Category Archives: Intelligence

HBD: Taking Apart the Anti-IQ Arguments Once Again

iRath: I know a lot of high IQ people that are stupid. It doesn’t mean you are all that creative or inventive. It means you have great memory recall. Kind of like an encyclopedia. In my experience, dealing with people who brag about high IQ points, they are usually narcissistic idiot savants. They are insufferable to be around because of their abrasive insecurities.

I don’t think the average person spends much time hand-wringing over their IQ score. On a day to day basis, it just not all that important. I do understand why people have an aversion towards elevating IQ scores as some sort of barometer of human value. Usually the people who are fapping on about it believe in their own divinity (narcissists), and that’s a very dangerous path we’ve been down before.

IQ measures more than recall. It’s the best measure we have for pure human intelligence.

If you don’t think IQ is important, then  you don’t think human intelligence is important. If you think human intelligence has no importance or value for human beings, I  suppose I would have to ask you why you are taking such an extreme position.

IQ measures:

  • Recall capacity (short term and long term).
  • Recall speed (short and long term).
  • Abstract thinking ability.
  • Verbal intelligence.
  • Nonverbal intelligence.
  • Pattern recognition.
  • Ability to compare and contract (analogy).
  • Actual capacity and breadth of human knowledge.
  • Pure, raw brain speed.
  • Brain efficiency.
  • Brain size (this is a statistical correlation).

Apparently the commenter does not think any of the above things are important. I suppose I would ask him why he takes such a radical position.

The commenter has known many high IQ people who were stupid?! Never met a single high IQ idiot in my entire life. Where have they been hiding? What does the poster mean by high IQ idiots? Explain.

In my experience, dealing with people who brag about high IQ points, they are usually narcissistic idiot savants. They are insufferable to be around because of their abrasive insecurities.

This is probably true, though I have never met an IQtard who goes around bragging about his IQ all the time in real life. There are a few on the Internet. IQ-haters like to go on and on about IQ braggarts, how the world is full of them, and how horrible they are, but where are they? I’ve never met one in my entire life. If they are such a problem, why I have never met one? This sounds like a solution in search of a  problem. Fighting the IQ-braggarts makes about as much sense as attacking a windmill with a spear. You are fighting against a problem that doesn’t even exist.

I do understand why people have an aversion towards elevating IQ scores as some sort of barometer of human value. Usually the people who are fapping on about it believe in their own divinity (narcissists), and that’s a very dangerous path we’ve been down before.

I’ve never met one of these people either, though there are some on the Net. Yes, they are insufferable, but best I can tell is they don’t even exist in the real world. Once again, a solution in search of a problem.

I don’t think the average person spends much time hand-wringing over their IQ score.

Of course most people don’t spend time thinking about IQ. I assure you though that everyone with a genius IQ or thereabouts knows their score and most, but not all, will tell it to you readily. In fact, most people with IQ’s over 120 know their scores and will immediately tell them to you, and some in the 110-119 range do too, and they will also quickly tell you, especially if they are 115-119. Where you run into people not knowing or even caring about their score is in the normal and below (90-100) or wide normal (84-116) ranges.

So people with scores above the wide normal range usually know their score and will readily tell you with no embarrassment or sense of shame or social violation. If they are 140+, generally speaking, you detect a sense of pride when they tell you no matter their gender. Under 140, not usually. Over 140 is the top 1% of humans. I would say if you are in the top 1% of any good thing, you ought to feel proud of it. Why not? We all need to feel good about ourselves.

I guess people in the normal range just don’t care, and they probably should not care. We are talking about most people here. I mean the vast majority of humans you meet day to day have IQ’s in the broad normal range. That’s even probably true in this slow city I live in, and this town is a graveyard of intelligence, trust me.

What’s wrong with being like everyone else? What’s wrong with being normal? Or regular? Or everyday? Or a typical person? Is it some sort of a sin?

