Category Archives: Science

Stop Eating Sugar-Free and Diet Products Please

There is nothing wrong with sugar free products of course. But none of those sugar substitutes are good for you. Aspartame, Saccarin, Sucralose and even Stevia all seem to be bad for you. I just got through doing a lot of research on all this crap.

The main problem seems to be that this stuff paradoxically leads to weight gain, increased BMI, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. This was always a mystery to me? Why in God’s name would these sugar substitutes, which have zero calories, cause all of these problems associated with weight gain? It made no sense.

There is now a solution to the puzzle. I discovered it yesterday after doing research on this stuff most of the day. Most or all of these products somehow cause changes to the microbia flora in your gut or intestines. In one case, they seem to neutralize a chemical that suppresses weight gain in your body. In other cases, they mess with chemicals that have to do with insulin resistance. Somehow whatever changes they make to gut bacteria lead to weight gain and all of the associated problems.

This is a logical solution to the problem.

Aspartame seems to be one of the worst ones of them all. I had a girlfriend who nearly died from that junk. She was one of those people who cannot metabolize the stuff and it built up in her body to the point where it almost killed her. I think she was even medically dead for a short while before she was revived.

Lab studies have been finding  problems with this aspartame forever. For one thing, studies keep showing that it causes cancer. The problem is that these studies are typically not replicated well. However, we have still been finding cancer in aspartame lab studies for decades now. The link to brain cancer is especially frightening. An elegant new 20 year study by a medical group linked aspartame to various cancers in lab rats. The usual critics have been out in force to challenge this study on the usual suspect grounds, but the group is holding their ground and sticking to their findings.

It is definitely a fact though that all this junk is associated with the weight gain-associated problems above.

Sugar is probably better for you than this junk, but sugar has its own issues. My main problem with sugar is that it causes cavities in me quite readily. At one point, I pretty much cut out of cut back severely on sugar. Since then, I have had few to no cavities. If you hardly eat any sugar, you will get few to no cavities no matter what your oral health is. Sugar is pretty much the only thing you can eat that will reliably cause you cavities. Anything else you eat is unlikely to do so.

I really need some flavorings for my coffee and I found a number of them here and here. You may wish to check them out too.

I was drinking the lower sugar ice teas until I was appalled to discover that they had high fructose corn syrup in them. The evidence seems to suggest that this junk is actually worse for  you than sugar in  terms of weight gain and associated problems. It’s almost literally poison. Avoid at all costs. The tea that did not have the HFCS in it had a sugar substitute called Stevia. Although this is one of the better ones out there, it may also be associated with weight gain risks. I know that it also alters gut bacteria in a similar way that the other sugar substitutes.

I finally found one that has nothing but sugar in it at a fairly low level. It is called Gold Peak Iced Tea and I very much recommend it. In particular the Arizona brand of iced teas which have swamped the marketplace are simply awful.

5 Comments

Filed under Health, Illness, Nutrition, Science

Have You Damaged Your DNA Today?

Well I certainly hope so! Because if you haven’t damaged your DNA today, you must be dead!

After all, our DNA gets damaged approximately 1 million times per day. I am wondering what it is I did to damage my DNA a million times yesterday and what I will hopefully do today also. Is there some advantage to DNA damage? Suppose I take a real easy day and only damage my DNA 500,000 times, by, say, staying in bed all day? Would that be better or worse? If I am really damaging my DNA a lot, am I having more fun than if I am not? I am thinking it ties  in with fun. The more fun you have, the more DNA damage you get.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m off to damage some DNA! Be back in a bit!

1 Comment

Filed under Biology, Genetics, Health, Illness, Nutrition, Science

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: If the Rate of Homosexuality in Populations Can Increase or Decrease, What’s to Stop It from Going Full-blown to 100% or Even 0? Do Humans Just Reap the Most Benefits by Having Homosexuals at 10%?

Answered on Quora.

The 10% figure is one of the biggest lies out there, but everyone believes it. It is repeated by gay activists and the Gay Lobby like a mantra, but it is almost certainly not true. It is based on the Kinsey Study, but even the Kinsey Study did not find that 10% of the population were truly gay in the way a gay person is now.

Like anyone else, gay people would like to increase their numbers. I don’t blame them.

If I were gay, I would want as many hot men available to date as possible. The fact that 97% of males are not gay must be very depressing to gay men. I think it would make me not only depressed but confused. How could I tell which men were gay and which were not?
Gaydar is another lie of the Gay Lobby. The truth is it doesn’t even work. Gay men hit on straight men all the time thinking that we straight men are gay. Obviously their Gaydar is broken. So if Gaydar doesn’t work and is just a conceit, and you really can’t figure out if a man is gay or not, what is a gay man to do? I am thinking it must be Hellish. What infernal confusion!

