• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

An Open Letter to Those Who Hate the Right

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 2:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
If you don't consider yourself a conservative or reactionary, then you probably have a lot of ideas about people who describe themselves as such. You might think of these people as possessing a certain mindset and intellectual ability. You might characterize this condition as a lack of nuance, open-mindedness, and vision. You might think people of this disposition are mean and simple people who don't deserve to inherit the world of the Twenty-First Century.

While you were growing up, you may have encountered these people as bullies who were eager to compensate for their lack of vision with an instinct for animalistic domination. It became a matter of pride that you disassociated yourself from those for whom you had grown disdain. You grew a conviction that you would overturn their power over you someday, and you swore eternal vigilance against them. They would not inherit the Twenty-First Century.

You may have seen the history of your own societies as being dominated by the people for whom you have grown disdain. You may also desire to overturn the historical legacy as well.

Thus, when people outside your own identity group complain about parts of your society that supposedly affect them adversely, you will tend to blame those upon whom you have become habituated to placing blame. You call these little villains of history white men, and you accuse them of upholding Patriarchal White Supremacy. This is the thing for which you have directed your disdain.

But you have not yet experienced the world of the outsider you have presumed to accept as a fellow victim of those you disdain. You have made the assumption that since you are a wellspring of nuance who is reacting against a brutish bully, that the same dynamics are at play when outsiders complain about those you disdain. This is a huge assumption.

What you may want to consider is whether those for whom you sympathize may have many of the traits you have grown to disdain about those who have adversely affected your own life. This possibility does put you in an odd position, seeing as understanding this possibility means that you would have to consider being more sympathetic towards those for whom you have grown disdain, rather than those who complain in a style they may have learned from your own complaints.

Those who complain in your style could be just as mendacious, just as brutish, and just as mentally dull as those you grew to disdain. In fact, they are probably a more extreme example of behavior you disdain. In fact, if you look more closely at their behavior, you may see that they adopt your style of resistance in a way that seems to be a pale imitation of your own approach. They do not display your nuance at all.

In my next post, I will consider how IQ might relate to this phenomenon.

https://libercolumbia.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/an-open-letter-to-those-who-hate-the-right/
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 2:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
I wrote in my previous post that we would consider how IQ factors into this discussion. In order to do that, though, we have to understand how IQ factors into educational attainment.

This is an issue that presents us with the typical tension between considering a certain behavioral pattern a consequence of innate natural characteristics or considering a certain behavioral pattern a consequence of how the environment molded a certain person, usually called "nurture." It is typically very difficult for scientists to tease out, let alone completely isolate certain traits versus learned behavior. But there are certain basic understandings they have concluded that we should acknowledge first, of we want to have a good orientation to the topic.

According to information that is easily gathered on the Web, there is good evidence to suggest that IQ can explain a lot of (read: significantly) educational attainment.

First, I will provide a scholarly overview of the information we can find regarding IQ and educational attainment:

http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/5/1362.full

As can be seen from the article, educational attainment is intricately associated with someone's intelligence as measured by IQ exams. We can see numbers ranging from a correlation of around 0.5, which fulfills most definitions of statistical significance, to almost 1.0, which shows completely parallel association. Also in the scholarly overview is the fact that the consensus among scientists is that about seventy percent of someone's IQ can explain someone's educational attainment in adulthood.

IQ and educational attainment not only go hand in hand; the former is a powerful explanation of the latter.

As a result of understanding this information, we can see that IQ is something that we need to understand if we want to understand the education of a population of people. In some ways, the IQ of a certain population can explain the educability of said population. Whatever the collective IQ of a population is, the collective IQ can explain how a population lacks the numbers of people to attain education to fill ordinary positions of responsibility as well as higher positions of authority and scholarship.

As a corollary, I would suggest strongly that having a strong civilization depends upon the ability to educate the population upon whom the civilization is built. We don't get marvelous architecture without architects with the genius to imagine nor without competent builders to follow directions and master techniques. Neither do we get the rule of law without the citizens to understand the law and intelligent scholars to legislate and adjudicate the law. We can see how our civilizational fate is tied to the IQ of our people.

In my next post, I will show how liberalism relates to this civilizational progress.

https://libercolumbia.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/an-open-letter-to-those-who-hate-the-right-part-2/
 

EggCustard

Member
Local time
Today 3:13 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
49
---
Location
USA
Majority of the Trump supporter base are uneducated white males. So going by your logic-
Actually never mind, I don't want to spoil the surprise.
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 12:13 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
Majority of the Trump supporter base are uneducated white males. So going by your logic-
Actually never mind, I don't want to spoil the surprise.

Conservatives are already known to have lower IQ scores.
 

Tannhauser

angry insecure male
Local time
Today 9:13 AM
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
1,462
---
It is not surprising if there is a high correlation between IQ and success in education – education itself mostly consists of solving puzzles which have nothing to do with reality and reducing things to oversimplified extrapolations. Pretty much invariably, when intellectuals are handed control in real life, they fuck things up completely.

