Brexit

[Kyle M]

LOL :) I should give it to you for such passion in this debate

I've ask the question many time and nobody seems to have an definitive answer;

What's intelligence? Impossible to define in words as a rules, but maybe something like the ability to understand patterns and develop new concepts by the rearrangement of previously observed ones?
What's IQ? Intelligence Quotient, a number you get from a test with mostly analogy based questions
What's so important about it? (in all context but also in regard to Brexit)

Answer that please

About the importance, most people see the IQ test as the most objective standardized test for general intelligence. Not to be confused with objective, the most objective means compared to the other available options, such as grades in school or other standardized tests. It becomes important when statistics start popping up showing racial and gender differences in the outcomes, which always bring leftists out to criticize the system. On the other side, and I don't really think this is much of a movement, but I suppose some people might want to use that information to create legal and political systems favoring the "superior" races, ie the ones with higher average IQ.
Brexit, this is just a secession movement like any other, where the people choose more proximal over distal government. The elites in the media that oppose it have gotten a bunch of footage of a few Brits saying racist things and are trying to paint the picture that it's about Brits hating Muslims and wanting white supremacy. Then there's a movement suggesting that, and this has evidence, that societies with average IQ below 90 have never formed a liberal democracy, so they don't like unlimited immigration controlled from Brussels rather than their local communities. This issue, even just this thread, is full of context and it makes it hard to discuss these issues. By necessity, someone whose education of history, economics, science etc. from a government run school will have a pro-central government bent to their thinking. So anything challenging political centralization is considered backwards and, like the American Southern secession, racist and evil. It's tied up with white hetero Christian males being the biggest evil of the planet, capitalism being rude and communism being superior, and other leftist talking points.
Most importantly, the content is overwhelmingly emotional in nature (look at the tenor of many of the posts) and therefore is unlikely to be resolved.
P.S. - I answered the first two questions in the original quote

 

[Drareg]

Drareg, if I sent you a book recommendation on economics or history would you read it? From browsing this thread I see you have some incorrect notions about the market and monopoly, probably from the government run education system that aggrandizes itself.

At any point now you want to put up your "theory" and we can discuss it. Economic or heritability.

Said education system could have thought you the value of paragraphs.

I have no black and white theory on anything market wise or Brexit, im posting opinions for debate.
If you read my posts, you should quote when,where and why you disagree. I can respond accordingly.
The "Im too intelligent to engage attitude " is pointless on a forum for discussion.

If you feel you can make a prediction based on your books,please share with a rough timeline, you will be wealthy if so.

I read many different angles on economy,some old,some new.

 

[Kyle M]

Your free market is not free,that's the point I was making,it's always open to monopolies,without government the public are helpless to stop it.

There's quite a bit of good economics history about this, monopolies always have been grants of privilege from the government and never spontaneously maintained by the market. It just seems like you are speaking from the radical college campus school of cultural and economic Marxism, which is not only the most ignorant school of thought out there but also based on violence. All of this "government" to help stop monopolies, integrate people's, this is all based on violence, ie you are not allowed to use your property or your body or associate or not associate in any way you want because violent force will be used to make you comply with how the central authority wants you to do those things.

 

[Drareg]

LOL :) I should give it to you for such passion in this debate

I've ask the question many time and nobody except for Kyle give his oppinions about it...

What's intelligence?
What's IQ?
What's so important about it? (in all context but also in regard to Brexit)

The debate went sideways with wiggles comments and others not clarifying their stance.
The original poster Karl was attempting to discuss the fragility of large communities or biological organisms.

What's important is the study they post like the twin study is based on IQ, the kid with autism who can paint an entire city in extreme detail with one look above it will not have IQ for example, he is given the label autism.

 

[kyle]

I think intelligence in its broadest most salient sense is biological life itself. Adaption and even what we consider maladaption are the organism's processes trying to relate to the environment and organize itself.

As for IQ, I think it is like a sharp knife. It can lead into madness and rigidity or into clarity and light. It depends on who is wielding it.