The truth is that many population studies in the US consistently find that at the most 3% of the US population identifies themselves as gay. There may be some closet cases lying in the surveys, but I doubt if there are many. In some studies, half of those 3% are married to women! How is that compatible with these studies being flawed by mass hidden closet cases? They keep doing the surveys, and they keep coming up with at the most 3% of men are gay. So we have to use the 3% figure in talking about the gay percentage of the population.

Gay activists and their Lobby hate these low figures because they think there is strength in numbers. They think that if people think there are only a tiny number of gay men, people will be freer to bully and persecute them. Whereas if they are a large figure like 10%, people will accept them more. I am not sure if it is true. Maybe it is. But they’re still lying, even if they are lying for a good reason. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I would like to differentiate between gay men in general and gay activists and the Gay Lobby. Quite a few gay men dislike the Lobby and the activists. I have a gay friend who despises both of them. He says gay men just need to get married, move to the suburbs in a nice house and live quietly and unobtrusively like the rest of their neighbors. I concur!

So please do not think that by attacking the activists and the Lobby I am attacking all gay men. Certainly not. In fact, I encourage gay men to reject both activism and the Lobby. They’re counterproductive, and ~80% of the things they say are flat out lies. Gay activism, like all the other Identity Politics, is just propaganda. As feminism is nothing but propaganda for women, gay activism is nothing but propaganda for gays.

Nevertheless, I encourage all gay men to fight for their basic rights. I just don’t think lying is the right way to get what’s due to them. Not only will I support them, but I will help them, as I participate in some worthy gay political campaigns!

Surveys done with medical students found that ~3–4% of men identify as gay, gay being 0–100 to 20–80 on a scale orientation where 0–100 = completely gay. Another 2% identify as gay-leaning bisexuals, these being 30–70 to 40–60 on the same scale. Only 1% of men identify as fully bisexual, showing the stereotype about few people being purely bisexual is based on fact.

Adding up the numbers, 6% of men in these surveys identify as leaning gay, either bisexual or fully gay. Keep in mind that 2% of those men have a pretty strong lean towards women too, so they are not that gay. Another 1% are the “pure bis” who cannot logically be seen as gay either, neither can they be seen as straight. These are the people most perfectly identified as bisexual.

So population surveys get 3%, and medical student surveys get 6%. I don’t know what to do. Let’s go by majority rules and take the population surveys and say that 3% of men are gay.

This figure tends to be pretty steady for whatever reason. My research leads me to believe that true biological homosexuality (which surely exists and is the case with most gay men) is caused by hormonal aberrations and abnormalities in the womb. I doubt if it is genetic. There is some pretty good evidence leading to this conclusion. For whatever reason, these hormonal aberrations seem to occur in only ~3% of male births, and at least in the last few decades, nothing changes that.

Adding weight to my theory, there is research out there that shows that after 1990 in the Czech Republic, great efforts were put into monitoring pregnant women, adjusting their hormonal levels to the proper level, and keeping them from going off. Incredibly, research showed that this effort caused the rates of homosexuality and transsexualism to plummet. Not collapse but plummet.

Therefore, there may indeed by a “cure” for male homosexuality or at least a way to prevent it. I assure you that the Gay Lobby does wish to do anything to prevent homosexuality and transsexualism even if the mother desires this. But this shows how we might be able to artificially lower or even raise the rate of male homosexuality.
Now since the rate seems to be at a steady rate of 3%, and all evidence seems to be that the 3% rate (or lower) is the norm all over the world for biological male homosexuality, I would say we have nothing to worry about gay men taking over the world, though some of the real radicals would love to do that, trust me. Go read some of their documents. But the vast majority of gay men reject this gay chauvinism or gay imperialism.

The rate is 3% now, and it will be 3% in the future, unless we start lowering it as above.

This is why the question does not make sense. If biological male homosexuality occurs at a steady low rate everywhere on Earth without change, the rate of such cannot go much higher than 3%, certainly not to 100%, and it will not go down zero either, at least naturally on its own.

On the other hand, straight men have a tremendous potential for bisexuality. There are societies currently and in the past where very high percentages of men (up to 95%) engaged in regular sex with men (while also having lots of sex with women) throughout their lives. So you can definitely end up with societies like Afghanistan where many straight (by sexual orientation) men engage in homosexual behavior.
We must distinguish between orientation and behavior. They tend to follow each other pretty well but not always. Ancient Greece and Rome are good examples of where they can diverge a lot.

