Taboo Topics

Oh Oh,
now you've done it, you've punched the tar baby....

 

You can't form reasoned arguments unless you first have reason. What is your fundamental principle here?

 

No I'm not talking about Eastern Medicine, as far as that is defined by scholars.

As far as it doing more harm than good? there is no physical harm done to the body in the Lakota methods of healing----I guess one could argue that a sweat lodge is not recommended for certain individuals with specific medical conditions, in which case a yuwipi ceremony which does not include a sweat lodge could be performed.

if cancer, kidney stones, and any number of other ailments are cured---how can that be harmful. I have seen it myself. You may not believe it because you haven't seen it yourself, but you won't ever believe it because you automatically reject it.

Anyway----I don't want to sell you on anything-----I was just making a point.

I score extremely high on IQ tests; I speak, read, and write Japanese fluently, understand Tagalog, and am gaining a grasp on Lakota; I have an uncanny knack for spotting turns in financial markets; I feel very confident in my understanding of quantum physics, Jungian psychology, philosophy, anthropology, economics; etc. etc. If you wanted to argue Libertarian economic ideals with me---you better be ready (but I would probably just turn you over to the thread I joined in when someone commented that there are no liberals with any knowledge in economics-----my arguments are all their until I got tired of going over the same mundane points that the other person just couldn't get). But I am not racially superior to anyone.

I have spent time with indigenous people in Japan and the Philippines, a little bit in Taiwan, and I would guarantee you that they would do very poorly on IQ tests, but their knowledge of their world is intense and I am like a child there. Here in the US, the Lakota cosmology is genius in its understanding of the world and how it came to be. You find that in many places, many cultures----it may be in the language of myth, but if you can understand it scientifically it is genius. The Old Testament, written by a bunch of primitive people wandering around a Desert thousands of years ago, states, 'Let there be light' as a primal cosmological step----and this fits right into some amazing theory that is less than a decade old.

Now if you want to talk about cultural traits, and the impact of history and how successful a specific culture is within the framework of the Industrial Age, then we have something to talk about. It is cultural traits that make the IQ test so fallible.

It is funny that you mention East Asians---it is cultural traits shaped by history that helped me determine near the end of 1988 (as an analyst for Shearson Lehman covering the Tokyo market), that the Japanese economy was heading for major problems (It was my knack for the stock market that led me to predict the market peak at the end of 1989, and the subsequent crash that would start that period of economic turmoil). All the world thought that the Japanese were so amazing in their innovation and inventiveness----but the truth is their culture is too objectivistic--stemming from a multi-century long love affair with Confucian ideals. Japanese innovation was heavily dependent on Western development, mainly German and US patents---but new patents in Germany and the US had stagnated for a good decade. By the end of the 1980's the Japanese had done all they could with what the west had given them.

Do you remember how bad our economy was around the end of 2008---at the bottom of the credit crisis? The Japanese economy hit its first bottom in 1992, and our economy of 2008, has pretty much been the economy of Japan ever since 1992---there were points where it got even worse. It was improving in the mid 2000's but our exported bad debt pushed it right back down.

I believe you equated racial superiority with economic success. And yes, the Japanese would do very well on IQ tests (and it has an awful lot to do with that love affair with Confucian ideals), but their IQ has not helped them one iota economically.

 

I grant you indigenous peoples have much higher intelligence with regards to their natural environment. They are specialized for it essentially.

Do you think critical thinking skills and application of logical analysis is more affected by "g" general intelligence or Naturalistic Intelligence?

We may differ in that I value logic, reason, and evidence above everything else. If you maintain that foundation, you will eventually lead yourself to the truth, and the right answers on the solution to your problems. These values are often in direct opposition to values of faith, dogma, and tradition. The enlightenment was all about reprioritizing our value set in the western world. We no longer believe in evil spirits or witches or animal sacrifice or human sacrifice or vengeful gods like many indigenous people do. This common notion of the noble savage is a meme that has been passed down, and reinforced quite recently actually.