"A man does not go mad because he makes a statue a mile high, but he may go mad by thinking it out in square inches." From Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Chapter III 'The Suicide of Thought' is a worthwhile read. The full text is on gutenberg. I like how Peat emphasizes context because it is this ability to see relationship which makes IQ valuable or not. IQ tests do not measure this quality. Artistic training, via the need to see the big picture so to speak, is probably the other way to get a person's head into the right place but this is of course not something promoted very much in general.

Why institutions seek out IQ through endless tests selecting for conformity and sharply defined rules, etc., it is to preserve hierarchical rigidity.

If you take an IQ test one of the formats is showing a series of shapes, you are supposed to identify the rule of the pattern and extrapolate it. This is a sort of higher, abstract thinking. It is valuable. But it alone makes someone a good bureaucrat or managerial person. Someone who can take certain principles and assure others are following the rules. In other words, valuable in large scale government and business.

John Taylor Gatto or John Holt also talked about education and there are interviews on youtube about it. Children basically learn by doing. If you subject a person to endless dogma, they become dogmatic themselves.

I agree with Kyle M WRT Brexit only I'd add that there is something deeper and disintegrating about tearing up ethnic enclaves (already taking place without immigration) beyond the necessity of IQ in maintaining liberal orders that few consider. Consider post WWII America where people were driven out of the cities and into the suburbs. There is something deeply intelligent in healthy, balanced communities- you could call it a collective-intelligence that arises spontaneously. Moreover, our own personality and racial traits evolved for social purposes. If we are not socially involved with your people, we are in a sense like blind and deaf to some degree. This is why people cluster around people of their own race. It isn't xenophobia so much as a spontaneous desire to connect deeply and achieve collective aims, dare I say, a form of intelligence.

Jane Jacobs wrote a book about the death of American cities, wherein the social sphere of a city is an infinitely stimulating and creative environment. The study on Rat's Park, where rats are alienated and so seek out heroin, is roughly the kind of social experiment being played out on the Europeans. It goes quite a long way in explaining the spiritual dark age we're presently in.

 

[Drareg]

There's quite a bit of good economics history about this, monopolies always have been grants of privilege from the government and never spontaneously maintained by the market. It just seems like you are speaking from the radical college campus school of cultural and economic Marxism, which is not only the most ignorant school of thought out there but also based on violence. All of this "government" to help stop monopolies, integrate people's, this is all based on violence, ie you are not allowed to use your property or your body or associate or not associate in any way you want because violent force will be used to make you comply with how the central authority wants you to do those things.

What your discussing is human greed/cliques in politics and the private sector,we would have to make politicians monks and isolate them to stop this. There is no divide when legislation cannot be influenced by direct democracy,even then the media can skew results with bias,not as much with Internet however. They no longer care for the constitutions.
Companies are also branching into different named companies like Google, many older French monopolies are like this today.

It's redundant to read anything on the ideal markets these days, central banks have caused chaos,government have no clue.

Silicon Valley was a grant from government, it's not all bad with the grants. The internet also came from government.

In saying this I have no clue why your projecting this onto me or why we are talking about it, I see it more from a human angle, a Marxist paradigm is not my thing or authoritarianism ,I don't really have a rigid paradigm on anything,I'm ok with not knowing but when it comes to gambling/markets you assume a position(speculate).

 

[wiggles92]

There's quite a bit of good economics history about this, monopolies always have been grants of privilege from the government and never spontaneously maintained by the market. It just seems like you are speaking from the radical college campus school of cultural and economic Marxism, which is not only the most ignorant school of thought out there but also based on violence. All of this "government" to help stop monopolies, integrate people's, this is all based on violence, ie you are not allowed to use your property or your body or associate or not associate in any way you want because violent force will be used to make you comply with how the central authority wants you to do those things.

Read Mises.

 

[Simonsays]

like the American Southern secession, racist and evil

Kyle, it was.

Youre going to tell us it was done, as some kind of reaction against big federal leftist central Government, by states asserting their rights.

Not as a reaction to " Black Republican" Lincoln being elected President and the inbuilt slave majority in the Senate, losing their power with the creation of new non slave states.

It was a reactionary revolution by the slave owners of the south. The industrial "capitalist " north was always going to win against the agrarian "slave economy"

But hey ho, i know you wont be convinced.

