Archive

Archive for October, 2010

HBDers are Idiots: Reason 3

October 31, 2010 13 comments

One of the common HBD talking points is- “g-loaded tests measure ‘abstract reasoning’ and are thus more reliable proxies for intelligence”.

I say-

Bullshit! They measure the ability to solve problems within accepted worldviews, not intelligence.

A good example of this phenomena is seen in how the modern heliocentric model of the solar system came to prevail. Ancient greek philosophers (the ones that ‘western’ people fellate) believed that the heavens were a work of pure geometric perfection and symmetry. This lead to the view that the orbits of celestial bodies were always perfectly circular.

Therefore they continued to believe that the orbits of planets were perfectly circular, even when their observations said otherwise. They tried to explain this discrepancy with a complex system of circles within circles (aka epicycles). It was not until Kepler (in the early 1600s) came to the conclusion that only an ellipse could fit the known experimental data, that the idea of perfect circles, spheres and other pseudo-scientific crap started to be abandoned.

However, the formula and mathematical methods for fitting the observations to an ellipse were known for almost 1,500 years before him. So, were there no high g-loaded astronomers before his time? Or were they too busy constructing more complex epicycles to fit the data to the theory?

Another example of this behavior is seen in how famous doctors of previous eras bled and purged their sick patients, even though there was no evidence that such treatments did anything other than kill more people than otherwise. Were these famous ‘famous’ white doctors from eras prior to the 1880s stupid, sociopathic or just plain ignorant? Or could they have been clever morons who tried to solve problems with ever complex versions of their failed theories?

It takes intelligence to accept that you were wrong. Clever morons, on the other hand, try to paper up the gaping hole left after their credibility implodes.

Comments?

In Defense of Ephialtes

October 31, 2010 3 comments

If you ever read about or seen the movie based on the battle of thermopylae, the name Ephialtes should ring a bell. He was that guy who betrayed the spartans, thus helping the persians outflank and kill them.

His name has become a synonym for treachery, and is reviled for betraying the greek ’cause’.

My question is-

Why should he have not betrayed the greek cause? What would he have gained if he had not betrayed the spartans?

If you look at the situation objectively, his actions were both logical and rational. He did not stand to gain from not betraying the spartans. Would they have rewarded him for not betraying him? Would his life have improved if he had not betrayed them?

See where I am going..

Consider what he gained from betraying the spartans- money and fame. Would we still remember his name if he had played his assigned social role?

I see him as a person who took a chance at making money and becoming famous. In any case, he had no reason to NOT betray the spartans.

It comes down to a peculiar and ignored form of incentive- one geared towards making it profitable for a person to support a system. Over any significant length of time, only positive incentives can keep the system from collapsing.

However ALL empires and largish states quickly “forget” or ignore this very basic concept. Short-term profit optimization through force, fraud and scams is the real cause of empire failure. Once enough people stand to gain by supporting the other side, other way or not supporting ‘their’ side- it is over for that system.

Comments?

People are Stupid: Exhibit 1

October 30, 2010 8 comments

OK, here is a question.

Why are parents more concerned about their children using “bad language” or watching porn than about providing them a stable, safe and relatively affluent environment to grow up in?

Let us analyze the outcomes:

If kids use “bad language” or watch porn, what is the worst thing that can happen to them?

Answer- Nothing significant, as long as they are in a stable, secure and relatively affluent environment. Guess what, they can figure out what is appropriate and generally acceptable very quickly on their own.

Now, what happens to kids who have a “moral upbringing” but an insecure, unstable and deprived environment?

Answer- They become jaded hypocritical individuals incapable of thinking beyond the obvious, just like their parents.

It does not take a genius to figure this out, does it? So why are parents in many cultures so concerned about their kids “moral upbringing”, while ignoring opportunities and possibilities for improving their kids lives through real and tangible steps.

Why?

My hypothesis is that most parents see their kids as trophies for increasing their status amongst their peers. They are, by and large, not interested in their kids well-being. The emphasis is therefore on appearances and make-believe rather than reality.

Comments?

HBDers are Idiots: Reason 2

October 30, 2010 20 comments

Ever wonder what standardized “tests” really test for?

1] Do they test for Intelligence? Real ability? Competence?

OR

2] The ability to regurgitate information, perform standard tricks and “dance” on command?

Since ALL standardized tests effectively test for 2], should we not rank computers/ networked databases and other computerized information handling/ analysis systems higher than “high IQ” humans? Machines have much higher “on” times than humans and are far less likely to make a mistake. They are also not hampered by emotion, bias and other human shortcomings.

Maybe we should just let ourselves be ruled by machines. I think they made a movie series and franchise around that idea.

Comments?

More NSFW Links: Oct 30, 2010

October 30, 2010 Leave a comment

These links are certainly NSFW.

Latex and Vinyl Cuties from ModelMayhem: Oct 30, 2010

Self Shots: Oct 30, 2010

Enjoy… I know you will.

Categories: Uncategorized

NSFW Links: Oct 30, 2010

October 29, 2010 Leave a comment
Categories: Uncategorized

Let “It” Die: 1

October 29, 2010 4 comments

Many men talk about “preserving civilization”. But is it worth it? Let me explain..

The difference between a parasite and a commensal or symbiont is that parasites provide no net benefit to their host, and frequently injure/kill it. By that definition, isn’t the current version of “civilization” closer to a parasite than anything remotely useful, reciprocatory or trustworthy- as far as most men are concerned.

A parasite can be impressive, but it is still a parasite. So why care about the well-being of a parasite?

Why would a rational human being care about something that does not reciprocate the favor? Yes.. caring about anything other than your own selfish interest is a favor, one which can be continued only if it is reciprocated.

Would you keep on paying for a product/service that was not delivered or faulty. Would you pay for cars that explode frequently and randomly? What about paying bills to utilities that did not provide you the service/utility they billed you for? Would you pay for treatments/drugs that made you sicker or killed you more quickly?

I bet that most of you would never willingly take that crap from a company/utility or “professional”. So why are you willing to sacrifice for a concept which does not reward you? If anything, “it” treats you as a lesser disposable human who is stupid enough to care and continue caring inspite of the very obvious.

As I have often said before, let “it” die.

Comments?