Would you rather be you in 2000 or you in 1900? You in 1900 or you in 1800? 1800 or 1700? Sans a few hiccups during the dark ages and the like, the prefered answer is almost always the later date. I'd rather be a poor person today than the King of Spain at the height of its power. As you go back in time, which is essentially what you'd be doing if you decided to live with a truly indigenous, isolated population today you WILL find rates of violence increase per capita. You WILL find yourself and others dying of their teeth occasionally. You WILL find some very dangerous, very malignant ideas about the evil eye, among other pernicious beliefs. If there is a dispute, might equals right. I think my argument of IQ's correlation with violence will hold up very, very well in undeveloped societies just as it did in highly advanced societies, as Mr. Steven Pinker illustrates here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

 

Mountain Valley Wolf

My fascination with IQ is mostly based on its correlation with violence. Do you agree that people with an IQ over 120 or extreeeemely unlikely to start a fight for a stupid reason or let their emotions get the best of them? To what do you attribute the extremely low crime rates of the Scandanavians and Japanese?

Do you think it has anything to do with high IQ people having very well developed frontal lobes? Are you aware of frontal lobes and their connection with ability to delay gratification and forecast the future better than people who are underdeveloped in this area? Would you be surprised if MRI scans revealed almost all criminals to have underdeveloped frontal lobes? Would you be surprised if almost all indigenous people had underdeveloped frontal lobes?

 

hmmm, interesting........

and we're right back to the racist bullshit.

you really are a one trick pony, aren't you?


Personally i think people who evaluate themselves and others based on how many push-ups they can do and try to impress with pics of what steroids can do tend to be kinda stupid in general.

ps, is that you in the pic,......I kinda doubt it, there aren't enough prison tats from the Aryan Brotherhood.

 

Hey nerdanderturd What is your IQ deficiency that you can' answer my question.?

 

Reason comes from the application of logical analysis. My fundamental principle? We can do this with formally structured syllogisms I guess. I probably don't try that enough. We will have to break the component parts down though. I'll start with the most macroscopic view, and any premises you disagree with we can investigate.

Premise 1. Dysgenics is real if left unchecked. IQ is based on heredity at a correlation of roughly 0.8. People of low IQ tend to have many more kids than people of higher IQ. (Idiocracy)
Premise 2. IQ correlates very strongly with rates of violence, dogma, and income. Lowering IQs means steadily increasing dogma and violence, less technological prowess. Less income.
[SIZE=13.63636302948px]Conclusion [/SIZE]3. In order to prevent this decreasing quality of life, which happens naturally in the absence of evolutionary bottlenecks, incentives need to be offered for smarter people to have bigger families, and less intelligent people to have smaller families. The snowball tends to roll downhill and pick up mass. We need to put enough effort into the project to push the snowball uphill.


We can go into the detail of the premises if you like. I contend that this is a valid argument without question. If you spot any flaws in the logic don't hesitate to specify where you see them.

 

You will never. Ever. Hurt my feelings. I am immune to taking offense, and having hurt feelings. These are signs of weakness and they signify that you haven't accepted your physical form, or you are uncomfortable confronting truths that others have raised. Period. The only time my feelings have ever been hurt are when I was much younger, and I knew I was wrong, or I hadn't accepted my physical flaws. I accept the things I cannot change, but I do everything I can do to be as mentally and physically fit as possible. If you're able to actually commit to that project, you will find yourself free from all shame and humiliation. Shame and humiliation are only instructive, if you feel them it means you need to make some changes.

I've never taken steroids though I have thought about it fleetingly. That is a picture of me, albeit a flattering one after a workout.

 

What causes dysgenics? How is it checked.
Already you have not attended to unrecognized assumption. You point 1. is not axiomatically sound as it is not a solid definition.
Try again.

 

As I said, we can break down that point into smaller parts so you can understand it.