A white hetero male (American Civil War lover)

 

[jaguar43]

Supposing anyone here advocated a purely genetic theory of intelligence (they haven't), this is completely illogical determination.

The National Socialists were the first modern nation to establish large scale environmental laws. Does that make environmentalists Nazis? This is the same line of logic you are using.

Geneticists have been the worst offenders. Genetics is popular among bourgeois racists and elitists, and many geneticists have eagerly formulated genetic theories of intelligence on the flimsiest evidence. - Ray Peat Mind and Tissue page 161

Wrong again, Ray Peat is calling anyone who promotes those ideas a Racist and elitist. I love how you quickly ignore Ray Peats quote and try manipulate the situation to make it look like I am making those accusations. If you have a problem with that statement make sure you include Ray Peat as well.

National Socialism also advocate animal rights. Does that make them humanitarians ? No. Nice straw man argument.

Anyone advocating that races differ in intelligence is advocating a genetic determinist theory of biology.

Genetic determinism is the mechanism by which genes, along with environmental conditions, determine morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

Genetic determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The antithesis to this is lamarckian or the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Ray Peat would fall under this category.

 

[Drareg]

I think intelligence in its broadest most salient sense is biological life itself. Adaption and even what we consider maladaption are the organism's processes trying to relate to the environment and organize itself.

As for IQ, I think it is like a sharp knife. It can lead into madness and rigidity or into clarity and light. It depends on who is wielding it.

"A man does not go mad because he makes a statue a mile high, but he may go mad by thinking it out in square inches." From Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Chapter III 'The Suicide of Thought' is a worthwhile read. The full text is on gutenberg. I like how Peat emphasizes context because it is this ability to see relationship which makes IQ valuable or not. IQ tests do not measure this quality. Artistic training, via the need to see the big picture so to speak, is probably the other way to get a person's head into the right place but this is of course not something promoted very much in general.

Why institutions seek out IQ through endless tests selecting for conformity and sharply defined rules, etc., it is to preserve hierarchical rigidity.

If you take an IQ test one of the formats is showing a series of shapes, you are supposed to identify the rule of the pattern and extrapolate it. This is a sort of higher, abstract thinking. It is valuable. But it alone makes someone a good bureaucrat or managerial person. Someone who can take certain principles and assure others are following the rules. In other words, valuable in large scale government and business.

John Taylor Gatto or John Holt also talked about education and there are interviews on youtube about it. Children basically learn by doing. If you subject a person to endless dogma, they become dogmatic themselves.

I agree with Kyle M WRT Brexit only I'd add that there is something deeper and disintegrating about tearing up ethnic enclaves (already taking place without immigration) beyond the necessity of IQ in maintaining liberal orders that few consider. Consider post WWII America where people were driven out of the cities and into the suburbs. There is something deeply intelligent in healthy, balanced communities- you could call it a collective-intelligence that arises spontaneously. Moreover, our own personality and racial traits evolved for social purposes. If we are not socially involved with your people, we are in a sense like blind and deaf to some degree. This is why people cluster around people of their own race. It isn't xenophobia so much as a spontaneous desire to connect deeply and achieve collective aims, dare I say, a form of intelligence.

Jane Jacobs wrote a book about the death of American cities, wherein the social sphere of a city is an infinitely stimulating and creative environment. The study on Rat's Park, where rats are alienated and so seek out heroin, is roughly the kind of social experiment being played out on the Europeans. It goes quite a long way in explaining the spiritual dark age we're presently in.

Low thyroid thoughts can cause suicidal thoughts as can high serotonin , he would need more energy to build a large statue than to focus on the square inches,biologically he goes mad because his adaptive energy runs out 1/2 a mile up, his fallacy, he wasn't "Peaty".

People like to travel to get away from their fellow indigenous as a means to grasp new ideas/increase intelligence potentially, the Internet has changed this a little.
Why people do this Imo is because we are all on the planet as one race(human) in a massive space/universe.
Xenophobia is lowered intelligence,a capacity to hold the topic in your brain for lack of charge/energy, if you could hold the topic for longer ,the conclusion comes naturally, LSD assist this I would guess.