What’s the point of knowing their score? Most people with average IQ’s are well aware they are not Einsteins anyway, and they do not lose any sleep over it. Almost everyone with an average IQ does not think it is important to be a brain (a logical point of view given their score), and they do not place much if any value on smarts. They tend to place value on other things that they think are more important than brains. Most of the people who really value brains are smart people.

3 Comments

Filed under Intelligence, Psychology

HBD: Why Do Some People with High IQ’s Have So Much Confidence in Their IQ?

Shall we reword this question?

“Why do some people have so much confidence in their intelligence?”

Well, don’t you think people of high intelligence would have a lot of confidence in their intelligence? Don’t you think someone with athletic, artistic, musical, literary, mathematical, or any other talent would have confidence in that particular talent of theirs? Isn’t it logical that they would?

I suppose I should ask you why you are even asking this question in the first place. The answer is quite obvious. People with talents and gifts for superior performance for whatever their talent or gift is for. Success breeds confidence. A high IQ person will excel in many areas that require high intelligence. Hence, he will become quite confident of his intelligence. Doesn’t that just seem logical?

If you want to argue about whether it is appropriate or not to discuss your IQ score, that is another matter altogether. American society is extremely anti-intellectual and has long hated smart people. This is why we hate it when people bring up IQ and why discussing IQ is a social error much of the time. You need to be very careful how you discuss your IQ score if it is high and you know the number. It can be done in such a way that it is socially appropriate, but that’s pretty hard to figure out, and you need excellent social skills to determine that.

2 Comments

Filed under American, Culture, Intelligence, Psychology

HBD: Why Do People Speak so Highly of IQ Tests?

Because IQ tests test how intelligent you are! That is a fact, a pure, 100%, absolute fact. IQ tests are the best and most accurate way we have of determining intelligence. Basically it is a measure of raw brain speed. The faster the brain, the higher the IQ. It is also a measure of how big your brain is. The bigger the brain, the higher the IQ. People with high IQ’s have better short and long term memory. That can store more things in memory and retrieve them faster. They are better at abstract thinking.

In a word, they are simply more intelligent.

We could reword your question like this, “Why do people speak so highly of human intelligence?”

Doesn’t that sound silly? Don’t you think human intelligence is a pretty important thing? Are you prepared to argue that human intelligence has no meaning at all for human beings? What sort of an argument is that? Why would you want to argue such a thing?

8 Comments

Filed under Intelligence, Psychology

HBD: Do IQ Tests Have a Cultural Bias? If So, How Do They Need to Be Reformed?

Answered on Quora.

We must talk about two types of scientific thinking.

The first type are the intelligence researchers, the top names in the field, and people who actually study the issue. They write in journals like Intelligence. Charles Murray, Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, and James Flynn are some of the top names in this field. I keep up with the field, and Flynn, discoverer of the Flynn Effect, is actually an acquaintance, so I know what I am talking about.

These and a few others are actually the most respected names in the field. However, outside the field, Murray, Rushton, Lynn and even Jensen are often pilloried as racists, and the popular line is that their work is pseudoscience or scientific racism. However, in the intelligence community, they are regarded as the top names of all, their work is regarded as excellent science, and their views are regarded as valid hypotheses about race and intelligence that are worth investigating.

Although the genes versus environment matter for IQ has not been sorted out (the above names are some of those fighting it out), the argument in the journals about whether the tests are culturally biased or not was settled long ago. The leaders of the Pure Environment group such as Nesbitt ran up the white flag a while back on the cultural bias issue. Nesbitt never talks about cultural bias anymore and accepts that the tests are valid. Instead, he argues about different things. He simply argues that the scores are correct, but the differences are due to environment, not genes.

The problem here is that just about nobody is monitoring the actual debate in the intelligence community and the journals, so a huge disconnect has emerged between popular scientists and journalists who write on this subject and the experts in the field.
The former continue to insist that the tests are biased despite the fact that the matter was settled in the journals for some time now. The people writing in the popular press are either not following the debate in the journals or they are and they are lying (I cynically suspect the latter). To be honest, there are a few radicals in the community who continue to insist that the tests are biased, but they were defeated as a group a while back. There are only a few holdouts left.