Tberg, you should check out Sowell's Intellectuals and Society. He talks about it e.g. here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok
 

TheManBeyond

Banned
Local time
Today 8:13 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
2,850
---
Location
Objects in the mirror might look closer than they
tumblr_novo632Owp1rvxk9co1_500.gif
 

Turnevies

Active Member
Local time
Today 9:13 AM
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
250
---
The correlation goes in both directions: increased education is a major driveforce to the Flynn-effect (upwards IQ-drift between generations).
 

Grayman

Soul Shade
Local time
Today 12:13 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,418
---
Location
You basement
So many people get taken advantage of by college and their many good for nothing degrees. Many of the things can even be self taught. This lack of common sense can put people thousands in debt and no job to show for it.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 2:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
The correlation goes in both directions: increased education is a major driveforce to the Flynn-effect (upwards IQ-drift between generations).

I hope you don't find the length of this video off-putting, but its content is intriguing and should convince you of the weak nature of the arguments made by acolytes of Flynn:

https://youtu.be/U0E4krsl5f4
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 2:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
It is not surprising if there is a high correlation between IQ and success in education – education itself mostly consists of solving puzzles which have nothing to do with reality and reducing things to oversimplified extrapolations. Pretty much invariably, when intellectuals are handed control in real life, they fuck things up completely.

Tberg, you should check out Sowell's Intellectuals and Society. He talks about it e.g. here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok

I want to read it sometime. I have already seen the interview and find his arguments pretty impressive. He shows how many of the educational pitfalls we see running wild now started to become entrenched in our postmodern educational system. His critique applies more to postmodern education than classical education, however, and education continues to correlate with life success. It is just becoming less determinative now that pragmatism has been married to Progressivism in educational settings, meaning that truly intellectual pursuits are channeled into indoctrination while those who are less academically inclined are discouraged from pursuing the truth altogether.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 5:43 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,065
---
Why is IQ even relevant to the discussion?

IQ is used to predict things like income, or educational achievement. It's not a measure of who is the most correct. If income or education are important to the discussion, then it'd likely be easier to cite those statistics instead.

As can be seen from the article, educational attainment is intricately associated with someone's intelligence as measured by IQ exams. We can see numbers ranging from a correlation of around 0.5, which fulfills most definitions of statistical significance, to almost 1.0, which shows completely parallel association. Also in the scholarly overview is the fact that the consensus among scientists is that about seventy percent of someone's IQ can explain someone's educational attainment in adulthood.

Statistical significance is .05 for psychology unless someone states a different alpha. The higher it is, the worse it is, so .5 would be fucking terrible (indicating that the result you're observing is as likely as flipping tails even if there is zero effect). I think you're talking about Pearson's product-moment coefficient, in which case you're talking about the strength of a correlation (.5 would be a moderate positive correlation).

I think you're being quite hasty to draw big conclusions. Who're the people that have reached such a consensus? Because I've heard a similar number attributed specifically to out-of-date views. Where do the number come from?
The thing about intelligence you see is that it doesn't exist. It's a hypothetical construct, that's defined and measured differently depending on who you're talking to. Add to that the complexity of measuring heritability in people (it's insanely difficult, how do you control for environment?), and you've got a field where lots of people want to make grand statements, but lack the scientific means to do so. Most of these studies are conducted on the middle class, and 100% of participants are literate. That's an artificial ceiling on how different the measured environments can be. The fact is, all the examples of children raised in truly deprived environments show that deprivation can cause full blown incurable retardation.
So yeah, it's complicated. I don't think it's worth trying to utilisise this field of research as part of a position unless you really have to, and even then, only if you really had a handle on how it works (which I must confess, I don't). I really don't understand why this has anything to do with left vs. right.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 2:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
Hadoblado,

The scholarly overview used percentages to refer to similar trends in heritability and malleability. I assume that they are essentially the same thing, given that the scientific consensus also coincides with such an interpretation. I may have mistaken the terminology, but my conclusion does not rest upon semantics. I was indeed using it as a measure of the strength of association.

Also, parents have adopted children from populations usually considered to be underprivileged. The findings in the Minnesota Adoption Study were that white parents were able to raise the IQ of their black adopted children by two thirds of a standard deviation from the African American mean, but that one of those thirds vanished by adulthood. Thirty-three percent malleability fills the hole left by seventy percent heritability said to be the scientific consensus. White adopted children also regressed a significant amount of IQ after reaching adulthood.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday 10:13 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,135
---
It is not surprising if there is a high correlation between IQ and success in education – education itself mostly consists of solving puzzles which have nothing to do with reality and reducing things to oversimplified extrapolations. Pretty much invariably, when intellectuals are handed control in real life, they fuck things up completely.

Tberg, you should check out Sowell's Intellectuals and Society. He talks about it e.g. here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok

This is so true. It's very easy to isolate problems from reality and solve them, but reality is constantly evolving. Solving one problem can lead to another, while problems in themselves can have many related problems. It requires an adaptable and inclusive intellect that doesn't process reality in isolated parts/patterns.

So many people get taken advantage of by college and their many good for nothing degrees. Many of the things can even be self taught. This lack of common sense can put people thousands in debt and no job to show for it.

