Thoughts on BLM/Cops

[TBerg]

Grayman,

First, I want to present what I am talking about when I talk about the groups of people we know everyday as races. This is the difference between the groups that means the most to us in our modern world. If we want to keep the world we have--in which we are able to plan with each other, trust each other, and collaborate with each other--we need to have the same basic cognitive abilities. Misunderstandings are bound to occur between populations for whom the recommendation to "know thyself" confounds interaction rather than facilitates it. This is the social cost to IQ differences.

Spoiler

But there is another cost. That cost can be a long-term civilizational demise. What happens when the people inhabiting the territory no longer have the capacity to maintain the legacy of the civilization they are supposed to inherit? The legacy perishes and has nothing better to replace it. Many of our accomplishments are unprecedented in the history of humanity. We need not decrease their chances of continuing to increase our legacy. We want a high standard of the rule of law, of scientific and technical mastery, and of philosophical lucidity--not the regression to something we had thought we had overcome. We see degradation out in the open in our public discourse concerning social justice as well as the regressions in our curricula spurred by Common Core.

You may doubt whether this is a permanent fact of population genetics, but let us consider this fact from Wikipedia, which aligns with expert lectures that I have heard:

"The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Associationreport, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.[5][6] The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood.[7] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[8] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[9][10]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

As we can see, genetics have a strong relative influence within Western social environments. If you consider the fact that middle-tier societies in West Africa have the same IQ as African Americans, then the results become more apparent.

Here is a discussion over the validity and the significance of IQ:

https://youtu.be/Qdhx9v3e1Mo

Here is a discussion over the results and suggestions for the development of West Africa:

https://youtu.be/BQNBPnVXH5w

If you listen to the first discussion, you will see more and more how IQ impacts the potential for the social development of countries and communities, with more adept analysis than my own.

If you listen to the second, you will see more and more the culture from which the population of African Americans have become deracinated.

In both cases, you will see that we are dealing with a very profound problem that lends itself to more and more problems rather than coming to a point of solid progress. (You will notice from the increase in homicide in major cities that Progressive activism is not the answer, especially considering the fact that in many cases Progressives have overseen the destruction of these societies in the past half century.)

Another thing is the basic validity of racial classification. I completely bring on board the understanding of race conveyed in webpage you linked. It is totally legitimate to say that there has been migrations that have resulted in interbreeding and genetic mixing. But I contend that my understanding of race applies to at least three distinct and massive groups (to the exclusion of the less distinct populations): The three are Europeans, East Asians, and Subsaharans.

Europeans are those who have descended from Aryan groups that adapted more and more to colder environments, with some interbreeding along the Mediterranean (allowing that it became more Arabic after Muslim conquests). East Asians are those who grew plentiful along the fertile plains and valleys past the mountainous Turkic and Mongol areas. Subsaharans are those who never had to traverse the Caucasus or the Himalayan Mountains and always had the ability to find plentiful food supplies in tropical regions, and consequently were never culled of those who did not prepare for the winter and who had the incentive to just take and take food without regard for future circumstances. The impact of mountainous winters involves budgeting and cooperation (even in my relatively modern Arkansas home).

Of course, there are smaller populations that are less distinct, but let's just confine this discussion to the ones I mentioned for the sake of concision, if you don't mind. But I would be prepared to offer theories for South Asians and Pacific Islanders as well.

All of the groups I mentioned have had little interbreeding with groups outside the parameters I outlined (to the exception of certain Mediterranean groups), and they can be pinpointed with great accuracy by genetic testing available to the public. I have seen it done by Henry Louis Gates time after time on his PBS show.

 

[Analyzer]

Intelligence isn't a quantity and not subject to objective measurement, this is based on fallacy.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Intelligence isn't a quantity and not subject to objective measurement, this is based on fallacy.

With what evidence or authority do you come to this conclusion? Just because something can't be simply defined doesn't mean it's impossible to measure. Just because a measurement might not be completely precise doesn't automatically make it invalid.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I think most of those two paragraphs are irrelevant given that happiness depends on perspective

This is exactly the point I was making. It's a stupid thing to argue because of the variability. Even the variables have their own variables. It's like two blind people arguing about whether or not blue is the "best" color.

Well, apparently you're banned, but I'll respond to your ghost.

You've misinterpreted. What I meant by that was not relativity in the sense of "what makes X happy doesn't necessarily make Y happy" but that there's flexibility in that one defines their own happiness, more along the lines of learning not to be bothered by most things.

At some point you've just got to trust that there are others who are able to see in the areas you're blind in. And then trust them, which is a hard thing to do because of uncertainty surrounding what yourself and others are truly capable of/competent in.

 

[Analyzer]

With what evidence or authority do you come to this conclusion? Just because something can't be simply defined doesn't mean it's impossible to measure. Just because a measurement might not be completely precise doesn't automatically make it invalid.

Basic principles of epistemology. Intellect is based on ones ability to acquire knowledge. Because of volition, everyone will come to different judgements of such knowledge. We use reason to determine if things are true or not.

Measurement is possible in the scientific and technical fields because the data is objectively identified, it's outside of the mind. It doesn't have to be precise to be valid because it's based on evidence in which new data can be made available as it's being discovered. As far as human affairs are concerned, value is subjective. The process of acquiring knowledge has no way to be quantified, unless you base it off certain peoples valuations. Trying to test human choices in a lab can't work like it would if you were identifying volcanic rocks from plutonic rocks in a group of igneous rocks. How are you suppose to measure something that is based on subjective interpretations?

 

[bvanevery]

Threads are quite explicitly gated to topics. You're derailing

I'm not a "J" and don't see hard and fast lines on such things much of the time. Are you some kind of "J" who needs to have everything in the exact cubby hole to be happy with it? And what does any of it have to do with BLM/Cops anyways?

and passive aggressively expressing displeasure at the fact I'm calling you out for derailing and not engaging in a derail with you.

I'd probably put more attention into exactly what you say, if you didn't make it a habit / mission of yours to "wear me out" with other things you say in other places. Having people pay attention to your thoughts in close detail is like a bank account. If you make a lot of withdrawls on it, then there's not much left in the account.

We also have this ongoing moral problem that I can't even begin to believe in the lens through which I know you see the world. When you say I am "derailing" something, I'd have to go back and re-read posts and check. But I already don't care what you think is "derailing" anyways. Compare "Peter and the Wolf".

Oh and somehow this thread has come up again at a time of day when I'm thinking about FOOD and SLEEP. Has something to do with the posting volume of things I feel a need to respond to, and the order they show up in my GMail Inbox. Yeah clearly this thread is not getting the love. I think I'll go eat something and then make a concerted effort to figure out what's actually going on here. I wonder if I'm going to be surprised?

Eh, screw food. Think I got it sorted now. At one point I was talking to Tberg about race, but other parts of INTPforum distracted me. Meanwhile, volume increased here, to a point where it might be difficult to keep up with it. Lagomorph noticed this. Simultaneously he went more abstract and big picture principled. You responded in kind. I noticed a piece of your response that was pertinent to my own life experience - homelessness - and responded in kind. In short, I participated in a topic drift. As I think did you.

Tberg is actually still talking about the original subject. Good for him.

I haven't quite clued in to you being banned. Lot of response inertia. But at least your ban will make it easier to catch up.

If I do.

 

[Grayman]

@TBerg

You are putting a lot focus on IQ. More than should be. Most of science argues that IQ is socially and culturally effected. It is inadequate for it's intended purpose.

