Tech journo Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his claim to ethics

When he does an opinion piece on a point of active science. (Minus experts to support his specious claims). I have lost my former high regard for him. He became a sophist. Oh, the things I am sent by infuriated research psychologists. You should see how blue the air turned at this one.

Title: Sorry girls! But the smartest people in the world are all men!

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
(patronizing Buzzfeed-esque address)+(claim to scientific authority against presumed naive reader)+(geniuses+polymaths subgroup)
= claim: no women (ever, at present or in future)

Operative absolute highlighted for your scorn.

I won’t link to the troll and the article is a patronizing piece of shit. You can tell he has no critical training in the field of data interpretation even if you took a drunken night class 10 years ago for a semester. It’s that painfully bad. Either he didn’t do the research (his actual job) into the history of females in that group, or he would’ve immediately found this, to look for the negative evidence, the black swan OR he knew, he bloody knew and left it out. The disclaimer required. The distinction to be made. One line:

It is fine to critique performance, but impossible to disprove potential.

Rarity speaks nothing of ability. As we say, to omit this distinction would remove all claim to both internal and external validity. Rendering it totally invalid….?
The ethical obligation (journalists take training courses) must have …slipped his mind. To get the clicks from the fake MGTOWs putting down women (a group) as if that has anything to do with individual variance (themselves), as I’ve stated before in excruciating take-down style detail. I believe someone actually linked to me for it, I see clicks on the traffic.
He’s become the enemy, a clickwhore lying about science for political grievance (his ‘side’ doesn’t make it right). He cherry-picked a study like Anita does with male violence and his foundation of relative morality has evaporated.
It would be as specious, unethical and rampantly dishonest as if I had said that, say, drugged-up Ritalin boys were innately retarded instead of <insert alternative nurtured explanation here>.

I guess you could say, it’s about ethics in psychometrics journalism.

burn gif

After his great and professional work on Gamergate and he pulls this shit.

tyra rooting for you
I feel so betrayed, and I’d been defending him to people, too.

Wikipedia could prove this bitch wrong. WIKIPEDIA. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Here are the actual categories and stratification of IQ scores. Look at the words.

IQcategories1 IQcategories2 IQcategories3

IQcategories4 IQcategories5

I guess the whole research field is fucking wrong, and Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
#GalileoGambit I guess no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=girl+mensa+age&tbm=nws
Pass Go. Collect your Nobel.

I made a chart too, Milo! About my opinion, of your opinion!

fucksgivenme

The IFLScientism Crowd will be totes impressed! Because the scientific method is like Mythbusters, anyone can do it! If you do a random thing, like find a thing and write about it, you can throw on a lab coat and call it a day. You earned that degree, that PhD in Internetz. If I write in a diary about an ice cream I just consumed, it’s science! And going by your logic, nobody can claim otherwise! If I claim the ice cream opened a portal to another dimension, and made a moral value judgement that it was, in fact, evil, an evil ice cream, I am under no positive Burden of Proof for this negative opinion, in fact, the burden shifts onto everyone else! Isn’t science fun? You can just make it up, all day! It counts! And I made charts so it’s legit, fam! It has Hindu numerals and shit!
Because dissent isn’t the natural process of scientific progress or anything, it’s a conspiracy theory like Patriarchy!

You would think that a technology journalist, who rely on personal popularity, wouldn’t alienate half the STEM field? How is this a plan for career longevity, exactly? I know people who are now blacklisting him for this, since he clearly doesn’t expect people he works with, in-industry, to have read it.

Milo, if you’re reading this;tyra take responsibility

UPDATE: 48h later, I can see comments defending Milo for the article.
Comments from feminists. I leave you to your conclusions.

Quotes by Nikola Tesla on Mama Tesla

Yes, I’m calling her that. You can’t stop me.
Square brackets are me.
You can see how important she was to him. Read the damn book (My Inventions) yourself.

I must trace to my mother’s influence whatever inventiveness I possess

My mother descended from one of the oldest families in the country and a line of inventors.”

My mother was an inventor of the first order and would, I believe, have achieved great things had she not been so remote from modern life and its multifold opportunities.  She invented and constructed all kinds of tools and devices and wove the finest designs from thread which was spun by her.  She even planted the seeds, raised the plants and separated the fibers herself.  She worked indefatigably, from break of day till late at night, and most of the wearing apparel and furnishings of the home was the product of her hands.  When she was past sixty, her fingers were still nimble enough to tie three knots in an eyelash.”