Seconded. Education doesn't mean a whole lot in itself. Provide people with the means to learn and develop in a way that suits them best and you've created a society of intellectuals that can depend on each other, instead of a society that must rely on a small "institutionally-educated" elite.
 

Sinny91

Banned
Local time
Today 8:13 AM
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,299
---
Location
Birmingham, UK
Hadoblado,

The scholarly overview used percentages to refer to similar trends in heritability and malleability. I assume that they are essentially the same thing, given that the scientific consensus also coincides with such an interpretation. I may have mistaken the terminology, but my conclusion does not rest upon semantics. I was indeed using it as a measure of the strength of association.

Also, parents have adopted children from populations usually considered to be underprivileged. The findings in the Minnesota Adoption Study were that white parents were able to raise the IQ of their black adopted children by two thirds of a standard deviation from the African American mean, but that one of those thirds vanished by adulthood. Thirty-three percent malleability fills the hole left by seventy percent heritability said to be the scientific consensus. White adopted children also regressed a significant amount of IQ after reaching adulthood.

Okay, am I being blind, or have you still not explained how this connects to the left/right paradigm?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 5:43 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,065
---
Okay, am I being blind, or have you still not explained how this connects to the left/right paradigm?

I'm assuming he's planning to explain it in a later installment and that us bickering with him is only slowing him down ^-^
 

Tannhauser

angry insecure male
Local time
Today 9:13 AM
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
1,462
---
Statistical significance is .05 for psychology unless someone states a different alpha. The higher it is, the worse it is, so .5 would be fucking terrible (indicating that the result you're observing is as likely as flipping tails even if there is zero effect). I think you're talking about Pearson's product-moment coefficient, in which case you're talking about the strength of a correlation (.5 would be a moderate positive correlation).

To get technical here, the .5 number was obviously the statistic itself – the correlation, not the p-value. But I was meaning to say – papers which quote statistics (for example correlation) without a measure of variation, like standard error or p-values, should be completely ignored (actually, all papers which try to link IQ with intelligence should be ignored).
 

Sinny91

Banned
Local time
Today 8:13 AM
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,299
---
Location
Birmingham, UK
Well.. I'd like your opinion on the content of my Globalisation and Covert politics thread..

Do you recogise the origins of your ideology, Tberg?
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=25019

Conservative Establishment:

Centered around the Pentagon and CIA, certainly after the Richard Helms period.

Grew out an alliance of General Douglas MacArthur's notoriously fascist cronies, generals Pedro del Valle, Bonner Fellers, Charles Willoughby, Albert Wedemeyer, George Stratemeyer and Robert Wood. They were backed by H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson, and J. Edgar Hoover was an ally. Together they attacked Eisenhower (a former Pilgrims Society executive) and the East Coast Establishment for being too soft on communism.

Undiplomatic. Ultra-right-wing McCarthyites and Christian conservatives from different denominations. A combination of the isolationist old right, the interventionist new right, as well as the religious right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc.).

Allied with the Vatican-Paneuropa network in Europe, consisting of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta.

Began working with the Israel Lobby in the United States in the 1970s, forming the neocons.

Vatican-Paneuropa Network:


Catholic European branch of the conservative establishment which had considerable overlap with the American Security Council.

Ultra-right-wing. Knights of Malta and Opus Dei-dominated network.

Key founder of many groups has been Otto von Habsburg, the last crown prince of the Vatican-allied Austro Hungarian Empire. Prince Hans Adam II von Liechtenstein, a relative of the Habsburg, is another key player in Europe. Prince Miguel de Bourbon has been another member with long-standing connections to U.S. intelligence.

Its primary interest has been the resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire by manipulating the European Union, although this agenda has met with stiff resistance from the Liberal Establishment.

Heh.
 

TBerg

fallen angel who hasn't earned his wings
Local time
Today 2:13 AM
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,453
---
There is nothing inherently bad about appreciating the greatness it took to form a German Reich out of the ashes of the Roman Empire and the subsequent Frankish Empire. There is also nothing inherently bad about appreciating the role the Catholic Church played in salvaging the remnants of Greco-Roman civilization after the fall of Rome. That was the whole point of How the Irish Saved Civilization: Clerics retreated outside the wrath of Heathen Chieftains and were able to subsequently spread knowledge by way of Missions.

I don't mind that part of any conspiracy at all. I just have my own intellectual inspiration apart from those you mention. I think Julius Evola was quite profound and wise. I also think Nietzsche is key to understanding the historical process entailed in modernity and postmodernity.

I consider Neoconservatism to have run out of historical force, which is why I now appreciate listening to Neoreaction and the Alt Right, both of whom have similarly relevant ideas to bring to bear on how society functions around us. You might enjoy exploring how these two interrelated standpoints differ from Neoconservatism. The Alt Right attacks Neoconservatives first and foremost.
 

Sinny91

Banned
Local time
Today 8:13 AM
Joined
May 16, 2015
Messages
6,299
---
Location
Birmingham, UK
You might enjoy exploring how these two interrelated standpoints differ from Neoconservatism. The Alt Right attacks Neoconservatives first and foremost.

I will do :)
 
Top Bottom