Arguably when a black is introduced to white culture his/her IQ potential goes up. Genes can contribute but as is evidenced between the IQ difference of conservatives vs liberals you can see there are a lot of other variables.

 

[Sinny91]

The new radical left, with Clinton at the helm.

Phew. It's taken me a long time to use the word left, but there I've done it.

'Left' alone is too broad a term. We need to pinpoint these fuckers.

 

[TBerg]

@TBerg

You are putting a lot focus on IQ. More than should be. Most of science argues that IQ is socially and culturally effected. It is inadequate for it's intended purpose.

Arguably when a black is introduced to white culture his/her IQ potential goes up. Genes can contribute but as is evidenced between the IQ difference of conservatives vs liberals you can see there are a lot of other variables.

This closely tracks the information already provided:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

As can be seen from this study, the adopted children with two biologically black parents have an IQ around fifteen points lower than those who were adopted from two biologically white parents. This is the same difference that can be found in the general population. It is not a conclusive study, but it tracks the information provided by the APA and posted on Wikipedia: that there is less of a difference between the parent and child IQ early in the child's development and more of a difference late in the child's development, suggesting a strong genetic basis for IQ.

 

[bvanevery]

Arguably when a black is introduced to white culture his/her IQ potential goes up.

Good grief which white culture? Like there aren't hordes of stupid white people in big pockets in various places for various reasons.

 

[Grayman]

I've been running across this in various news articles.

It seems to me that the BLM movement has successfully scared off the cops. Unfortunately they made the real threat to their lives much greater and their homicide victim rate has substantially increased. I read an article where a mother is going around asking questions trying to solve her own sons murder because the cops won't come out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ago-through-first-three-months-2016/82507210/

 

[QuickTwist]

I have an IQ of 105 and I get along just fine with people. I'm not concerned with power, so there are limitations to what I can accomplish, but I do live a pretty peaceful existence.

[Edit] A few more things. My father has a noticeably low IQ in the reasoning department, but he is very observant and can spot changes in things relatively easily - a gift I lack completely. My mother is a wallflower who does what she thinks feels right. My brother carries genes over from my father to a pretty substantial degree. He has picked up a lot of the same behaviors from him and has a very similar temperament. My sister is a very good musician and is too complex for me to describe and I/E. She is smart, but neglectful to important priorities. I share this characteristic with my sister, but I don't have the drive that she does, I am rather lazy. So you could say that I come from a demographic that is unambitious and slightly smarter than the average population, in my 30s, white, male and don't have a penny to my name. My work ethic is underwhelming and I am considered pretty unsuccessful.

Conclusion: If you were to paint me by my IQ alone, it would say I should be making about $20 and hour, have my own apartment and have a girlfriend. Sadly, there are things that affect how productive someone can be without ever even touching something like IQ. I mentioned that my father has a noticeably low IQ in the reasoning department and yet, he does pretty well for himself. He has a decent savings and is about to retire. He is happily married, owns his own home and generally lives very comfortably. By IQ standards, he should be making about $17/hour and struggles with his marriage and making his bill payments.

 

[bvanevery]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ago-through-first-three-months-2016/82507210/

The article you have quoted is about Chicago. Since it's one of the worst places in the USA, and was even before BLM, I don't find your claim about the dynamics to be credible. At least, not based on the article you quoted. Chicago is Chicago. What's going on everywhere else?

 

[Grayman]

The article you have quoted is about Chicago. Since it's one of the worst places in the USA, and was even before BLM, I don't find your claim about the dynamics to be credible. At least, not based on the article you quoted. Chicago is Chicago. What's going on everywhere else?

I couldn't find anything on the USA 2013 -2016 in regards to this.

I did find something else though.

http://www.amren.com/news/2016/10/w...-statistics-show-more-killings-between-races/

There are several articles showing that whites killing blacks has increased drastically 2014 - 2016.

This article tries to associate it with Obama taking office but that first occurred in 2009. In 2013 yes Obama took office a second time but also the BLM movement started and in 2014 they started to get into the spotlight. Now it could just be coincidence but it is more likely BLM than having a black president.

 

[Intolerable]

@TBerg

You are putting a lot focus on IQ. More than should be. Most of science argues that IQ is socially and culturally effected. It is inadequate for it's intended purpose.

In defense of IQ let's say that society is just a collection of socially-agreeable cues or gestures. Some are explicit and others are implicit.

Now if you can parse the gestures you'll do fine. This is where IQ becomes very important. Smarter people just see things faster than others. The more you see the more options are accessible to you. The better your choices will be as a result.

Now someone might say eventually everyone will get 10/10 cues correctly. The problem with that now is time. Time is a constant that doesn't flex for us. We have to know 10/10 cues in X amount of time. So there will be a natural failure rate among humans correlated with IQ. This can be gamed somewhat by proactively setting yourself up. So that you know the answers without having to search for the cues. Lots of studying for example helps someone with an IQ of 100 to beat a test whereas the kid with an IQ of 140 can study a lot less and get the same score.

Now that said, IQ is not an indicator of success for one reason. Humans seek the path of least resistance. Even the smartest among us do that. So if a highly intelligent human is unwilling to put themselves in a stressful, fast paced environment where their IQ will shine that's their choice but it muddles the waters. It makes it look like IQ is irrelevant but it isn't. We're just not thinking about all factors.

 

[bvanevery]

http://www.amren.com/news/2016/10/w...-statistics-show-more-killings-between-races/

There are several articles showing that whites killing blacks has increased drastically 2014 - 2016.

'Drastically' is a term of excitement or dire prediction that isn't warranted by the actual graphs cited. (You'll have to go to the link. The graph presented isn't an image I can copy and paste. The interracial crime graph is displaying correctly in my Firefox browser, but the same race graph isn't displaying anything. The article quotes some same race crime statistics in the text.)

First off, speaking in terms of percentages is a bit of a game, because the absolute number of killings nationally is rather low. You've got variances around ~500 black-on-white and ~200 white-on-black killings in a country of 325 million people. One would be justified in writing the whole thing off as meaningless statistical noise.

Second off, claiming a significance to big changes between 2014 .. 2016 is selective observation of the ongoing trend. If you look at the graph all the way back to 2005, you see that we're merely at a similar place to where we were in 2005 or 2007. One would be justified in regarding the data as a sort of plateau of crime, which oscillates a bit one way or the other as the years go by.

Third, the interracial crime is noticeably lower than same race crime, by a factor of 5x..10x. I'd say that makes interracial crime not so exciting to study in the scheme of things.

This graph is much ado about nothing. Maybe it would mean a lot to someone who expects crime to go drastically up over time, or drastically down. But all it really says is "things vary a bit". Which is to be expected in Life.

The stats reflect that blacks commit disproportionately more crime. Since they're also disproportionately poor, that's to be expected.

 

[bvanevery]

In defense of IQ let's say that society is just a collection of socially-agreeable cues or gestures. Some are explicit and others are implicit.

Now if you can parse the gestures you'll do fine. This is where IQ becomes very important. Smarter people just see things faster than others.

An IQ test only exercises specific kinds of analytical parsings. If analytical parsings are a survival or reproductive advantage in certain settings, fine, but they often aren't. Otherwise we wouldn't have the ongoing meme of "engineering geniuses" who can't get a date, can't dress themselves properly, exercise common sense, or do other mundane life tasks that normal people handle just fine. Do not underestimate social intelligence or kinesthetic intelligence as survival advantages for people. Frankly all the anecdotal evidence is towards "Chatty Cathy" as the winning strategy, not IQ.