Almost everyone who knows about the issue follows the debate in the press, but almost none of them bother to dig into the actual debate in the books and journals, so you get this huge disconnect between how the state of the debate is portrayed in the popular press and the actual state of the debate in the field.

Long story short, the debate has been settled for quite some time now in the field (15–20 years), and the cultural bias folks mostly admitted they were defeated, acknowledged that the tests were not biased, and moved on to other arguments. But popular opinion has not caught up with the science, so flat-out lies such as that the consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ tests are biased continue to be peddled as fact, and most readers are not educated enough to figure out that they are being lied to.

The tests are correct. There are indeed differences in average intelligence between the races. The debate’s over on that too for quite some time now. Instead the debate has shifted to whether these differences are due to genes, environment, or both.
Popular opinion is lost back 15 years ago, anyone who says there are documented intelligence differences among the races is shouted down as an evil racist, and massive attempts are made to destroy their lives and careers for stating a simple fact of science. James Watson was a recent casualty. It’s pretty depressing when people are getting fired for telling the truth, but it happens all the time in our PC Culture where the truth is often Outlawed Speech, and patent lies masquerade as fact.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, Intelligence, Journalism, Psychology, Race Realism, Science

Alt Left: The Creation of a New Race in the US – a Black/White Converged Race

It must be that males across space and time have been specifically selecting for beauty in females. The less attractive females were apparently simply selected against.

We see this trend even in modern times as the Black phenotype in the US has remarkably merged with the White phenotype, but only from the late 1800’s on. The changes in Black skulls in the US from the 1870’s on are nothing short of miraculous. Some it is probably due to diet, but most of it seems to be due to pure genetics. At the same time, a remarkable change has occurred in the White phenotype in terms of selection against archaic features and for progressive features from the 1600’s to the present day such that White people now look more like Black people than they do like their very own Colonial ancestors.

We what we are seeing is a merger of the two races. We have already had the creation of the American Negro, almost a new race among Blacks characterized by more progessive features and greater beauty, fewer archaic features, increased intelligence (apparently genetic) and heavy White minority admixture. Yet US Whites are also creating a new race as they merge together with Blacks phenotypically. It is almost as if we are heading towards the creation of a new Black-White merged and somewhat mixed race here in the Americas. Some it is due to interbreeding, but much is also due to parallel development.

What happened what that after the First Liberation, Black men were probably finally able to be more selective in Black females. They selected for lighter skin and Whiter or at least more progressive features and against more archaic features. Black females were also able to be more choosy about men. As some Black men began to accumulate money and wealth (quite a bit of which could be accumulated in Black neighborhoods among the new Black professionals) women began selecting possibly for the most moneyed, prominent or powerful men.

This type of Black men has always been lighter-skinned and more White-admixed than other Blacks. Hence these men would have more progessive and fewer archaic features. It also seems to be a truism that archaic features as associated with lower IQ’s and more progressive features are associated with higher IQ’s. This is even true across racial lines and within races themselves. Mass Black selection for more progressive and Whiter features may have led to the increased IQ among US Negroes, which can only partly be explained by genetics. There may also have been some epigenetics at work here in the US.

4 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Biology, Blacks, Genetics, History, Intelligence, Physical, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, US, USA, Whites

Indian Hindus – Portrait of a Parasitical People

Excellent post from the comments from Angie Cohen, a physician in New York City.

Angie Cohen: Bhabiji: This is going to be a lengthy post.

I have noticed that you have conveniently ignored a lot of Robert’s points in his post. Allow me to address them with facts and evidence. I will mention some of Mr. Lindsay’s points and address them vis-a-vis your convoluted rants defending Hinduism:

#1: Robert’s point on the sheer hypocrisy and hideousness of upper caste Hindus, especially the Brahmins.

