, VIRTUE SIGNALING SO THAT YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF IS NO LONGER AFFORDABLE. But to answer the question: I would create power vacuums as did Obama and Carter rather than demand vacuums be filled by depriving other countries of subsidies. But this requires you understand not only economics, but capital. And strangely enough, mainstream (saltwater) economics, does not measure capital changes, only consumption.