 

[Grayman]

The stats reflect that blacks commit disproportionately more crime. Since they're also disproportionately poor, that's to be expected.

A chart that shows the demographics of crime in the poor class would be nice. I don't know if the FBI records income in their data.

 

[bvanevery]

Doubt there are national stats on race + crime + poverty per se.

However for specific big cities, you can easily assess the amount of crime occurring in wealthy and poor parts of town. I've embarked upon this exercise for Milwaukee and Chicago. Started doing that when Milwaukee was making the headlines this summer with a huge uptick in murders. They have nice maps that will show you where various crimes actually occur during some period, I think 4 weeks for the Milwaukee maps and 2 weeks for the Chicago maps. This has a bit of a "down in the weeds" feeling, when you're looking at those relatively small time periods you don't get a big picture of overall annual crime. But you definitely can see that people in wealthy neighborhoods aren't getting slain the way they are in poor neighborhoods.

 

[TBerg]

I keep posting these statistics, bvan, but they seem to be neglected. Poverty and crime can be seen as proxies for IQ:

And, if you look at my other thread, you will see that IQ cannot be raised to the point of parity without evolutionary mechanisms changing a biological population over time.

 

[TBerg]

From the "White Lives Matter" thread:

According to the Obama-Holder Department of Justice:

Whites commit 60,000 violent crimes against blacks.

Blacks commit 600,000 violent crimes against whites.

Blacks thereby commit ten times as much violence against whites than vice versa.

Blacks are one fifth the population of whites. If you divide ten by one fifth, then you get fifty.

That means a black man is fifty times more dangerous to whites, statistically speaking, than vice versa.

What do you see everyday in the national media? Certainly something strikingly different from this fundamental reality.

 

[bvanevery]

So, guys who are good at math don't end up in prison so much. What's remarkable about that? People who can do knowledge work have other societal opportunities and have lotsa options to make wealth. This almost begs for a whole 'nother thread about white collar crime, embezzlement, being able to afford good lawyers, buying politicians, lobbyists buying deregulation, and buying elections.

I'm just not inclined to see IQ as much of a valid metric of anything. It measures people's analytical thinking ability, that's all. There's far more to human experience and survival advantage than your ability to crunch numbers and symbols. And I say that as an exceptional symbol cruncher.

Also as this is a BLM thread, it is important to remember that black-on-black crime stats aren't the core issue. BLM is about the number of cops shooting blacks. Currently there are no national statistics collected on this. You cannot assume that black-on-black crime is a proxy for police-on-black shootings. Most police depts. have kept very silent about this sort of stuff for a reason, they don't want the liability.

 

[TBerg]

The only reason IQ would even not be valued in a society is that we live in an egalitarian democratic culture in which we have to respect anyone's point of view about anything, no matter how asinine. The mass market has meant that ideas and products are communicated to us in the lowest common denominator, and thus rewards EQ much more than IQ. Corporations are implementing policy after policy in favor of conformity to certain group mores, based upon Cultural Marxism, instead of hiring creative and innovative thinkers that will innovate ingenious ideas. These group mores also justify stagnation on the part of management and making sure that ideas threatening to the management are kept in abeyance. You have to realize how shitty this makes most of our lives, but you dismiss dysgenics with such ease. I mean, there is a reason that Francis Fukuyama implies that everyone wants the fruits of high IQ societies, with him considering technological innovation to be the beginning of human freedom. The whole world clamors to have the benefits of high IQ societies, and yet you still don't think IQ matters.

 

[Intolerable]

An IQ test only exercises specific kinds of analytical parsings. If analytical parsings are a survival or reproductive advantage in certain settings, fine, but they often aren't. Otherwise we wouldn't have the ongoing meme of "engineering geniuses" who can't get a date, can't dress themselves properly, exercise common sense, or do other mundane life tasks that normal people handle just fine. Do not underestimate social intelligence or kinesthetic intelligence as survival advantages for people. Frankly all the anecdotal evidence is towards "Chatty Cathy" as the winning strategy, not IQ.

You're confusing what matters with what doesn't matter.

Social ineptitude is a side effect of being analytically superior. It's an evolutionary trade off. Swaths of people are living today without the kind of communal presence people had a generation ago.

So long as a man can handle his labor it doesn't matter if he's alpha or beta. It doesn't matter if any women pay him attention. He produces and he consumes. He's a model citizen. The way he dresses doesn't matter. Not having friends doesn't matter. None of this shit matters.

It's that simple. People are trading out things they don't need for better things all the time.

Finally analytical prowess is king shit when it comes to survival. While social intelligence is useful it's far more limited in value. On the strength that I can be an analytical genius today and a social retard and still make three times what you make.

 

[Sinny91]

So I just caught the BET 2016 Hip-Hop awards..

And there was a big speech (several actually) about Black Empowerment, racial tensions and the need to unite..

But got the impression the theme was to be united against white people, not with them.

Not a healthy message as far as I'm concerned.

Somebody is trying to incite civil unrest by the looks of it. But we knew that anyway.

 

[bvanevery]

The only reason IQ would even not be valued in a society is that we live in an egalitarian democratic culture in which we have to respect anyone's point of view about anything, no matter how asinine.

We do? Lots of people don't respect Trump's views on all sorts of things. Who sent them a memo about having to respect the man? I think this idea of "required respect" is a complete strawman on your part. We're in a democracy, nobody has to respect a goddamn thing. In the USA people can even burn the US flag as protected free speech.

Respect is earned. You can hear lots of people whining and whinging about how they are supposed to be given respect. That is exactly because they are not given it. Nor should they be. Respect is earned.

Respect is also never going to be given between people with sufficiently divergent political views. I haven't found a concrete quote that I like well enough to illustrate this, but things that Bill Maher has to say about religion, for instance, would probably all work as stand-ins. He's not going to give religion any quarter. He makes a career out of tearing it down, among other things.

The main difference between his own thoughts on religion and mine, is I've got a B.A. in Sociocultural Anthropology. I am inclined to afford some provisional respect to indigenous peoples' beliefs, as long as they are not harmful beliefs. I do concern myself with tangible harms that religious groups can do. I'm definitely unafraid to call some kind of religious behavior, somewhere, completely stupid. But I'm not going to spend lots of time jousting against it, unless it is actually harming someone. Which sometimes it does, and I have to weigh in, such as with the anti-LGBT stuff.

Corporations are implementing policy after policy in favor of conformity to certain group mores,

A lot of corporations are trying to stay out out of the crossfire of politics, because when they do get into it, they often make less money than they would otherwise. Going on a political crusade is not necessarily good for business. Sometimes it works as a product and increases your sales. Other times it invites substantive boycotts that hurt your bottom line.

based upon Cultural Marxism,

I wish!

instead of hiring creative and innovative thinkers that will innovate ingenious ideas. These group mores also justify stagnation on the part of management and making sure that ideas threatening to the management are kept in abeyance. You have to realize how shitty this makes most of our lives, but you dismiss dysgenics with such ease.