He clearly mentioned their disdain for people whom they consider lower castes or “dalits,” while both defending the caste system, and when cornered with logic and facts, even denying the existence of Casteist- based discrimination and atrocities against lower castes by Brahmin & other upper caste thugs in India.

You seem to have ignored that and instead deviated to defending the evils of Puranic Hinduism and the idiotic mythical Ramayana rubbish.

#2: Robert’s point on the Brahmins’ hatred for Western culture and Christianity while glorifying a mythical idealistic ancient Hindu Vedic civilization extolling the superiority of Hindus vs the others (Christians, Muslims etc).

The Brahman-dominated Hindutvadi losers do all these while ironically doing everything they can to dump their failed Hindurashtra and then leave for Judeo-Christian-based secular nations such as the United States, Australia, UK, Canada and even some EU nations. That is a strange dichotomy. Almost a walking contradiction!

#3: Robert’s point on Hindu savagery and backwardness.

Despite what Brahmin supremacists love to claim online under anonymity or in some pathetic RSS/BJP/ Ultra rightwing Hindu club eulogizing the greatness of Vedic civilization and the genius of the upper caste Hindu mind, all evidence points to quite the opposite.

Show me ONE place, just one place on Earth where Hindus (upper castes or otherwise), despite being easily able to congregate together (Heck they have a whole freaking nation for themselves, i.e. Modi’s Brahman-dominated upper caste-run India – a failed shithole!) have been able to build a decent or successful society which is both fully functional and advanced. Pretty sure there is NOT one.

The Evidence:

What do White Christians create in terms of advancement & beauty?

The holiest sites for Hindu Brahmans – Varanasi & River Ganges created, maintained, and run by Hindu Brahmins, is the utopia we create and then delude ourselves of our supposed superiority.

Brahman-supported Hindu Supremacist leader Modi’s beloved Gujarat – we do believe in Rupee for Poopee!

Hindu dominated India’s staggeringly low IQ:

Hindu-dominated India has a very low IQ of just 82, far lower than ANY Western nation (North & South Americas, Europe, Russia, Australia & New Zealand). This point explains Indian incompetence in the medical and technical fields, which is why we the western world have to pretty much share all our science, technology & civilization with these arrogant ingrates.

http://www.searchindia.com/2016/04/28/are-indian-h1bs-low-iq-chutiyas/

Hindu incompetence in the engineering and tech fields:

http://www.gadgetsnow.com/jobs/95-engineers-in-india-unfit-for-software-development-jobs-claims-report/articleshow/58278224.cms

Hindu incompetence in the medical field:

From Great Britain – incompetent Hindu doctors wrecking havoc there:

http://www.unz.com/article/bad-medicine-the-sickening-truth-about-britains-foreign-doctors/

Not only are they highly incompetent in their technical work, they have this brash, arrogant attitude mixed with a rude demeanor which makes them very unwelcome here. Not just the IT sector filled with unintelligent Hindu zombies, but even the medical industry has suffered the plague of Hindu incompetence. A few years back the Australian government suffered the outcome of inviting one such upper caste Hindu, Dr. Jayant Patel, who would turn out to break the world record for the highest number of cases of death and medical negligence owing to his sheer medical incompetence. He was labelled “Dr. Death” by the media which made his horrible work into international headlines.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/General/The-scandal-of-Dr-Death/2005/05/27/1117129900672.html

Even in India, take a cursory look at the number of so called medical doctors who have been banned or jailed for medical incompetence and negligence by the Medical Council of India – all happen to be upper caste Hindu doctors. Just look at the list below – excepting one random Muslim name, it pretty much reads from a telephone directory of some Hindu Brahmin or Baniya matrimonial column from New Delhi. It is interesting to note that NOT one Indian-Christian doctor made it in that shitlist of shame.

Now ask yourselves this question: Why does America, UK or Australia need more incompetent upper caste Hindu doctors or technocrats when it is plainly evident that these losers can’t hack it in terms of quality?