Now if you want to ask what would happen if 100% of men were behaviorally bisexual and were engaging in sex with men on a regular basis as in Ancient Greece and Rome, that’s another question, and I don’t think you questioner is asking that here. Personally I think it would be utterly catastrophic, although gay men would think they were in Paradise. Then again, the sky has not fallen in Afghanistan, where something like this is already going on.

Male homosexuality is bad for society. It brings along a whole host of problems and yes, diseases, along with it which impose considerable cost on society. I would like to add that these problems impose these costs on gay men themselves in terms of mental and physical illness, a whole lot of very sketchy behavior, and a culture that does not seem to be healthy at all in many ways. Despite the societal effects, the overwhelming costs of these problems are borne by gay men themselves.

Nevertheless, I feel that these are gay men’s problems. It is unspeakably rude and selfish to say that gay men’s problems which hurt them so much are terrible for the rest of us for whatever reason. It’s like someone walks into your house with a broken leg wanting help and you scream at him for ruining your day. How rude! How selfish!
Gay men’s problems are for them to solve. We need to stay out of it. If they want to deal with this stuff, let them go to it. We will help them, but the ball’s in their court.

I would like to point out that lots of things are not good for society, but we allow or tolerate them anyway, as it’s just not the place of society or the state to regulate people’s behavior, lifestyles, and choices.

In terms of the costs to society, yes there are some, especially in disease burden and medical expenses, but keep in mind that gay men are only 3% of the male population and a tiny 1.5% of the total population. Basically, whatever problems male homosexuality causes, we in the US can handle them very easily because gay men’s numbers are so small. If the percentages of gay men were to climb radically beyond 3%, the costs to society would be much more severe, and it would be something we could not deal with well. But that’s a whole other hypothetical problem.

As far as benefits go, I am going to be a radical here and say that society as a whole probably reaps exactly zero benefits from homosexuality either male or female. The effects on society are either negative or (mostly) neutral, but even when they are negative, their tiny numbers allow us to handle these effects well.

For the life of me, as a straight man, I cannot fathom any benefits from having gay men in my society. Somebody needs to clue me here. What’s in it for me, or for straight society as a whole? Color me confused!

Most straight men would probably be perfectly happy to never deal with another gay man for the rest of our lives. It’s not that they are horrible for us, but there’s no benefit at all, and there is a certain downside (they constantly try to seduce us). Most of us don’t really hate them at all (we are more indifferent towards them than anything else) but we don’t feel any special love for them, and I wager they would not be missed.

Nevertheless, despite this fact of there being no benefit to us, we straight men need to support full rights for biologically gay men. We need to wish for them the same happy and healthy lives as we do for ourselves, not even 1% less.

Please realize that these men did not choose to be this way. We straight men are straight only due to sheer luck and a roll of the genetic dice. Any of us could have ended up gay too. If you are straight, try to imagine if you had been wired up gay instead. Imagine yourself just as you are, except you are a gay man instead of a straight man. That’s called empathy. What would you like to the world to be like? This is the world that straight men need to create for gay men, not for any particular reason, but only because it’s simply the right thing to do.

No matter what we straight men think about male homosexuality (and a lot of us are profoundly repulsed by it), nevertheless at the end of the day, we have to be kind.

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Biology, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Man World, Politics, Regional, Science, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, US Politics, USA

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

Theological Question

Is redemption possible in Hell?

Standard Christian doctrine would say no. When you’re in Hell,  there’s no hope. The Catholics devised Purgatory, but that was for people like me who were not quite bad enough for Hell but were definitely not Heaven-bound. In Purgatory, it’s like an exercise regimen for that roll of flab around your belly – you’ve got to work it off. Sure, the tortures are horrible, but if you survive then, you get the Manna. Plus as awful as Purgatory is, it pales compared to the never-ending horror movie you will be starring in in Hell.

How about some radical Christian thinkers?

If you read enough Dostoevsky, he believes redemption is possible in Hell, and that’s just one of the great things about him. For instance, see Grushenka’s tale to Aloysha in The Brothers Karamazov (p. 340) when she tells the story of the woman in Hell who was offered an onion by her Guardian Angel as a ticket out of Hell. This is similar to Ivan’s tale of Mary’s visit to Hell, where Hell can abide both mercy and punishment.

In a conversation between Ivan and Aloysha (p. 259), the two discuss whether there is forgiveness for the worst of men, the torturer. Both agree that if there is universal harmony, then there will be forgiveness for the worst of men. However, Ivan says that there shall be no forgiveness for the torturer and therefore this is no universal harmony. Instead of agreeing with him, Aloysha says that “Christ can forgive everything, all and for all, for he gave his universal blood for all and everything.” In other words, the Kingdom of God is not complete until there is forgiveness for all, including torturers. Aloysha believes that no one is outside of redemption. Obviously, this must include people in Hell.