Hey I cut teeth during the dot.com boom and on business magazines like FastCompany. If you have the brains, you're supposed to be working for yourself. If you are instead subjecting yourself to corporate managerial pyramids, and being victimized by them, you are a schmuck. Understandable early in one's career as a 20-something, if one doesn't know what's going on yet. But if you persist in dystopic corporate Dilbert environments when you've been made aware of the alternatives, you're a shmuck. Or you're lazy. Or you're getting something else out of it.

I don't have a reason to worry about 'smart' people behaving like schmucks, past a certain age in their life. They can reap what they sow.

So, what about the dumb people? Well, getting stuck in corporate schmuck-land is highly regrettable. I can try to tell them to think for themselves, assert themselves, jump ship to something better, retrain for some other kind of work, GET THE FUCK OUT. I can talk empowerment all I like. But at some point, your own ass has to meet the road. The Dilberts aren't going away, and they will rule you if you let them. One has to personally decide what one is going to do about them.

Collective bargaining is one societal response to the Dilbert and Greedy Capitalist Pig problems. It's not going to work for all industries and geographic locations though. People have to have a willingness to look out for themselves, if there are no Union allies to level the playing field.

Like, if you're getting ramrodded in the computer industry, specifically the computer GAME industry... there's no helping you. The rank and file in that industry make just enough money to keep you from organizing a union. You're going to be working on a salary, and then they're going to ream you to death with that. Incredible hours, low pay, bosses treating you like shit, little actual creative freedom, etc.

There's probably lots of white collar work where people are mostly gonna fuck you up the ass, if you let them. People who have been fucked in the ass by employers a lot, often develop some pretty low self-esteem for what they think they can get, what their horizons are. They complain, but it doesn't translate into them doing anything about it. All you can do is try to get people to take action on behalf of their own self-interest. To teach people that that's OK.

I mean, there is a reason that Francis Fukuyama implies that everyone wants the fruits of high IQ societies, with him considering technological innovation to be the beginning of human freedom. The whole world clamors to have the benefits of high IQ societies, and yet you still don't think IQ matters.

Sounds like some kind of "Western technological progress" meme you've swallowed. I'm sure it makes defense contractors very happy.

It would be nice to think we're medically all getting better too, except when we see the Medical Industrial Complex turning all kinds of people into pill popping cash cows that aren't particularly healthy. Just sick enough to keep handing over the money, especially insurance industry generated Monopoly [TM] money! As in fake money, aspirins that cost $8 and so forth.

How enslaved are you to the technological 'progress' of an automobile? Do you know how to service the computer chips in it? Do you know how to prevent them from turning off your car, or opening your door? Or reporting where you travel, or turing you over to the police? Cars used to be simpler and lots more people used to work on them.

Do you own Facebook or does Facebook own you?

How many lifestyle favors is Apple doing for you? How much money do you think people of modest economic means are dumping into their 'smart' phones every month? I call 'em dumbphones. This generation's TV aka "boob tube". So named 'cuz it turns you into a boob.

Yeah you get more information on the internet. You also get more disinformation and access to stupidity. Progress? Hard to say. Might be a sociocultural equation going sideways, once it reaches a certain critical mass.

Have you contemplated the embodied societal cost of land and buildings in the USA? Specifically homes? As compared to knocking a few huts together and being done with it.

 

[bvanevery]

So I just caught the BET 2016 Hip-Hop awards..

And there was a big speech (several actually) about Black Empowerment, racial tensions and the need to unite..

But got the impression the theme was to be united against white people, not with them.

Eh, how can you tell? Unless someone is really clear that they're an anti-white bigot, like part of a Black Militancy movement that just point blank says, whitey needs to die.

Otherwise it's just a combo of their stress about "some whites somewhere are doing something to me!" and your stress about "hey I'm white, do you mean me??" and blah blah blah. Well, get over it and do something, if it so suits you. You've talked about "joining revolutions"; if you were serious about this particular kind of revolution, you wouldn't let someone sweating you, stop you. You'd soldier on, and even be an organizer.

If you actually lived in the USA you could reality test this sort of thing. If you're motivated, you could go join a BLM march and see if you feel creeped out or alienated. Must work for some white people because whites do show up at BLM marches.

Must admit I haven't though, sympathetic though my views are. First, I don't really want to claim the social positioning for myself of being a "black activist", it's really not a cause that's first and foremost in my heart. Second, some of these things have been dangerous and I don't need it. So, I "do my part" by researching and debating these issues online. So that people have to reach through my laptop screen to punch me or shoot me. Get motivated to track me down and all that.

Chickenshit? Maybe. But hey, I'm not black, and this issue isn't important enough to me personally to put my life on the line for it. I think everyone should be crusading on the issues they have the most personal energy for. It's not incumbent upon anyone to take up everyone else's cause, in earnest, with great energy.

I've got things to do for atheist / Secular Humanist / Scientific Skepticism movements, and I don't do enough as it is. I've got personal career goals to fulfill, that I don't move enough on. I daresay looking for a "new cause" is a way to avoid finishing or producing results on any of the old ones. I don't care to gratuitously overextend.

 

[TBerg]

You are staring at each individual leaf while missing what the tree actually outlines. You can't tell me that things are not getting worse for people. You also seem to simultaneously say that people are dumb for following corporate culture while not admitting that corporate culture in and of itself makes people dumb. And you completely ignore the whole point, which is that this environment decreases intelligence in our society.

And, no matter what anyone has to say about it, technology has to make progress, or tons of people are going to suffer truly horrendous consequences. Only trauma would bring us back to pre-industry, and you know it. Don't pretend that we don't need someone like Elon Musk.

 

[bvanevery]

It's that simple. People are trading out things they don't need for better things all the time.

I will buy your concept of "tradeoff, don't need it" if the high IQ person is actually happy. I've seen some that are. In fact I've envied them: computer guys whose brains seem to be wired in such a way, that they actually love all this stuff in computers that I call complete horseshit. They hang around in industry and make tons of money. Doing things that I think are excruciatingly boring, quite beyond scraping fingers on chalk boards or watching paint dry on one's eyelids.

I am not a happy high IQ guy, so I am on a completely different life path than the techno digerati cultural norm. My equation for personal and societal production, looks quite different from that of most people. I think eventually I will solve this equation to my satisfaction. I think I have the lifespan to do so, provided a freak accident doesn't snuff me out first. If it does, at least I did a good job taking care of my dog. I am cosmologcially proud of that.

But it does have costs. There's a growing term in the equation which says I may not ever have any children. That's disappointing because I really like kids and have strong fathering instincts. I might even go so far as to say I'm the inverse of the "Super Mom" problem. I could be the "Super Dad", the one who works from home and doesn't mind having the kids under foot while I'm at it. But I haven't run into any women who are looking for that as a life option. I don't have time to fight traditional male head-of-household mating battles and do the R&D I need for my game development and computer language design stuff. Something's gotta give, so for now, it's my reproductive fitness.

Hope there's something to be said for cultural fitness, for passing on important ideas.

Finally analytical prowess is king shit when it comes to survival. While social intelligence is useful it's far more limited in value. On the strength that I can be an analytical genius today and a social retard and still make three times what you make.

I dunno, how many games in the model of "Survivor" have you played? Where someone's gonna vote you off the island. I'll give you fair warning: in what I call "six person freeform alliance" wargaming, I am ruthless. I have a track record of vanquishing people. Particularly in Diplomacy, a game with no dice. Everyone starts with pretty much the same military power. You spend your time convincing others who should gang up on whom. Historically, I'm pretty damn good at lying when I need to, telling the truth when it works to my advantage, refraining from backstabbing until it's really helpful, and getting myself to a position where tactically, I don't need anyone anymore. At which point all that "high IQ" stuff takes over and I just move my armies way better than anyone else does.