There are many, mannnny factors that lead to the negative correlation between IQ and fertility. Having[SIZE=13.63636302948px] well developed frontal lobes, a high IQ, t[/SIZE]he ability to delay gratification, and plan for the future are all correlated. Here's a study, although the exact correlation coefficient isn't given.

"The teens' tendency to delay gratification was indeed associated with IQ and with ego resiliency (e.g., higher delayers were rated as more responsible, consistent, likable, sympathetic, generous; less hostile, moody, self-indulgent, rebellious), but was also independently associated with ego control (e.g., higher delayers were rated as "tends toward over-control of needs and impulses," "favors conservative values in a number of areas.".[10]"

How is it checked? By statistical analysis of large studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

"In 1982, Daniel Vining sought to address these issues in a large study on the fertility of over 10,000 individuals throughout the United States, who were then aged 25 to 34. The average fertility in his study was correlated at −0.86 with IQ for white women and −0.96 for black women. Vining argued that this indicated a drop in the genotypic average IQ of 1.6 points per generation for the white population, and 2.4 points per generation for the black population.[12]"

It's important to note here that anything over 0.7 is a very, very strong correlation. This page is a great primer http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r.html

"In a 1988 study, Retherford and Sewell examined the association between the measured intelligence and fertility of over 9,000 high school graduates in Wisconsin in 1957, and confirmed the inverse relationship between IQ and fertility for both sexes, but much more so for females. If children had, on average, the same IQ as their parents, IQ would decline by .81 points per generation. Taking .71 for the additive heritability of IQ as given by Jinks and Fulker,[14] they calculated a dysgenic decline of .57 IQ points per generation.[15]"

"in a 1999 study examining the relationship between IQ and education in a large national sample, David Rowe and others found not only that achieved education had a high heritability (.68) and that half of the variance in education was explained by an underlying genetic component shared by IQ, education, and SES.[17] One study investigating fertility and education carried out in 1991 found that high school dropouts in America had the most children (2.5 on average), with high school graduates having fewer children, and college graduates having the fewest children (1.56 on average).[18]"


These are crucial data points. High school dropouts always have more kids than college graduates. The difference is less noticable during population booms. So baby boomers were all procreating over the stable procreation rate. Let's assign ballpark figures of (3.0 on average) for high school dropouts and (2.4 on average) for college graduates. As population density starts to peak, the college graduates are more likely to realize the need for behavior modifcation and foresight. They do their part to fight overpopulation. High school dropouts not so much. Now we see a shrinking college graduate population against the growing huddled masses. (2.5) > (2.1) > (1.56)

Here's William Shockley's take. One of the few who would not let Political Correctness get in the way of truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ_lkg5t9lc

This is my case for the reality of dygenics. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please do present it. If I am wrong and there is stronger data on the other side, I really would like to see it. I would be very happy if these studies I presented turned out to be wrong. Please prove me wrong.

 

We can do no such thing. Provide one point of common understanding and we can build on that.
Your reasoning power is ineffecacious but you have sharp opinions.
You don't know how to use your intelligence, you just count on it. and rattle the change in your pocket.
Do you get the sense that you are gettin tared Tard?

 

I get the sense you didn't look at any of the studies I posted and you cannot refute the data.

[SIZE=13.63636302948px](2.5) High School Dropout Offspring > (2.1) Stable Population > [/SIZE][SIZE=13.63636302948px](1.56) College Graduate Offspring[/SIZE]

 

i dropped out in the eighth grade to go learn something
Any reason I should listen to you?
You need to speak clearly or I might think you are a slope head.

 

i believe it is dishonest for the resources topic to be locked.

