—“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.
Theme: Agency
-
HEALTH We are not the same. we have different genes and processes and needs. The
HEALTH
We are not the same. we have different genes and processes and needs. The truth is that if you are getting enough exercise your body will tell you what to eat via cravings. If you are struggling to define what you need to eat via then you are not getting enough exercise. Most foods i see today are used as sedatives for lack of exercise, sociability, and rest. If you are using food as a curative or sedative you’re working on the wrong problem. It’s fitness, socialization, and rest.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 20:46:00 UTC
-
The Problem of Current Families
It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.
-
The Problem of Current Families
It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.
-
More People Are Mentally Ill than Is Obvious
Far more people are mentally ill than is obvious from daily discourse. The principle reason is that they are vastly under socialized and their less than able minds are not constrained by continuous training under pressure of peers. Americans are de facto crazy, where other peoples are de facto escapist, religious, or superstitious. This is because we have attributed to and demanded from ordinary people the agency of the middle, upper middle and upper classes. And the fact is that the reason people are in the middle and upper classes is precisely because they possess agency that others do not.
-
More People Are Mentally Ill than Is Obvious
Far more people are mentally ill than is obvious from daily discourse. The principle reason is that they are vastly under socialized and their less than able minds are not constrained by continuous training under pressure of peers. Americans are de facto crazy, where other peoples are de facto escapist, religious, or superstitious. This is because we have attributed to and demanded from ordinary people the agency of the middle, upper middle and upper classes. And the fact is that the reason people are in the middle and upper classes is precisely because they possess agency that others do not.
-
Far more people are mentally ill than is obvious from daily discourse. The princ
Far more people are mentally ill than is obvious from daily discourse. The principle reason is that they are vastly under socialized and their less than able minds are not constrained by continuous training under pressure of peers.
Americans are de facto crazy, where other peoples are de facto escapist, religious, or superstitious. This is because we have attributed to and demanded from ordinary people the agency of the middle, upper middle and upper classes.
And the fact is that the reason people are in the middle and upper classes is precisely because they possess agency that others do not.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 11:30:00 UTC
-
white is statistically probable, the question is mental illness, family, drugs
white is statistically probable, the question is mental illness, family, drugs.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 01:10:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981338084502630406
Reply addressees: @pakiahkoi
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981334707626373120
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981334707626373120
-
Its actually isolated to children of liberals, with mental disorders, and most o
Its actually isolated to children of liberals, with mental disorders, and most often include the use of anti-depressants. (really) In fact, I’m pretty sure the phenomenon is the result of single motherhood, suppression of physical action and dominance play, and school alienation.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 23:30:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981312949871628288
Reply addressees: @pakiahkoi
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981311174376484865
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981311174376484865
-
—“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. )