Tall Poppy Syndrome and the myth of equality


Now, all of these in fact have been the economic effects of pursuing far too much equality, and I think we have very much now come to the end of the road. And, in fact, we find that the persistent expansion of the role of the state, beyond the capacity of the economy to support it, and the relentless pursuit of equality has caused, and is causing, damage to our economy in a variety of ways. It’s not the sole cause of what some have termed the ‘British sickness’ but it is a major one.

Now, what are the lessons then that we’ve learned from the last thirty years? First, that the pursuit of equality itself is a mirage. What’s more desireable and more practicable than the pursuit of equality is the pursuit of equality of opportunity. And opportunity means nothing unless it includes the right to be unequal and the freedom to be different.

One of the reasons that we value individuals is not because they’re all the same, but because they’re all different. I believe you have a saying in the Middle West: ‘Don’t cut down the tall poppies. Let them rather grow tall.’ I would say, let our children grow tall and some taller than others if they have the ability in them to do so. Because we must build a society in which each citizen can develop his full potential, both for his own benefit and for the community as a whole, a society in which originality, skill, energy and thrift are rewarded, in which we encourage rather than restrict the variety and richness of human nature.


Read Genius Famine.
n.b. The problem of obedience in schools also applies to the military.

Now, holding these views as strongly as I do, you can imagine that I was particularly interested to read a description of some of the problems in Czechoslovakia. And the description went like this—and I’ll tell you the year to which it referred in a moment. ‘The pursuit of equality’—I’m quoting—‘has developed in and unprecedented manner [end p147] and this fact has become one of the most important obstacles to intensive economic development and higher living standards. The negative aspects of equality are that lazy people, passive individuals, and irresponsible employees profit at the expense of dedicated and diligent employees, that unskilled workers profit at the expense of skilled ones, that those who are backward from the viewpoint of technology profit at the expense of those with initiative and talent.’

The problem isn’t women, even the ditzy ones. It’s a systemic issue.
You see the same moral weakness in all-boys schools, for instance.

Inferior v Superior People



They are anti-evolution, in my opinion. Especially the evolution of humans (a SPECIES, not a ‘race’) and our psyche. They want the power of an adult with none of the responsibilities, an intellectualized infantilisation exercise. ( narcissist r-types: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/where-modern-r-amygdalae-meet-ancient-k-amygdalae/ ) They are calling for a cull, a genocide on a racial level (beige people) but on an intellectual, emotional plane as well. Giftedness genocide, I think of it, much like mass immigration is a form of cultural cuckoldry, they wish to use humanity as the melting pot and petri dish for their ideology, they’re more authoritarian than Hitler. They are naïve enough of biological determinism (they refuse it exists, honestly, ask them) to expect humans are tabula rasa and can be totally rewritten. They don’t want to simply kill people (#killallmen) they wish to do something far worse – strip us of our humanity and individuality. Evolved differences? Let’s scrub those nasty things away with science! and play God. #Frankenstein

Communists fail when they misunderstand human motivation. Reaction formation, idiots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment Behavioural psychology, conditioning, feedback and response loops IN THE BRAIN.


One of the most common examples is a woman who is envious of another’s beauty, such as in the fairy tale “Snow White“, in which the Queen is envious of Snow White’s youth and beauty, and seeks to kill the young woman in order to once again be the “fairest of them all”. ~ anti-feminism propaganda before it was a thing

Human value is relative to the competition. In bowing to the Third World from fake white guilt, the Original Sin of Whiteness, they become the slaves to the people outcompeting them for those plum jobs, even in STEM. They are losers whining about the need for a social species to rank by hierarchy because in each category they fail.

As I said in a ROQ article, social justice is anti-social revenge.

“Vanity well fed is benevolent. Vanity hungry is spiteful.” ~ Mason Cooley

They have what used to be called vainglory, and it is futile. It attempts to bring down others by falsely boosting the self. Identity politics.

On the other hand, I’m still pissed off with Cappy for this one he did while I was off demurely sipping tea –

Psychology has 3 problems

1. liars are allowed to push their politics i.e. feminist psychology, really. It exists. We acknowledge the problem and are presently pulling out the SJW weeds. http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/5/504.abstract

2. aimless idiots are allowed in and prefer soft course material over brutal reality aka science. (I believe this is the bone of contention).

3. anything claiming to be psychology is considered it. Most of the present material is a liberal art but it’s tarring the real scientists with that brush to say it’s a stupid subject when there are highly scientific branches vital to an aging population (neurology, gerontology) and our technological needs (computational neuroscience, possibly AGI).

STEM managers prefer to hire men


I wonder why. Let’s see.

In an experiment in which participants were hired [selection process?] to perform a mathematical task, both male and female managers were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman — even when the managers had no information beyond a candidate’s appearance and, therefore, gender.

Which can be profiled by the legal department for the odds of drawing in a sexual harassment lawsuit and bad PR.
Lots of departments are consulted. Putting feminism and LGBullshit on your CV is a death knell to callbacks.

Dr. Reuben continued: “The end result is not only a less diverse workforce and a male-dominated STEM field, but also a detriment to these companies for hiring the less-skilled person for the job.”

Less women go in, less women come out. If that’s the case, they’ll go out of business, what’s the problem? Unless they won’t go out of business, because the average man has more technical intelligence than the average woman (higher contradictory verbal) and hiring more men gives them an edge…. almost like it’s a cut-throat business or something??

they incorrectly believed that men are more talented in science and math, the researchers found. This bias often led to hiring the less-capable job seeker.

That makes no logical sense. Either men are better overall and the stereotype is true (as they often are) or men are worse (2nd sentence) or they’re exactly the same (premise earlier): “Previous studies have shown that this type of arithmetic task is performed equally well by men and women.”

Ah, I see where it dances around the issue. It suggests the present results were equal because previous studies it cites demonstrated that. The equal results weren’t in their dataset of this study, it is merely implied. That’s right: they’re extrapolating findings based on a completely different dataset.

STEM is a high-IQ field. Exclusively.

“If you’re hiring someone who scores less on the test, more often than not you are hiring the less qualified candidate.”

Depends on the test. A high verbal test would be a waste of paper, you don’t see many English grads in STEM.
Does that apply to the >100IQ flatter bell curve distribution of men, scored higher in that desirable/necessary category (101-160), compared to women (~80-120)? Wouldn’t that sum score make women the less qualified subject? Oh, silly me, trusting meta-analyses and decades of research. I guess if I’m to trust this reportage I should carve out half of my frontal lobe, since I won’t be needing it.

Further versions of the experiment demonstrated the difficulties of confronting negative stereotypes.

You don’t prove the stereotype false despite vested interest. This means you cannot, vis a vis, it must be true.