This doctrine is clearly absent from the OT and NT, but if you make your way through the wondrous Apocrypha, you will stumble upon. The little known Gospel of Peter is quite clear that there can be redemption in Hell. It’s a lot clearer about it than Dostoevsky. That’s what I love about the Apocrypha. Such wild and near-fantastic tales and even doctrine in there. The Apocrypha seem to be stretching Christian theology to its very limits or even beyond, but that’s part of why they are great. It’s almost as if they are applying a nascent scientific method to the Bible, to figure out what’s really lurking back there behind it all. It’s Fringe Theology, but the fringe is OK. Many of the finest discoveries in science came from Fringe Science and were derided as pseudoscientific at the time.

In any process of discovery of knowledge, from the prosaic to the sublime, the best results are found by pushing your inquiry to the absolute limits or beyond. The only real limit in any exploratory inquiry is the limit of your own imagination.

Why be rigid? Rocks are rigid. If you are rigid, you are basically a rock. And once you decide to go rigid, you are locked in ore forever more, and for what purpose? Peace of mind? How weak. That’s no way to be an ubermensch. Go up and beyond. Rise above. Transcend. The sky’s the limit.

References

Connolly, Julian W. 2013. Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Gibson, Andrew Boyce. 2016. The Religion of Dostoevsky. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

14 Comments

Filed under Catholicism, Christianity, Literature, Novel, Philosophy, Religion, Science

The Mark of the Beast: Another Look

Interesting new view on the meaning of the Mark of the Beast in Biblical terms by commenter Judith Mirville. Turns out the Mark is not what we have always thought it meant. It is something else entirely.

Judith Mirville: This microchipping thing is getting creepier and creepier, but it is NOT the real mark of the Beast as referred to by the Bible.

First of all, it is no longer the ultimate state of the art in identity control: a microchip can be faked and hacked by the same ones who make a living producing computer viruses or phishing credit cards. In Nigeria, where it grew first very popular for night revelers to be able to go out drinking and womanizing in red light districts without the slightest change on them, it has proven unreliable as so many people discovered in that technology a way to dispose of infinite amounts of virtual money.

The latest technology is now purely digital identification by eye iris or even by fingerprint: the subject no longer needs carry any man-made piece of identity whatsoever.

By the way, that infamous IQ inferiority of Blacks no longer applies if a misdeed is what motivates one to solve a problem of the kind we imagine the Blacks the least fit for: quite the contrary, some faculties that might seem of paranormal nature are systematically at work.

The Beast referred to by the Biblical authors is not a man-made machine.

The Beast is the development of paranormal talents of the kind the occultists traditionally refer to and even more so the New Age system of spiritualism and occult magic, generally known under a neo-Hindu garb, but that can also be introduced to through many other currents, especially the Jewish Kabbalah. The so-called talents developed by New Agers have actually just no positive use: the more they are developed by often well-meant people trying to get evolved spiritually, the more injustice they produce of the kind India is champion.

All those who develop those talents participate in a real world totalitarian system that can actually get along without machines: there will come a time when you will need to practice the finest and nastiest forms of magic and paranormal power development just to carry on your daily survival tasks. That is already the case in some parts of India and other awful countries such as Haiti and Northern Brazil.

The problem is that you cannot efficiently use those paranormal powers without committing ritual crimes that provide you with the necessary psychic energy and without subscribing to an enterprise based on the deliberate causing of misery for the greatest number.

The problem also is that most talents nowadays used in the most advanced realms of human industry are of the same nature as were traditionally confined to explicitly magic acts: computer programming for instance is logically the same thing as witchcraft, though traditional witchcraft uses human brains for computers but with the same kind of results in view. Whenever you hear about Kundalini rising and chakra opening, you are facing the real Beast. Chakras are not a part of the natural body of man, nor are they the natural crowning of natural psychic growth. They are part of a system being installed in your body like a Windows or OSX operating system.

There will come a time when powers such as recommended by practitioners of Reiki, especially energy transmission through hand-laying and creative visualization through third eye opening, will be the corporate norm of the day and absolute requirement for new recruits in the very same way acquaintance with electronics is now required or taken for granted.

And whenever these powers are known and used on a massive scale they require the sacrifice of any notion of social justice: you have to subscribe to a view where everyone’s ill fate is deserved or needed by his evolution. There will come a time when only possessors of those powers will be entitled to work for an organized society, and where those who refuse them will no longer be considered humans. Late Brahmanic India approached such a state, but American New Age promises even worse as it progressively replaces older religions.