It is important not to be perceived as being in the lead. Until there is nothing anyone can do about it. The person who looks like they're in 1st place, will be clawed down in vengeance. You want to be in 2nd place, and be left standing when the 1st place person's corpse is riddled with wounds.

It is important not to be perceived as overly smart or skillful. That makes you a threat. Particularly to people who are of lesser intelligence and skill as yourself, who notice that you tend to beat them when playing such games. They will develop a theme of resenting you from game to game, and randomly chaotically exploding in a game, just to take you out! Sorta like suicide bombers. Deflecting attention to someone else who is equally good as you, pointing out how often they have screwed the lesser player over, is a good strategy.

You can beat people who are technically better than you. I've done it at pool from time to time. You lull your opponent into a false sense of security, then come from behind for the finish. Sun Tzu said as much for how to conquer cities. Shower your enemies with gold and flatter them with whores. Wait for them to grow soft.

I totally understand realpolitik. There's a parallel universe where I could certainly give Henry Kissinger a run for his money. In this universe, I studied what cultures believe, which is tantamount to how to manipulate them.

One reason I don't ascribe veracity to most conspiracy theories, is I know that elaborate conspiracies are not necessary for manipulating people. All you actually need to do, is set the terms of the culture so that people follow their short term perceived interests. When those interests will inevitably fulfil your long term plans. Being able to see the long term is highly advantageous. It is a combination of IQ and social intelligence, to predict where all the parts of the system are going to go.

The truth works, when you understand what the truth actually is. You get people to focus on the portions of truth that suit your final purposes. Others behave according to their limited understanding of the truth. Allow your enemies to walk with you as friends for awhile, to see commonality in your goals. Their limited understanding of the truth will eventually cause them to fall off of cliffs.

In the apocalypse I might end up being that "village warlord" who gets rid of you if he thinks he has to. With a quick stroke of the katana after having a smiling conversation with you. On the other hand, I might also be that survival nut who just snipes you as you come over the hill, yelling "Leave me the hell alone!" That's all technical and totally anti-social. My point is, I can do both.

I am fortunate that I have been provided material resource conditions, where there's no great need for me to exercise any of these skills in earnest. Hope it stays that way.

I've wondered if I would have lived long enough in a regime such as China's, to learn how to shut up, before being identified as an enemy of the State. I would have been fucking great in the French Resistance, or some Marxist revolution. Pity that the endgames of the latter are all bad. So much cleverness for nothing! You get an ice pick through your head, because your partners are all goons.

I am the despot who got the historical opportunity to just be a painter.

 

[bvanevery]

You are staring at each individual leaf while missing what the tree actually outlines. You can't tell me that things are not getting worse for people.

For which people? Me? I personally could be making any amount of money I want, right now. The technology industry is doing great! My own problems are self-actualization, way up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

For the masses who aren't educated? Simple partial answer: educate 'em. Pay for it to happen. Create the online internet materials to mitigate the costs. Put the government in a role here, so that the for profit free market doesn't completely bleed everyone dry.

I have a friend of mine who thought he was bettering himself, got taken by some predatory lenders with an expensive online course. His grant got yanked, retroactively leaving him on the hook for all the tuition fees, just because he didn't finish 1 course. They put some fine print in his contract to torpedo him if he made the slightest mistake. Lawyer's type trick. There Oughtta Be A Law.

Don't want to pay for people being more educated? Well, hm. Then you're not serious about solving the Dilbert problem. People don't just magically get knowledge, experience, and training into their heads.

I'm perfectly fine with trade schools being various people's intended destination. But that's still a form of education.

I understand that some people don't even value education, don't like it, think everyone should just do some kind of 'S' "Make Money Now" thing. That's fine, but their perspective is that of a mild enemy. They are part of the problem. They mostly create the Dilberts.

Some people actually want to breed tractable minions, to have underclasses doing all the labor for them. They are a big enemy.

Some people don't think various plebes are smart enough to do anything of any real use. I don't agree with them. I think almost all humans have the potential to do something well. If only they can find what it is.

You also seem to simultaneously say that people are dumb for following corporate culture while not admitting that corporate culture in and of itself makes people dumb.

There are only so many laws that can be passed about false advertizing. There are many ways to loophole around them. I can teach people anthropology and media criticism. I do it a lot around here, by example, if anyone is actually paying attention. I could extend my reach and influence in this regard, if I wanted to make it more of a personal project of mine. But there is only so much I can do. You can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. At some point, people have to get the memo about how to use their brains, and learn to fend for themselves.

A corporation is not going to cradle-to-grave you and take care of you anymore. That was already gone when I entered the workforce, I had no delusions about it. Your job as an employee or contractor is to stay one step ahead of the greedy rotten corporation that will jettison you as a liability the moment it has no further use for you.

And you completely ignore the whole point, which is that this environment decreases intelligence in our society.

Corporate culture is stupid, but I didn't agree with your explanation for why it is stupid.

And, no matter what anyone has to say about it, technology has to make progress, or tons of people are going to suffer truly horrendous consequences.

There is a school of thought that our technological knowledge is rapidly outstripping our morality. That this will lead to Bad Things [TM] and already has.

Technology can be used to improve or enslave a society. The examples I gave, were technological methods of enslavement. In anthropological terms, technology is inscribed by the culture. It is not neutral and separate. It embodies the values of the culture. If your cultural values are Capitalist exploitation of people, turning them into revenue streams for CEOs and shareholders, that's what your technology is going to do.

A hut on a piece of land is a rather different piece of technology in the modern world. Nobody can monetize that. Which is why Capitalist stakeholders in a society will represes it. The Tiny Homes movement is a step in the right direction, in that such homes are cheap compared to traditional embodied housing costs. But you're still talking $45k for something that has very little practical functionaly to offer, over a hut. 1 person can knock a good hut together in a few days. What prevents them? Land ownership, building codes.

At the other end of the scale, we currently have the technology to extrude cement buildings on massive 3D printers. Will this technology get used outside of war zones and other crisis prone areas? Nope. It disrupts incumbent building contractors. They will keep passing laws to require "nice, expensive" houses.

Only trauma would bring us back to pre-industry, and you know it.

You mean like overpopulation or global warming? I dunno... dispersion away from urban centers could happen without such drastic events. But it would require individuals to become much more self-sufficient in the means of production. A lot of people would need to be able to produce their own food, shelter, and power.

Don't pretend that we don't need someone like Elon Musk.

What product has he produced so far, that I use, or need? I've certainly used many inventions. It's not easy to invent everything by yourself from scratch, nor to live apart from some factories producing something somewhere. But what has Elon Musk done that's so great?

 

[Sinny91]

Eh, how can you tell? Unless someone is really clear that they're an anti-white bigot, like part of a Black Militancy movement that just point blank says, whitey needs to die.

Otherwise it's just a combo of their stress about "some whites somewhere are doing something to me!" and your stress about "hey I'm white, do you mean me??" and blah blah blah. Well, get over it and do something, if it so suits you. You've talked about "joining revolutions"; if you were serious about this particular kind of revolution, you wouldn't let someone sweating you, stop you. You'd soldier on, and even be an organizer.