 

[wiggles92]

What your discussing is human greed/cliques in politics and the private sector,we would have to make politicians monks and isolate them to stop this.

You wouldn't have to make politicians do anything. People would just choose not to pay for a collection of individuals to control them, because that would be of no value. Therefore the politician, deciding the rules with the threat of violence if the population do not obey, would not exist as an occupation. As it stands we are forced to give wealth through taxes involuntarily.

I'm not going to argue over how possible this scenario is. We'd all just have to agree to not have a government anymore, by identifying its inherent immorality. Once that has been agreed, the issue of a monopoly is a non-issue. There is no-one to bribe for monopoly status, no way to get reduced taxes. The playing field is completely even, and a monopoly would only exist if nobody else on the planet could create value in a more efficient or effective way. People would be able to freely choose the option of most value to them, reflected in the cheapest price and/or the best service.

 

[Drareg]

You wouldn't have to make politicians do anything. People would just choose not to pay for a collection of individuals to control them, because that would be of no value. Therefore the politician, deciding the rules with the threat of violence if the population do not obey, would not exist as an occupation. As it stands we are forced to give wealth through taxes involuntarily.

I'm not going to argue over how possible this scenario is. We'd all just have to agree to not have a government anymore, by identifying its inherent immorality. Once that has been agreed, the issue of a monopoly is a non-issue. There is no-one to bribe for monopoly status, no way to get reduced taxes. The playing field is completely even, and a monopoly would only exist if nobody else on the planet could create value in a more efficient or effective way. People would be able to freely choose the option of most value to them, reflected in the cheapest price and/or the best service.

You desire outright freedom to excercise your free will.
Thing is you don't want outright freedom at all, people would not know what to do, you realise with this that the following is possible-
Freedom for immigrants to go where they want!
Freedom to steal
Freedom to kill
Freedom to enslave
Freedom to create your own weapons and still have monopolies.
The list goes on. There are obviously positives, some which you already have and others that can be rectified with better leadership.

people are not currently behaving in a way where this is possible,it would descend into chaos.
We don't need authoritarianism under the guise of democracy , we will always need parenting/marshalling/sheperding.

 

[Simonsays]

British parliament votes by 245-2 to secure status of EU nationals in the UK. (No deportations) Does the Referendum start to unravel?

 

[jaguar43]

When animal husbandry was a primary human activity, these sorts of debates simply wouldn't take place because it would just seem absurd on the fact of it. Just goes to show how much more intelligent a life working closer to the natural world makes a person. Obsessing over semantics and ideological purity tests are to me, not very intelligent activities. An ideological purity test is this need to police others into what they think every "good citizen" must abide by. There is something inherently mind-numbing about it.

Fewer people work with animals today but each year we have big horse races. Ask a horse breeder what they thought of inheritance and they would laugh their head off. No, you don't feed the diet of a race horse to a pony and expect it to win that Kentucky derby. The right breeding animals are worth millions because of just how competitive it is.

But more than that, BOTH environmental AND genetic determinism have more in common than you might think and equally myopic. E.g.:

The high cost of horse breeding is usually associated with racing horses. The horse trainers must not think highly of the pedigree because they usually shoot up their horses to the point they collapse and the horses heart burst.

Any sensible farmer knows that pregnant animals must have good food if they are to successfully bear healthy young, but of course those farmers don't have a sophisticated knowledge of genetics.

Eclampsia in the Real Organism: A Paradigm of General Distress Applicable in Infants, Adults, Etc.

This theory opened the possibility for newly acquired traits to be passed on. It grew out of the experience of animal breeders and horticulturists, who were dedicated to improving their breeds and strains, by selecting the best individuals grown under the best conditions. It was known that the miniature ponies, Shetlands for example, would grow larger each generation when bred under favorable conditions of domestication, rather than under the harsh conditions of their native island. It apparently never occurred to most plant and animal breeders that they might be able to improve a breed by subjecting it to harmful conditions.