Just so that you know, the minority of Indian Christians still stuck in India are easy targets for persecution by the upper caste-dominated Hindu fascists of the ruling BJP government. The Indian Christian community is a highly intelligent, educated and industrious lot who have actually helped advance India into the 21st century. The Hindu fascists are the same folks who burnt alive and killed an Australian Christian man and his two young sons for helping poor & maligned leprosy patients in Orissa, India.

The Indian Christian community is actually a breath of fresh air here in the West. They are nothing like their Hindu countrymen. Generally highly competent, intelligent and very well-assimilated into Western culture, they are welcome here anytime. Can’t say the same for the Hindus, Sikhs, and especially the savage Muslims though.

angelinamendes87.wixsite.com/indianchristians

Studies and statistics like those listed above should be shared and shown to official authorities and friends, colleagues, and families – just so we can all be secure in the knowledge of making an astute decision as to the current immigration trends.

Conclusion:

Indians, especially the Hindus, are highly parasitical. If and when some among them thrive or are successful, at best they migrate to somebody else’s land, neighborhood or club built, designed and created by someone else. Thus for all the spikes and bile they upper caste Hindu losers spew against Christendom, they are the first bunch of parasitical hypocrites who crawl on their rancid bellies and beg, borrow, or steal to dump Hindu India (Bharatvarsh) & instead migrate to Christian lands in the West.

And once there, these ingrates will do everything they can to undermine the host culture and people vis-a-vis their concomitant attacks against Christianity, our institutions, our jobs and especially against our women and culture. Unlike the Muslims, the Hindus are a lot more sly and do these acts in a covert manner. Except that people are waking up to their BS.

These Brahman hypocrites will steadily vote for the Left in Western countries while steadfastly supporting ultra rightwing policies and governments back in their homeland of India. Another walking contradiction.

So, if Hinduism is so great, “Bhabiji”, tell me when you book the next one-way ticket to “the enlightened land of Bharatvarsha” (India) and live, thrive and work in Hindustan without returning back to us inferior Jews & Christians of the West?

132 Comments

Filed under Asia, Australia, Britain, Christianity, Conservatism, Culture, Death, East Indians, Europe, Fascism, Health, Hinduism, Immigration, India, Intelligence, Legal, Medicine, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians, USA, Whites

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World, by Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach

I have never heard of this early French philosopher, nor have I heard of his monumental doorstop of a book, quoted in the title.

The prose below is from 1773, and I doubt if anyone can write better today. I think this shows that our brains are about as smart now as they were in the times of the Revolutionary War at least in terms of raw IQ or brain speed. In fact, some studies have shown that Victorians had dramatically faster brains than we do (by reaction time). So the suspicions of us cynics may be true after all – of course we are getting stupider. Just look around you. How can it not be so?

Knowledge is one thing and intelligence is another. Intelligence is probably defined best as a measure of raw brain speed. The faster the brain, the more intelligent the person is.

Knowledge is another matter altogether and is more related to culture. For instance, we are much smarter now than we were in 1773 in terms of knowledge. We know so many more things and we understand the world so much better! We can make so many fancy things and solve so many difficult problems now solely on account of our accumulation of knowledge. So while we may be dumber than Victorians in terms of raw intelligence, we are much smarter than Victorians in terms of knowledge. The latter may well compensate for or even overwhelm the former. A fast brain is not a worth a lot if you barely understand the world around you.

It’s also useful to note that knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence necessarily. For all we know, cavemen may have had very fast brains. Brains in 1770 may have been even faster than in the Victorian Era. No one knows. We have always been an intelligent species. But while men in the Middle Ages and Dark Ages may have had brains that worked about as fast as ours, they were nevertheless not able to figure out the world very well.

Knowledge is more a matter of luck than anything else because ideally it is cumulative. With each generation or at least with each century or millennium, man has increased his knowledge and has managed to figure out the world better. Nevertheless, at the beginning the process is quite slow. Look at how long we lumbered along in comparative ignorance, even with presumably fast brains. This shows us that intelligence needs knowledge to be worth much of anything. Intelligence minus knowledge does not add up to a hill of beans. How impressive is a fast brain if it has the worldview of a caveman?