If you actually lived in the USA you could reality test this sort of thing. If you're motivated, you could go join a BLM march and see if you feel creeped out or alienated. Must work for some white people because whites do show up at BLM marches.

Must admit I haven't though, sympathetic though my views are. First, I don't really want to claim the social positioning for myself of being a "black activist", it's really not a cause that's first and foremost in my heart. Second, some of these things have been dangerous and I don't need it. So, I "do my part" by researching and debating these issues online. So that people have to reach through my laptop screen to punch me or shoot me. Get motivated to track me down and all that.

Chickenshit? Maybe. But hey, I'm not black, and this issue isn't important enough to me personally to put my life on the line for it. I think everyone should be crusading on the issues they have the most personal energy for. It's not incumbent upon anyone to take up everyone else's cause, in earnest, with great energy.

I've got things to do for atheist / Secular Humanist / Scientific Skepticism movements, and I don't do enough as it is. I've got personal career goals to fulfill, that I don't move enough on. I daresay looking for a "new cause" is a way to avoid finishing or producing results on any of the old ones. I don't care to gratuitously overextend.

What have I told you about keeping your advice to yourself? I'm not in America, and apart from being concerned on behalf of your population , your race wars have nothing to do with me.

 

[bvanevery]

What have I told you about keeping your advice to yourself?

If you're going to offer pictures of divisive racist claptrap, I'm going to counter your narrative.

I'm not in America, and apart from being concerned on behalf of your population , your race wars have nothing to do with me.

But we have to live with the consequences of people you influence.

The next time you want to tell someone to STFU, feel free to STFU about that. Don't post in public forums if you don't like people reacting to your posts.

What kind of bullshit did you think you were selling anyways? Have you even watched any videos of BLM marches in the USA?

 

[Sinny91]

Oh Bvan.

More inconsequential bullshit.

Heres a reply. Let's skip the details. If you're capable of doing that.

You filthy sensor you.

 

[Intolerable]

I will buy your concept of "tradeoff, don't need it" if the high IQ person is actually happy. I've seen some that are. In fact I've envied them: computer guys whose brains seem to be wired in such a way, that they actually love all this stuff in computers that I call complete horseshit. They hang around in industry and make tons of money. Doing things that I think are excruciatingly boring, quite beyond scraping fingers on chalk boards or watching paint dry on one's eyelids.

I am not a happy high IQ guy, so I am on a completely different life path than the techno digerati cultural norm. My equation for personal and societal production, looks quite different from that of most people. I think eventually I will solve this equation to my satisfaction. I think I have the lifespan to do so, provided a freak accident doesn't snuff me out first. If it does, at least I did a good job taking care of my dog. I am cosmologcially proud of that.

But it does have costs. There's a growing term in the equation which says I may not ever have any children. That's disappointing because I really like kids and have strong fathering instincts. I might even go so far as to say I'm the inverse of the "Super Mom" problem. I could be the "Super Dad", the one who works from home and doesn't mind having the kids under foot while I'm at it. But I haven't run into any women who are looking for that as a life option. I don't have time to fight traditional male head-of-household mating battles and do the R&D I need for my game development and computer language design stuff. Something's gotta give, so for now, it's my reproductive fitness.

Hope there's something to be said for cultural fitness, for passing on important ideas.

I sounds to me like you could be happier. I'm not in the same boat. In fact I'm one of those guys. A true minimalist who lives without romance, children, friends, etc and my time flies by so fast. The indication of happiness for me has always been relative to how quickly time passes.

I have oodles of hobbies to occupy my time outside of work and I enjoy what I do for a living. Sure, I hate the people I work with sometimes but that you can't avoid. It's everywhere. For the most part I'm indifferent.

For what it's worth I hope you find that woman to give you children.

I dunno, how many games in the model of "Survivor" have you played? Where someone's gonna vote you off the island. I'll give you fair warning: in what I call "six person freeform alliance" wargaming, I am ruthless. I have a track record of vanquishing people. Particularly in Diplomacy, a game with no dice. Everyone starts with pretty much the same military power. You spend your time convincing others who should gang up on whom. Historically, I'm pretty damn good at lying when I need to, telling the truth when it works to my advantage, refraining from backstabbing until it's really helpful, and getting myself to a position where tactically, I don't need anyone anymore. At which point all that "high IQ" stuff takes over and I just move my armies way better than anyone else does.

It is important not to be perceived as being in the lead. Until there is nothing anyone can do about it. The person who looks like they're in 1st place, will be clawed down in vengeance. You want to be in 2nd place, and be left standing when the 1st place person's corpse is riddled with wounds.

It is important not to be perceived as overly smart or skillful. That makes you a threat. Particularly to people who are of lesser intelligence and skill as yourself, who notice that you tend to beat them when playing such games. They will develop a theme of resenting you from game to game, and randomly chaotically exploding in a game, just to take you out! Sorta like suicide bombers. Deflecting attention to someone else who is equally good as you, pointing out how often they have screwed the lesser player over, is a good strategy.

You can beat people who are technically better than you. I've done it at pool from time to time. You lull your opponent into a false sense of security, then come from behind for the finish. Sun Tzu said as much for how to conquer cities. Shower your enemies with gold and flatter them with whores. Wait for them to grow soft.

I totally understand realpolitik. There's a parallel universe where I could certainly give Henry Kissinger a run for his money. In this universe, I studied what cultures believe, which is tantamount to how to manipulate them.

One reason I don't ascribe veracity to most conspiracy theories, is I know that elaborate conspiracies are not necessary for manipulating people. All you actually need to do, is set the terms of the culture so that people follow their short term perceived interests. When those interests will inevitably fulfil your long term plans. Being able to see the long term is highly advantageous. It is a combination of IQ and social intelligence, to predict where all the parts of the system are going to go.

The truth works, when you understand what the truth actually is. You get people to focus on the portions of truth that suit your final purposes. Others behave according to their limited understanding of the truth. Allow your enemies to walk with you as friends for awhile, to see commonality in your goals. Their limited understanding of the truth will eventually cause them to fall off of cliffs.

In the apocalypse I might end up being that "village warlord" who gets rid of you if he thinks he has to. With a quick stroke of the katana after having a smiling conversation with you. On the other hand, I might also be that survival nut who just snipes you as you come over the hill, yelling "Leave me the hell alone!" That's all technical and totally anti-social. My point is, I can do both.

I am fortunate that I have been provided material resource conditions, where there's no great need for me to exercise any of these skills in earnest. Hope it stays that way.

I've wondered if I would have lived long enough in a regime such as China's, to learn how to shut up, before being identified as an enemy of the State. I would have been fucking great in the French Resistance, or some Marxist revolution. Pity that the endgames of the latter are all bad. So much cleverness for nothing! You get an ice pick through your head, because your partners are all goons.

I am the despot who got the historical opportunity to just be a painter.

Hah, I'm definitely not the survivor type. I've been disillusioned with the idea of living forever far too long now. Too much seen to undo the nature of humans in my mind. I'm not a social retard. I just opt out of it because I've done it long enough that I know I don't value it as much as I value isolation.

Insofar as how I live I've always been ready to walk on a dime and I live that way. Well, my home purchase definitely went contrary to my nature. I don't regret it yet but I probably will at some point. Then I will sell and move on. That much is probably survivor about me. I keep very little baggage.

The point about managing social intelligence so that you mind your exposure to lesser beings is lost on me. I could go the rest of my life without ever existing on their social ladder and be just fine. Divorcing my needs from my wants will get me there faster than most. People often mistake me for being a leader when I dread the role. The very last thing I want is to lead.