The microchip is under the hand’s skin only, while the Mark of the Beast is said to be even better carried in the eye.

6 Comments

Filed under Asia, Brazil, Caribbean, Christianity, Computers, Disciplines, Haiti, Hinduism, India, Judaism, Kabbalism, Latin America, Regional, Religion, Science, Social Problems, Sociology, South America, South Asia, Yoga

Microchipping of Human Beings Is Already a Reality

Here.

Wow. No thanks!  This technology just keeps getting creepier and creepier. I am starting to get genuinely frightened now. This damn tech stuff is like a runaway train with no brakes. It’s not a matter of if the Crash comes, it’s more like when, unless it’s not already here, which is a possibility.

I’m not a Bible nut, but check out 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 and especially Revelations 13:7 and 15:2. The kooky Christians are going to go wacko over this. They have been screaming about this Mark of the Beast stuff forever now and now, wa-la! It’s a reality.

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Government, Labor, Religion, Science, Social Problems, Sociology

One Piece of Negative Evidence Does Not Outweigh 15 Pieces of Positive Evidence

The thing is that you have to line up positive evidence with negative evidence. Contrary to popular belief, one piece of negative evidence (unless it is exculpatory) does not outweigh 5, 10, 15 or 20 pieces of positive evidence. It just doesn’t work that way. Nor does it work the other way around. One piece of positive evidence (unless it is probative) does not outweigh 5, 10 or 15 pieces of negative evidence.

Science isn’t as fancy or as fine-grained as you think, and detective work often does not even reach the level of actual science. The proof necessary to get a guilty verdict in court (beyond a reasonable doubt) is much lower than the proof necessary to prove something in actual science. Just because someone got convicted in court does not prove that they did the crime they were accused of. It just means that a jury or judge found that the evidence indicated that they most probably did it. And innocent people get convicted all the time and that would never happen if the legal system were actually scientific. However, I think it works pretty well.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Crime, Law, Science

Do High IQ Individuals Really Not Care about IQ? Do I Just Have a Big Ego for Caring about IQ Scores?

Answered on Quora.

Apparently it is popular to say that high IQ people don’t care about IQ. Look, let’s get this straight. IQ is intelligence. It measures how smart you are. Not how wise you are. Not your social skills. Not your psychological stability.

IQ is a test of raw brain speed. The higher your IQ, the faster your brain works. In addition, the higher the IQ, the quicker you can learn things. A high IQ person can learn faster than a lower IQ person. A high IQ person can retain more in memory. A high IQ person has better abstract thinking skills. They are better at coming up with the right answer. With putting it all together. With seeing and understanding relationships among things.

It is very popular and very silly in the US to say that IQ means nothing. What a preposterous statement. A person who states IQ means nothing is saying that intelligence means nothing. Isn’t that an outrageous statement? A person who says he cares nothing about his IQ is saying that he cares nothing about how intelligent he is. What a shocking statement!

In our culture, IQ is hated. You have to be very careful about talking about IQ or telling people your score. However, you can talk about it on other ways. I run across fairly intelligent people on a regular basis. Typically they have never taken an IQ test. I say, “Wow, you seem like you’re really smart. Have you ever taken an IQ test?” They usually say no, and I encourage them to go take one. I say , “Wow, if you’re smart, you should know your score. It’s important.” Some people have taken tests on my urging. They usually scored 115–121, very respectable.

This sort of thing nearly always goes over very well. You are complimenting the person on their intelligence and saying they are so smart they should take the test and find out how fast their brain works.

I do not usually mention my IQ in public, but fairly often it comes up, “Jesus Christ, how in the Hell do you know all this stuff, my God?” I shrug my shoulders and say I have a genius IQ. I also act sort of embarrassed about it or like it is no big deal. Then I usually say it causes a lot of problems, and I tell the person they don’t want to be this smart. I say I wish I was not this smart. This almost always goes over very well. I am not bragging about my IQ. In fact, I am saying it is a disability.

Most people respond positively to that.

I have known many high IQ people, over 140 IQ. They all knew their scores and rattled them right off to me. I have not yet met one very bright person who did not know their score or acted like they did not care about it. Over 140, most folks are rather proud of their score, as they should be.

I doubt if the “modest genius” who cares nothing about his IQ score even exists. I have never met one in my whole life.

But please be careful with talking about that IQ. It is a very touchy subject in the US and must be handled with utmost care so as not to violate social protocol.

29 Comments

Filed under American, Culture, Intelligence, Neuroscience, Psychology, Regional, Science, USA