As I noted, knowledge ideally is cumulative. This is not always so, and there have been shocking histories of actual cultural and knowledge loss. The Tasmanians were separated from the mainland 10,000 years ago and afterwards they seem to have lost the ability to make fire and craft fishing hooks among other things. They may have also forgotten how to sew. So Idiocracy is nothing new. It’s been going on somewhere for at least 10,000 years.

Nevertheless, knowledge throwbacks are an anomaly because knowledge tends to be cumulative. It is also interesting to note that there seems to be some critical mass at work here. As knowledge gains, the acquisition of new knowledge seems to speed up somehow. Critical mass may well have been reached perhaps 100 years ago. Since then the leaps of knowledge have been spectacular. We now learn more in decade now than we did in a millennium.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the basics, we are hardly more competent now than we were in 1773.

Modern writers have not superseded the prose below; in fact, many cannot even achieve this 1773 level of competence. When it comes to certain things like the ability to write down our ideas, all of our knowledge seems to hit a roadblock. All of the massive knowledge we have piled on in the last century has not enabled us to craft better prose than the prose of 250 years ago.

I seriously doubt if your artistic skills have improved either. We now paint better than Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci? Really?

What about music? Are we really better musicians now than Bach or Beethoven? Really?

It’s doubtful that our psi skills have improved much.

Are our social skills really better now than they were in the past? Are you sure?

Are we better able to achieve psychological health than in the past?

Do we know any more about the mysteries of life such as the soul and death than we did then?

Has our philosophical knowledge actually improved? We still cannot surmount Plato and Aristotle.

Anyway, check out this awesome prose:

The source of man’s unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error. He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:–He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him.

To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courage–it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigor and impartiality the opinions he has adopted.

He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colors; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

Man seeks to range out of his sphere: notwithstanding the reiterated checks his ambitious folly experiences, he still attempts the impossible; strives to carry his researches beyond the visible world; and hunts out misery in imaginary regions. He would be a metaphysician before he has become a practical philosopher. He quits the contemplation of realities to meditate on chimeras. He neglects experience to feed on conjecture, to indulge in hypothesis.

He dares not cultivate his reason, because from his earliest days he has been taught to consider it criminal. He pretends to know his date in the indistinct abodes of another life, before he has considered of the means by which he is to render himself happy in the world he inhabits: in short, man disdains the study of Nature, except it be partially: he pursues phantoms that resemble an ignis-fatuus, which at once dazzle, bewilders, and frighten: like the benighted traveler led astray by these deceptive exhalations of a swampy soil, he frequently quits the plain, the simple road of truth, by pursuing of which, he can alone ever reasonably hope to reach the goal of happiness.

The most important of our duties, then, is to seek means by which we may destroy delusions that can never do more than mislead us. The remedies for these evils must be sought for in Nature herself; it is only in the abundance of her resources, that we can rationally expect to find antidotes to the mischiefs brought upon us by an ill directed, by an overpowering enthusiasm. It is time these remedies were sought; it is time to look the evil boldly in the face, to examine its foundations, to scrutinize its superstructure: reason, with its faithful guide experience, must attack in their entrenchments those prejudices, to which the human race has but too long been the victim. For this purpose reason must be restored to its proper rank,–it must be rescued from the evil company with which it is associated. It has been too long degraded –too long neglected–cowardice has rendered it subservient to delirium, the slave to falsehood. It must no longer be held down by the massive claims of ignorant prejudice.

The System of Nature: or The Laws of the Moral and Physical World

– Paul Henri Thiry d’Holbach, 1773.

As an aside, while reading this, I kept thinking, “This describes just about everyone I know.” Although Holbach may have been thinking about other types of ignorance and another type of reason, the passage still rang a bell. After all, look who we just elected President. The triumph of ignorance over reason right there. Look at our entire political culture. It’s all based on cultivated ignorance. Where’s the reason? There is none.