“Of all things I liked books the best.  My father had a large library and whenever I could manage I tried to satisfy my passion for reading.  He did not permit it and would fly into a rage when he caught me in the act.  He hid the candles when he found that I was reading in secret.  He did not want me to spoil my eyes.  But I obtained tallow, made the wicking and cast the sticks into tin forms, and every night I would bush the keyhole and the cracks and read, often till dawn, when all others slept and my mother started on her arduous daily task. [She knew] On one occasion I came across a novel entitled “Abafi” (the Son of Aba), a Serbian translation of a well known Hungarian writer, Josika. This work somehow awakened my dormant powers of will and I began to practise self-control.  At first my resolutions faded like snow in April, but in a little while I conquered my weakness and felt a pleasure I never knew before—that of doing as I willed.  In the course of time this vigorous mental exercise became second nature.  At the outset my wishes had to be subdued but gradually desire and will grew to be identical.  After years of such discipline I gained so complete a mastery over myself that I toyed with passions which have meant destruction to some of the strongest men. …. On frequent occasions he [father] gave vent to his anger and contempt but my mother was different.  She understood the character of men and knew that one’s salvation could only be brought about through his own efforts.  One afternoon, I remember, when I had lost all my money and was craving for a game, she came to me with a roll of bills and said, “Go and enjoy yourself.  The sooner you lose all we possess the better it will be.  I know that you will get over it.” She was right.  I conquered my passion then and there and only regretted that it had not been a hundred times as strong.  I not only vanquished but tore it from my heart so as not to leave even a trace of desire.  Ever since that time I have been as indifferent to any form of gambling as to picking teeth.”

“Regaining my senses I realized with consternation that I was unable to visualize scenes from my life except those of infancy, the very first ones that had entered my consciousness.  Curiously enough, these appeared before my vision with startling distinctness and afforded me welcome relief.  Night after night, when retiring, I would think of them and more and more of my previous existence was revealed.  The image of my mother was always the principal figure in the spectacle that slowly unfolded, and a consuming desire to see her again gradually took possession of me.  This feeling grew so strong that I resolved to drop all work and satisfy my longing.  But I found it too hard to break away from the laboratory, and several months elapsed during which I had succeeded in reviving all the impressions of my past life up to the spring of 1892.  In the next picture that came out of the mist of oblivion, I saw myself at the Hotel de la Paix in Paris just coming to from one of my peculiar sleeping spells, which had been caused by prolonged exertion of the brain.  Imagine the pain and distress I felt when it flashed upon my mind that a dispatch was handed to me at that very moment bearing the sad news that my mother was dying.  I remembered how I made the long journey home without an hour of rest and how she passed away after weeks of agony! It was especially remarkable that during all this period of partially obliterated memory I was fully alive to everything touching on the subject of my research.  I could recall the smallest details and the least significant observations in my experiments and even recite pages of text and complex mathematical formulae.”

Supposed skeptics don’t like to discuss his psychic visions but it was integral to his process.

“… I reflected that the conditions for a look into the beyond were most favorable, for my mother was a woman of genius and particularly excelling in the powers of intuition. …”

The ones Einstein called crucial to genius. When looking for his purpose;

“Up to that time I never realized that I possessed any particular gift of discovery, but Lord Rayleigh, whom I always considered as an ideal man of science, had said so and if that was the case, I felt that I should concentrate on some big idea. At this time, as at many other times in the past, my thoughts turned towards my Mother’s teaching. The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible; therefore I devoted the next few months to the study of this work.”

Manosphere /fake MGTOW claim: Women can’t do science or Women can’t invent

TLDR:

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

I think this claim in particular is ruining the manosphere. This post will be logic and science-heavy. For satirical reasons, and because I’m a little troll at heart with the other chanfags, I’m largely going to use resources written by men. Deny that, bitches!

Fake MGTOW still reading this:

The plight of stupid neolibs everywhere

I’m seeing this picked up increasingly by the sort of insecure moron who couldn’t invent a new form of toaster with a gun to his head. I would own them at robot wars. You can tell they don’t have a job in science (no, IT doesn’t count, tons of Indian women work in it ffs) and have never been to a single conference with their bitchy attitude. Example;

MGTOWERscienceclaimwrong

You know they’re desperate to prove how edgy they are when virginTOW is in their screen-name, Tyler Durden would be more original, or Mr Robot now I guess. MGTOW is being beset by the same sort of loser that drowned Reddit and Atheistkult, with the equivalent male virulence of SJWs to anything exposed to their entryism, and it’s no wonder the movement is now drowning under their dead weight. What’s the rule here from Greene’s Power book you need to heed?
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/law-10-infection-avoid-unhappy-and.html

It was written by a man so you should pay attention.

Aaron Clarey, another man, was right about these types (for those who don’t know to whom I refer);


They’re beta-omega bitches who feel the need to put women down to feel like men. That’s weak, it’s the reverse of what the feminists do. You shouldn’t need women for your ego as a real MGTOW at all, this is simply an inversion of the pedestal idea. You’re no less needy and I don’t like bullies full stop, feminist or virginTOW. Your sex, like your race, sexuality, whatever, is never a Free Pass. #meritocracyftw

Disclaimer for the whiners: yes, I know the feminist programmes are annoying. Insulting. Patronising. Unfair. They also don’t work, even in Norway. So it hardly matters, realistically. Remember, most women aren’t feminists (by self-report). We won’t do something we don’t want to (like take up extra maths classes). Don’t accept the feminist frame that what they want is what most women want. They don’t speak for us. That’s their Big Lie. Don’t hand them authority by treating them like one (vague TLP reference).