 

It is interesting that this Steven Pinker fellow introduces the hunter gatherer portion of his discussion with an article about Native Americans, and then bases his whole piece on a controversial study of a limited number of tribes. As I recall, the study deals with the likelihood to be killed by another person, touched upon the concept of inter-tribal warfare, but failed to weed out those deaths caused by ranchers, loggers and non-native people. Or maybe it was the conclusions that people incorrectly made from the study that were the problem---I forget, that study is a bit old now. The other problem is that the tribes in Papua New Guinea were not exactly hunter-gatherer tribes, and that a number of planter cultures there were active head hunters.

If we were to take the same murder rates that Steven Pinker suggested and apply it to pre-European invasion Americas, it would seem very unlikely for population levels to reach the levels they had---there was a very large indigenous population in the Americas at the time the Europeans arrived here. Over 80% of that population was killed by disease brought by the White man---we all know what happened to most of the rest.

Pinker’s use of this study, and subsequent conclusions about hunter-gatherers is akin to us concluding that Native Americans are very violent today, by using such data as that which indicates that they are killed by more police officers than any other ethnic group (remember the CDC collection of statistics I posted earlier).

There were warring tribes. The Lakota and other Sioux tribes were fierce warring tribes—until they rediscovered their spiritual values. There were tribes that considered each other enemies, and so forth. But the article Pinker cited was correct—combat was ritualistic among the tribes—a place where boys became men (at the risk of death). People were killed, but that was not the point---the battles were not really for land or possessions. That is why it was considered far more honorable to knock an enemy off his horse with a coup stick than to kill him.

When the Europeans came, the natives were much healthier—mainly because they ate a healthier and more varied diet. They tended to be much taller than the short Europeans (which is why the indigenous people in the movie Avatar were so tall). Many of the foods in our diet today were unknown in Europe before they found the Indians eating them.

But be careful the noble savage is just as much a racial prejudice as the drunken Indian.

My own belief, which is supported by anthropological and archeological evidence, is that real warfare—as we know it today—did not begin until man entered into the planter cultures, which led to the rise of the institution, and civilization. This is where one would formulate a concept of in-group out-group and a more concrete definition of ownership. History around the world, even today, is filled with examples of farmer, rancher, and state violence against indigenous people, far more often than the other way around. And yet there are even planter cultures where violence was very low: Numerous Goddess culture sites have yielded no weapons other than those used for ceremony.

Still-----I do believe in Pinker’s overall premise that violence has dropped over time.

And yes, you are right, no one today would want to go back and live in the conditions of the distant past. Modern man thrust into the life of a hunter-gatherer would not be happy at all.

Let me go a little further with that last point----I’ve got to get to bed for now…

 

Thank you for your honesty concerning declining violence. I think all the evidence points in that direction. I think eliminating dogma is always a good thing on balance.

We've certainly created new kinds of problems with all this emerging technology. But they're first world problems. Western guilt dictates that we acknowledge all the bad things these progressive societies have done without celebrating the good things that they've created. If you want to go back 100 years from any point in history, you are in the extreme minority. If you did go back, you would quickly find yourself regretting your decision as you found yourself surrounded by more dogma, more misogyny, more might equals right, rampant slavery, more health problems, more bigotry, more mistrust of outsiders, and much, much less comfort.

 

Do you believe in honesty too? I am asking him to provide reasoned argument like he said he could and so far he can't. Has nothing to do with the value of the resources materials he is leaning on. Really belief doesn't apply to whether a situation is just, it only applies to your belief. You have to use your powers of discernment to apprehend correct proportions. Is it the same or is it different and what is it for. There is no dishonesty in physics

 

What makes this steven pincker fellow interesting?" a study which you saw long ago and can't quite remember the particulars of, so your interest is in how it suits your perspective. period. Lends no mutually verifiable data to the discussion. If we were to take the same murder rates and apply it yada yada, No rates were produced, therefor there is no axiomatic substance on which to build your, if then, statistical analysis. You are running a con on yourself brought about by your feelings of injustice. You have the same prejudices as the Nerd, his racial and yours cultural. Couple sissies gossiping about their fellow man.