The only reason or logic that Americans follow is the logic that leads them to making more money. If it makes me money, it’s true. If it loses or costs me money, it’s false. That’s the reason by which most Americans live their lives. Obviously this leads to a lot of irrational if not insane decisions because the thing that costs you money is often a more rational decision than the decision that makes you money.

Guess what, Americans? I got some news for you.

Money does not equal truth.

Loss of money does not equal falsehood.

That’s a most peculiar moral philosophy we have set up for ourselves in this idiot Yahoo Country.

I know few people who want or try to challenge their core beliefs, which I believe is what Holbach is ultimately getting at above. The original purpose of this site – “If I Am Not Making You Mad, I Am Not Doing My Job” – was not to troll the world but instead to force readers to throw more of their beliefs up for grabs. I was out to challenge just about everything you believe in. Why? Because that’s what you need to do. You need to throw as much of your beliefs as possible up for grabs, as painful as that is. It’s very hard to do, so most just don’t bother.

About the book, this looks pretty cool. It was originally written in French, so that translation looks really cool. I am not sure if I could handle 993 pages of that prose though!

15 Comments

Filed under American, Art, Culture, History, Intelligence, Modern, Music, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sociology, Writing

How To Figure Out If You’re Smart Or Not

Not that it matters anyway as dumb people seem to have a lot more fun, but a lot of especially young folks are all twisted akimbo this way and that, mentally contorting themselves with anxieties about whether they are smart enough.

First of all.

Most humans are pretty damn smart. Even most people who seem like idiots are probably smarter than you think. Don’t believe me? Go talk to one of those “idiots.” Come back and let me know how it went. See what I mean?*

*Don’t try this with Mexicans. You’ll be disappointed. Mexicans as a race have perfected the ultimate in pure, studious ignorance. They smugly wear it, chin high in the air, like a flag on their damned lapels. But they seem to enjoy life anyway, so who cares really?

Ok now that we got the preliminaries out of the way, what does the question mean? You don’t want to know if you’re smart. You’re human. We know you’re smart (unless you’re a Mexican).

What you are asking in this question is this: Am I a lot smarter than just about everyone else?

Let’s get the outliers out of the way first of all. Can you do differential equations in your head? Preferably while having sex? And not only that, but wild acrobatic sex?** If you are answer yes, you can stop reading right now and take a seat at the front of the stage while we finish our presentation. Yeah you’re smart. Your brain burns brighter than Alpha Centauri.

OK, dirty little secret. Here’s how you do it. Are people always telling you you’re smart? Ok. That means you’re smart. No really. People are more honest than you think. Most people don’t go around telling idiots that they’re smart. Most idiots don’t care anyway, so why lie?

Now. Are you people always telling you, drop-jawed, wide-eyed, stunned, head-shakingly incredulous and saying stuff like, “You’re the smartest person I know…You’re like a human encyclopedia…You’re real smart – real smart. I can’t believe how smart you are. You’re smart as Hell!” And best of all, “Ever since I met you, everyone I meet seems dumb.”

Ok, now you’re not just smart. You’re real smart. Like real, real, real, real smart. Like smarter than 99% of the damned population. Like genius IQ smart.

And now you may feel free to crash and burn your life into the most glorious of ruins, just like me. You’re a shooting star.

Pick up that glass thing over there. Tip it to your lips. Raise it in a roaring cheer. And drink to the wreckage. The spectacular wreckage.

Good night, everyone. Good night.

**One of the most famous geniuses of our modern era, with a stratospheric IQ score at least in childhood, was yet another infamous William Sidis-like burnout. She dropped out completely, disdained all further studies and pretentious notions of a professional career and decided instead to work as a prostitute. In her particular case, a high class call girl. And it’s true. She used to impress her clients by doing differential equations in her head in the middle of the wildest sex acts. Now that’s an act that’s hard to beat.