I'm definitely the guy you never see surviving in the wild post-apocalyptic world or dying off script. That's just how I like it.

What my motivations are for being here I suppose is keeping a semblance of community close by. To maintain my sanity.

 

[bvanevery]

For what it's worth I hope you find that woman to give you children.

Thanks for the wish.

The point about managing social intelligence so that you mind your exposure to lesser beings is lost on me. I could go the rest of my life without ever existing on their social ladder and be just fine. Divorcing my needs from my wants will get me there faster than most.

Thematically from your comments, I think a substantial difference between the 2 of us, is I'm much less introverted than you seem to be. Although I am still clearly introverted.

There's a fair number of people I don't think of as "lesser". I think they're wired differently than I am, and they have a different optimal purpose in society. I do not want these people in my way for my kind of endeavor though.

For instance, at times during my more nomadic phase, I thought about joining a so-called "intentional community". But after doing some homework on what a few communities have historically been like, I realized all the interpersonal drama would drive me nuts. I don't want to be a peon having to argue with everyone about how to spend meager collective resources. I want to be free. So most of my models for how to advance humanity, are about pushing the means of production more into the hands of the individual. Not the group. I don't trust groups. They often behave stupidly and get in the way.

People often mistake me for being a leader when I dread the role. The very last thing I want is to lead.

I could do it. It has not yet fallen to me to do it, in any long term highly organized sense, for real stakes. I've definitely attempted it in some "amateur hour" organizations, and know a fair amount about endgames that go nowhere.

I have no basic appetite for building business empires, it's not my goal or purpose. But if it ends up being needed as the byproduct of some technological or artistic purpose, it may happen. That scenario would be me hiring people to do my bidding and mostly remaining The Guy In Charge [TM]. Although talented people do need lots of leeway to innovate and take personal ownership, I'm not basically interested in acquiring business partners that have equal authority to myself.

I've spent some time in the past trying to acquire equal business partners, and it hasn't worked. Lots of time arguing with my opposite number about what we were basically going to do, and nothing actually getting done. If I find some way of meeting people who are better quality, fine, never say never about partnership. But it hasn't happened and I don't expect it to happen. I think things get done better whan I do them, and I tend to do them, rather than formulate or argue endlessly about them. I also have the visions and definitely don't need a visionary. It would have to be a visionary who actually has good visions and actually produces something, and that's rare in my experience.

What my motivations are for being here I suppose is keeping a semblance of community close by. To maintain my sanity.

Although this community is helpful for me at times, it's not my primary sanity value. Those would be face-to-face groups in Asheville, where I spend a lot of time debating with mostly like-minded people.

The other night I thought perhaps I should look for additional online communities, organized around different stuff. I'm a fan of Stargate Atlantis and Star Trek: The Original Series for instance. Maybe there's something out there in fan-land that isn't stupid. Looking for Art communities has mostly been a bust. Not intellectual enough.

 

[TBerg]

There seems to be some confusion here. I am saying that we as a civilization are in decline, and then so many of your responses are full of reasons why we can't do certain things. That proves my point from angles that I haven't even touched upon.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that, given our preoccupation with Social Justice inside the workplace and the political environment, that resources are thereby being drained from enterprises that would generate technological solutions for us in the first place. Your only criticism rests on impugning technological progress in and of itself. That means that there would have been no reason for any of us to adopt new technology to begin with, but we actually did. There was a reason why technological innovation coincided with the lack of death after death in the aspiring families of so many. It was because we wanted technology to make sure that our families did not die, and that we had the ability to create vast hospitals to take care of people in emergencies.

Without plastic, a good standard of hygiene would not be possible. Without electricity, so many tools and computers would cease operating. Without the internal combustion engine, many would not make it to the hospital in time. You have no idea of the implications of impugning technological progress.

Now, you and I may agree with the notion that technology in an of itself plays a dysgenic role in creating environments in which good physical and mental fitness is not necessary to survive any longer, but that would mean that you would have to take the Red Pill and become a member of the radical New Right.

Since I know that you are not really in the mindset to do so at the moment, then you cannot impugn technological progress in and of itself. You must agree with me that it is necessary that we become bold and visionary again in asserting our innovative technological goals.

That means that I must bring up Elon Musk again. He founded a solar panel company recently and is now selling solar systems that have panels more beautiful than and competitive with many roof systems on the market. It is a big step forward towards preparing the household market for energy conversion. And its profitability will allow for more and more innovation and competition.

Such progress is only possible in a workplace environment that prizes intellect over social conformity. You know that no good scientific environment can function with conformity.

And, finally, I do not understand how you think you have to defend educating people. I did not touch upon that at all. I just think that big businesses, organizations, and schools should admit people by merit rather than by affirmative action.

 

[bvanevery]

I think it is perfectly reasonable that, given our preoccupation with Social Justice inside the workplace and the political environment, that resources are thereby being drained from enterprises that would generate technological solutions for us in the first place.

Bullshit. Corporations are not in the business of inventing stuff for the greater benefit of Mankind. Mostly they invent things to make profit, to secure markets. The larger the company, the more this is true.

Nor do corporations in general have particularly scarce resources. The private sector pays plenty of scientists. Often to write papers that prove various things that CEOs want, so that the "scientific" findings can be used to lobby Congress and change Federal oversight to whatever the corporations want it to be.

Acacemics in university settings are more likely to pursue projects of general betterment for humanity. They do so with fewer resources, and their means of gaining those resources, are not without problems. Because the money frequently comes from the corporations yet again, creating a conflict of interest. Or else they go for government grant money, and need to jump through various hoops to appear to be a project that the government will fund. The funding aspect of research, can be very cynical. But it doesn't completely fail to produce new results, despite any hand wringing you might invoke about purported lack of resources.

Somehow this conversation is sounding very much like one I had with someone many months ago, possibly even you.

Your only criticism rests on impugning technological progress in and of itself. That means that there would have been no reason for any of us to adopt new technology to begin with, but we actually did.

I think you are displaying vast ignorance of the history of philosophy, science, and technology, to claim a linear progressive relation to any of it. I would recommend the erstwhile TV show "Connections" to disabuse you of some of this.

There was a reason why technological innovation coincided with the lack of death after death in the aspiring families of so many. It was because we wanted technology to make sure that our families did not die, and that we had the ability to create vast hospitals to take care of people in emergencies.

The primary uptick in human population was due to putting sewers in cities and had nothing to do with medical treatment at all.

That means that I must bring up Elon Musk again. He founded a solar panel company recently and is now selling solar systems that have panels more beautiful than and competitive with many roof systems on the market.

Sounds like bullshit / vaporware. No price tag announced for the roof tiles. Definitely a case of "believe it when you see it," and not before. That article contains stuff about him possibly using 1 company to bail out another failing, and him getting sued by his shareholders over it. So again, what has this guy concretely delivered yet?

It doesn't mean nobody should do R&D, embark on risky ventures, or seek funding for such ventures. But it's quite another thing to believe magic prescriptions of gee whiz technology just because some CEO gets attention on it. Show me something that works and doesn't cost an arm and a leg, that solves a real engineering problem.

 

[TBerg]

I listened to the shareholder conference call with Elon Musk. He's already selling in the hundreds of millions of dollars. At any rate, he is investing a lot of money in research and development along the way.