Estrogen, memory and heredity: Imprinting and the stress response

This resembles the way that the Mendel-Morgan gene doctrine was used to suppress the knowledge gained from centuries of experience of plant and animal breeders, and to belittle the discoveries of Luther Burbank, Paul Kammerer, Trofim Lysenko, and Barbara McClintock. The same type of biochemical process that caused the hereditary changes those researchers studied are involved in the differentiation and dedifferentiation of stem cells that regulate healing and regeneration.

Stem cells, cell culture, and culture: Issues in regeneration

Burbank was the famous horticulturist who develop the russet potato. Which save Ireland from the potato famine. He used the in acquired of inheritance of acquired characteristics to develop it and other fruits and vegetables. So it's possible those committed to idea of lamarck and epigenetic were the most successful in farming and agriculture.

 

[wiggles92]

You desire outright freedom to excercise your free will.
Thing is you don't want outright freedom at all, people would not know what to do, you realise with this that the following is possible-
Freedom for immigrants to go where they want!
Freedom to steal
Freedom to kill
Freedom to enslave
Freedom to create your own weapons and still have monopolies.
The list goes on. There are obviously positives, some which you already have and others that can be rectified with better leadership.

people are not currently behaving in a way where this is possible,it would descend into chaos.
We don't need authoritarianism under the guise of democracy , we will always need parenting/marshalling/sheperding.

Like I've said, you label me as a xenophobe, but I'm not. You can have total free market and free movement of people. If people are valuable enough, they will stay in a country. Otherwise, they realise they cannot compete in a fair system, and they leave. No violence, just a voluntary choice. Fine by me. It's a self-moderating system.

But if you have taxation and a welfare state, which currently takes money from native Europeans and transfers it to immigrants, you have to have borders and border control. A welfare state can only be supported if an equal amount of money comes in and goes out. I know you disagree with me on the relative inability of low IQ immigrants to provide enough value to European nations. But, given that premise, you are stealing from those that create value, and giving it to those that cannot, which leads to economic collapse. There are other larger economic problems created by big government, unrelated to immigration. But this just accelerates the decline, and makes the problem greater.

Where would you get the money to enslave people? Or create your own weapons and protect a monopoly? Who would see value in that and pay for that sort of private enterprise? Nobody. People wouldn't buy your products if you created a standing army to enforce a monopoly.

Anyways that's all from me. Just explaining the basics of the theory. Read Ludwig Von Mises for a much more comprehensive explanation, or google search anarchism and go from there.

 

[jaguar43]

You wouldn't have to make politicians do anything. People would just choose not to pay for a collection of individuals to control them, because that would be of no value. Therefore the politician, deciding the rules with the threat of violence if the population do not obey, would not exist as an occupation. As it stands we are forced to give wealth through taxes involuntarily.

I'm not going to argue over how possible this scenario is. We'd all just have to agree to not have a government anymore, by identifying its inherent immorality. Once that has been agreed, the issue of a monopoly is a non-issue. There is no-one to bribe for monopoly status, no way to get reduced taxes. The playing field is completely even, and a monopoly would only exist if nobody else on the planet could create value in a more efficient or effective way. People would be able to freely choose the option of most value to them, reflected in the cheapest price and/or the best service.

You never heard of natural monopolies ?

 

[jaguar43]

There's quite a bit of good economics history about this, monopolies always have been grants of privilege from the government and never spontaneously maintained by the market. It just seems like you are speaking from the radical college campus school of cultural and economic Marxism, which is not only the most ignorant school of thought out there but also based on violence. All of this "government" to help stop monopolies, integrate people's, this is all based on violence, ie you are not allowed to use your property or your body or associate or not associate in any way you want because violent force will be used to make you comply with how the central authority wants you to do those things.

Ok, but that doesn't really address the problem of natural monopolies.

 

[kyle]

he goes mad because his adaptive energy runs out 1/2 a mile up, his fallacy, he wasn't "Peaty".

Yes, some people live like that and don't go mad. They end up with PhDs and tell everyone how to live their lives.

What he is referring to is narrow theories used to explain the world. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. Genetic and environmental determinist theories both appear logically sound on the surface of it, don't they?