They say your IQ is useless unless you use it. Differential equations in your head while performing Houdiniesque sex? What? Einstein? Take a seat over there. The lady has the stage now, dammit! Now if that ain’t using your Goddamned IQ, then I don’t know what is.

2 Comments

Filed under Humor, Intelligence, Psychology

What Is the Maximum IQ a Human Can Possibly Have?

Answered at Quora.

There has been a lot of writing on this at genius.com. The man who writes that estimates that Goethe and a few others had IQ’s up to 220. That’s about the limit.

William Sidis was estimated by a psychologist who examined him to have an IQ to 250–300. This puzzled me for some time, but that estimate was based on SD +16, which can go up to 250-275. The corollary for that score on SD +15 would possibly be 200-220.

The smartest man in the world, Christopher Langan, is said to have an IQ of 200.
It gets very hard to measure very high IQ’s.

Children can have very high IQ’s because their IQ’s are measured in terms how smart they are for their age. Using that scale, childhood IQ’s of up to 400 have been calculated. Of course, once they hit 18, you start counting the scores the other way, and they can’t have much above 200.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Intelligence, Psychology

“No One Cares What Your IQ Is. It’s What You Do with It That Matters.”

This is often heard in American society. I doubt if you will hear such a dumb comment in any other society on Earth because American society is probably one of the most viciously anti-intellectual cultures on Earth.

Now if you want to use such a statement as a warning to be extremely careful how you discuss IQ and in particular your own score assuming you know it, I agree that this is good advice. American society has a severe hangup about human intelligence, and this is shown by the rage and contempt with which discussions of IQ often arouse. Because after all, discussions of IQ are simply discussions of intelligence. If you hate IQ talk, then you hate discussing human intelligence. I would ask these people, “Why do you hate human intelligence so much? Is it because you are stupid? If you are not an idiot, then why hate human intelligence? Does that attitude even make sense?”

You can talk about IQ and even your own score in US society, but you need to be very careful about it. A lot of times it will go over well if you are cautious enough, but if not, you are guilty of committing a major social error in US society. And why be a social retard? A lot of us are screwed up enough that way. No need to pile it on and make matters worse.

Talented people are always interesting. There are plenty of fine athletes in high school and college who decided not to go into sports. They were still great athletes with excellent talent. There are people who can draw very well but don’t feel like using it. Likewise with music, writing, all sorts of things. All of this is interesting. I would love to hear about someone who had great artistic or musical talent who just decided they did not want to go that way and didn’t explore their talent. To me they would still be a very  interesting person, and indeed, I have known a number of folks like this.

Talent is laudatory whether it is “used” or not, and the whole concept of “using” your talent leaves a nasty capitalist taste in my mouth. It’s all about the money, isn’t it, greedheads?

There are many very goodlooking people who never went into acting or modeling. Do we pummel them over the head with this for not “using” their good looks? Of course not. No one has to use their natural gifts in any particular way, and it’s no crime to be the handsomest man on Earth who never did anything with it but use it to get women.

Due to our hatred of intelligence and intellectuals, it is only intelligence that is attacked as “worthless unless you do something with it.” No other talent is attacked this way. People who talk like this are showing how much hatred they feel towards human intelligence in general and intelligent people, especially highly intelligent ones, in particular.

High IQ people use their talent every day by necessity. They never give it up like lapsed athletes, artists, writers, etc. These people are very interesting to meet. High IQ people are fascinating whether they are “using” their talent or not. And what does “using it” mean anyway? Making a pile of money off of it. Not everyone is so mercenary!

My mother has a 150 IQ, yet she never “did anything with it.” So what! Why did she have to? She’s one of the smartest women I’ve ever met. Are we that greedy and mercenary that all talents must be converted into sleazy dollar bills?

Natural talents are interesting and praiseworthy no matter what use they are put to.

8 Comments

Filed under American, Capitalism, Culture, Economics, Intelligence, Psychology, Regional, USA