Again, you misconstrue the intent of my argument. There is no doubt that medical advances and the technology upon which they rely have saved millions of lives. It is not really impugning technology to bring up another technological success, either, as you did in presenting sewerage systems as a huge advancement in health.

And you prove my point about the marriage between marketing and social justice by saying that profit is the motive of corporations. It is really lucretive to appeal to the democratic ethos and social justice when they dominate the culture in many areas. It is also good for profit to have as wide of a target customer base as possible, regardless of the external ramifications. I know full well that the will to profit drives products down to the lowest common denominator, which is justified by a sense of democratic social justice.

 

[bvanevery]

I listened to the shareholder conference call with Elon Musk. He's already selling in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Not good enough. You'll need to substantiate that for the rest of us, in a verifiable way. Like citing a public source of sales and positive reception of product. Actual deployment.

This isn't my 1st rodeo with the claims of a Silicon Valley CEO.

And you prove my point about the marriage between marketing and social justice by saying that profit is the motive of corporations. It is really lucretive to appeal to the democratic ethos and social justice when they dominate the culture in many areas. It is also good for profit to have as wide of a target customer base as possible, regardless of the external ramifications. I know full well that the will to profit drives products down to the lowest common denominator, which is justified by a sense of democratic social justice.

Your view of technological wonders has nothing to do with my view of the current US healthcare and insurance system, and Big Pharma's motives and intentions. It is a broken, cynical system with no innovation.

 

[TBerg]

I have my own problems with pharmaceuticals, but that wasn't what I was talking about, at any rate.

 

[Intolerable]

Thematically from your comments, I think a substantial difference between the 2 of us, is I'm much less introverted than you seem to be. Although I am still clearly introverted.

There's a fair number of people I don't think of as "lesser". I think they're wired differently than I am, and they have a different optimal purpose in society. I do not want these people in my way for my kind of endeavor though.

I've always been blunt about such things. It isn't necessarily a bad thing or a good thing. It just is. It means we're different and thus fit in different ways. Some don't fit at all. Like two people passing on the street with an IQ gap of 20 points between them. They'll have nothing in common.

But yeah on the scale of introvert to extrovert I am very introverted. To the extent that I get tired from being around people. Probably because my senses are overloaded all day processing things around me that I would otherwise not deal with.

For instance, at times during my more nomadic phase, I thought about joining a so-called "intentional community". But after doing some homework on what a few communities have historically been like, I realized all the interpersonal drama would drive me nuts. I don't want to be a peon having to argue with everyone about how to spend meager collective resources. I want to be free. So most of my models for how to advance humanity, are about pushing the means of production more into the hands of the individual. Not the group. I don't trust groups. They often behave stupidly and get in the way.

You're right to distrust groups. Most people do not think critically. They vote for creature comforts and whatever is going to get them to done sooner. A non-thinking creature is a lazy creature and there is such a thing as dangerous ineptitude.

I could do it. It has not yet fallen to me to do it, in any long term highly organized sense, for real stakes. I've definitely attempted it in some "amateur hour" organizations, and know a fair amount about endgames that go nowhere.

For me leading immediately blooms from my armchair commentary position into a full on legion of implications. It would overwhelm most people and I'm no different. The problem of course is that my mind is racing much faster than a lot of people who tune this stuff out. I wouldn't be able to. Every little wrinkle of politics would dominate my mind trying to solve every problem in the world.

I have no basic appetite for building business empires, it's not my goal or purpose. But if it ends up being needed as the byproduct of some technological or artistic purpose, it may happen. That scenario would be me hiring people to do my bidding and mostly remaining The Guy In Charge [TM]. Although talented people do need lots of leeway to innovate and take personal ownership, I'm not basically interested in acquiring business partners that have equal authority to myself.

I've spent some time in the past trying to acquire equal business partners, and it hasn't worked. Lots of time arguing with my opposite number about what we were basically going to do, and nothing actually getting done. If I find some way of meeting people who are better quality, fine, never say never about partnership. But it hasn't happened and I don't expect it to happen. I think things get done better whan I do them, and I tend to do them, rather than formulate or argue endlessly about them. I also have the visions and definitely don't need a visionary. It would have to be a visionary who actually has good visions and actually produces something, and that's rare in my experience.

You absolutely have to have followers. Just sometimes it's worth having a follower that knows when to interrupt you. To keep your vision honest. But two chefs in the same kitchen doesn't work. I know that real well.

Although this community is helpful for me at times, it's not my primary sanity value. Those would be face-to-face groups in Asheville, where I spend a lot of time debating with mostly like-minded people.

It's not bad. I find I have this as well. But my online groups tend to be more intellectually stimulating. Online groups tend to be more knowledgeable about the things I like to talk about.

The other night I thought perhaps I should look for additional online communities, organized around different stuff. I'm a fan of Stargate Atlantis and Star Trek: The Original Series for instance. Maybe there's something out there in fan-land that isn't stupid. Looking for Art communities has mostly been a bust. Not intellectual enough.

It's out there. You just have to know where to look. Obviously discussion groups around the show won't be highbrow but the concepts of the show may be.

 

[bvanevery]

Like two people passing on the street with an IQ gap of 20 points between them. They'll have nothing in common.

Not true. They will both probably like sex, if they're old enough for it. They will both need to eat. They will both want to be loved, unless one is a psychopath. They are likely to both need some kind of social approval and friendship, although the degree to which this is needed is clearly on a spectrum. At any rate, the need is definitely not determined by a 20 point IQ difference, or any other metric of analytical intelligence. These people might also have hobbies or interests where intelligence is not a primary requirement. Like how to shoot guns or kick people in the head. They might have common experiences of grieving over death, or raising a family, or both being minorities in a society dominated by some other group.

[Again I say you are so totally 'J' ! A strong 'P' would never make a hard definitive statement like you just did.]

I'm not sure how to calibrate a "20 point IQ gap" in my personal experience, as I don't take IQ all that seriously as a metric of anything to begin with. But it wouldn't shock me if I've had and still have friends who are that far behind me. I'm pretty smart at the analytic stuff, and I've definitely had friends who aren't. I don't really have friends who are idiots though. Guess I'd have to invest more energy into what "20 IQ points" means than I'm going to.

Every little wrinkle of politics would dominate my mind trying to solve every problem in the world.

I learned years ago, from scribbling in way too many pen and paper notebooks that never turned into code or games, that you have to ship product. Well Existentially nobody has to, but if one wants to be relevant, one must choose appropriately. Products do not require infinite armchair design, they require action. If one is good at producing thoughts and designs, one must have something consuming those designs, or it is a waste of time. Time we are not getting back as we march onwards to death.

 

[Creeping Death]

I'm sick of all this shit, so sick that I'm starting my own movement. Mixed Lives Matter. All you purebreds are pissing me off with your empowerment movements. BLM, KKK, whatever. it's time for the mixed man to get some representation. #oreopride #muttmasterrace #halfbreed #blendedblood #mixtizo

 

[Rixus]

I'm sick of all this shit, so sick that I'm starting my own movement. Mixed Lives Matter. All you purebreds are pissing me off with your empowerment movements. BLM, KKK, whatever. it's time for the mixed man to get some representation. #oreopride #muttmasterrace #halfbreed #blendedblood #mixtizo

We must eliminate all these half demons! Only pure blood Demons should survive!

 

[(͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

BLM are jewish hate group funded by George Soros to intimidate white people.