People like to travel to get away from their fellow indigenous as a means to grasp new ideas/increase intelligence potentially

You can't travel if culture disappears. Already parts of London are not unlike Pakistan. I guess a Brit could just go to London and save on plane fare.

farmers don't have a sophisticated knowledge of genetics.

I'd wager their knowledge of biology outstrips that of most MDs and PhDs, if only in the practical application.

inheritance of acquired characteristics

And how are those characteristics passed on? Via genes. As I said maybe 10 times, I don't agree with the whole genetic/mutation theory of selection. I'll say again, I agree with Peat WRT epigenetics. Doesn't mean a potato can be turned into a tomato which is about where your pure environmental explanation takes you.

 

[wiggles92]

Ok, but that doesn't really address the problem of natural monopolies.

This may be helpful to you The Myth of Natural Monopoly

Anyways I said I was done, but I keep biting. If you have an inclination to understand these things, you can read Ludwig Von Mises. I've yet to come across a question about potential pitfalls of a fully free market that, in my opinion, hasn't been sufficiently explained by him. I'm saying this in total sincerity, no sarcasm.

 

[Drareg]

About the importance, most people see the IQ test as the most objective standardized test for general intelligence. Not to be confused with objective, the most objective means compared to the other available options, such as grades in school or other standardized tests. It becomes important when statistics start popping up showing racial and gender differences in the outcomes, which always bring leftists out to criticize the system. On the other side, and I don't really think this is much of a movement, but I suppose some people might want to use that information to create legal and political systems favoring the "superior" races, ie the ones with higher average IQ.
Brexit, this is just a secession movement like any other, where the people choose more proximal over distal government. The elites in the media that oppose it have gotten a bunch of footage of a few Brits saying racist things and are trying to paint the picture that it's about Brits hating Muslims and wanting white supremacy. Then there's a movement suggesting that, and this has evidence, that societies with average IQ below 90 have never formed a liberal democracy, so they don't like unlimited immigration controlled from Brussels rather than their local communities. This issue, even just this thread, is full of context and it makes it hard to discuss these issues. By necessity, someone whose education of history, economics, science etc. from a government run school will have a pro-central government bent to their thinking. So anything challenging political centralization is considered backwards and, like the American Southern secession, racist and evil. It's tied up with white hetero Christian males being the biggest evil of the planet, capitalism being rude and communism being superior, and other leftist talking points.
Most importantly, the content is overwhelmingly emotional in nature (look at the tenor of many of the posts) and therefore is unlikely to be resolved.
P.S. - I answered the first two questions in the original quote

They don't want to create superior races with the highIQ types because they don't work, this is their dissonance, why do you think Mensa came about,now they claim to be just a club for like minds, many who join this are overrated and blinded by hubris.

Then UK is currently a distal government without the EU,ask anybody from up North, it's ruled from London, similar concepts at play. Your letting words cover up the actions.
People have issue with many unelected officials in the EU.
Your idea about media elites is not grounded in facts, they skewed reporting to cover up an obvious class war.

The societies with IQ under 90 who did not form liberal democracies could be evidence for their intelligence, looking at liberal democracy and how it's gone, how does this show intelligence if it's failing miserably, Hitler was elected within a liberal democracy ,perhaps this is evidence for IQ as an intelligence test being hugely flawed.
Local villagers told esteemed British researches they had no interest in consumption and democracy, the results years later- Britain falling apart, little village plugging away.

None of these issues have been discussed with good research backing them up by anyone on this thread you included.

Your fallacy is believing you can predict somebodies paradigm based on education system,culture etc The Internet has changed this in a massive way, you will, get nowhere with Marxist,lefty,government school,styled projections these days, a lot more dynamic now,It does however help with your strawmans.

Many other posters in this thread with the same issue, refuse to accept the complexity and difficulty in predicting/gauging outcomes in the modern world unless the energy is their to match it, when the energy is not there you jump into the past and find a well read projection, many have spent years on a paradigm and are immune and lacking energy to accept new views.

America is a nation of immigrants,you felt it was great at some point in the past yet complain of immigrants now.
The U.K. immigrant issue is a symptom of an underlying issue within the class system that has been there for far too long, a queen still in several palaces.