On the other hand, don’t excuse them. Don’t blame phrenology (you’re so scientific) for their dispute of agency, they have a choice to be bitches. They want that excuse, you’re handing them a victim card to play against you. And if you were up on your neuroscience, you’d see that while women have fewer brain cells, thanks to our smaller overall body size btw the ratio balances out, we have more connections. Guess what corresponds better to intelligence?

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/16/5519.full

Synaptic plasticity of connections. So pipe the fuck down on that front.
It would be just as specious as claiming women are superior because we have more absolute DNA material. (We do, the Y chromosome has decidedly less and is smaller than X). We have this for the evolutionary purpose of carrying children of both sexes. Group differences don’t make you better as an individual. This is basic statistics. You might have an average male IQ, but that doesn’t mean you’re smarter than every woman you’ll ever meet. Statistically, that would be implausible. Individual differences conflict more than group level because the variance is higher. Since a man invented IQ (Binet) I assume you’d take the prospect seriously.

keep being cocky, see where it gets you

While on the topic of scientist misogyny, most of STEM isn’t. Modern STEM. You aren’t being cool by claiming something as the common opinion (women>suck) that anyone in the industry knows is a MSM lie, it’s as bad as fake gamer girls. Feminazis have finally turned on the Valley, all those Asian and Jewish boys, to try and score some of that sweet sweet VC money. They’ve failed, on the whole. Laughably failed.
Historical scientists usually had a single bad experience they allowed to colour their lives (e.g. Kant Kant Kant Kant Kant and KANT  – talk to women). They were high on a personality trait called Psychoticism, good for their work but awful for their personal life, so it didn’t go well for them and they never tried again (source on genius written by two men, doubleplusgood).

Playing Subject Monopoly is petty. “They” have that subject, “we” have this. It’s the Robber’s Cave false opposition all over again (famous study by a man involving all boys). At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean anything. We’re all working to improve society, and that helps everyone. It’s a social good, it cannot be selective. My monarch is a woman, it doesn’t mean I had anything to do with that. Tesla was a man, the men reading this had nothing to do with that. Have icons for certain, but sex isn’t like race, there isn’t enough genetic connection throughout the group as a whole to claim kinship to accomplishment (HBD reference, check out Jayman, who is yes, a man).

Role call anyway. Subject Monopoly. You feel lucky?

joker DC smile smirk evil grin lol haha

Composers. – Male. The greats were pretty much all male. You win that round, I was discussing composers on a bus once with all-female music students and everyone agreed. As you can imagine, no one present was offended nor a feminist.

Does that make you feel better? It shouldn’t. Modern music is shit (see example comment above). Relative quality isn’t the same realm as absolute greatness.

Exploration – Male. Women usually weren’t allowed out of the house without an escort when places remained for the picking but sure, I’ll let you have that one. But the Vikings got there first, by thousands of years, and half of those were women (they traveled as one unit, look it up, archaeology and history). Are you descended from Vikings? I am. Does this mean I have more claim to that success than you, likely American man? Identity politics by sex is a bust whoever is doing it. By race, with a level of genetic relatedness to claim ingroup status (male science!) it might be supportable, still a big May-Be.

Still, so what? Does that improve the life of any man reading this? Inspiration shouldn’t be used in place of your own accomplishment or ambition (see fandom crazies). That’s co-dependent bullshit. It’s an excuse to do nothing with your own life.

Research … about even. Scientists? Well, until about a century ago women couldn’t get degrees. But still, women now dominate in biology and medicine, which the manosphere complains about, although there are fewer high IQ women than men for sample availability reasons, but also because of this more low IQ men than women. Feeling especially stupid because the male sex contains more retards? 

Thought not.

The modern average researcher is Asian. By simple data, they far outnumber us crackers. The average MGTOW is a middle class spoiled white bitch. You have less in common with him (HBD, genetics) than you do the women in your country you complain about.

Men are better in physics and materials, aka the Harder Sciences instead of Life Science. This is a fair, gendered difference. Ok….

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

I’m waiting to see how playing to a sex’s strengths for the common good of society is somehow a bad thing? When the manosphere claims that is the Way Things Should Be. (See the Is/Ought guillotine, by a man). Women in the more caring, nurturing roles? Men in the more technical, mathey ones? It’s almost like they’re suggesting women should be blocked from all roles of responsibility, but we already have a shortage of doctors and scientists in the West (Asia outnumbering us again) and if you’re ill, dying in A&E, would you really reject the assistance of a doctor based on her sex? Would you do the same to a black man? Or would you just want a Doctor, any Doctor, now-now-now? That’s the weird thing about positions of responsibility, they are also positions of trust. The tort of law, the duty of care, which sex do you trust to be more caring when your life is on the line?
If your argument to do this female career block is Muh Meritocracy, I’ve already told you why that’s BS. Were you smart enough to see it? If we tightened the requirements based purely on merit, men would suffer more than women. Because more men are retarded from the original population group and hence, by that logic, blocked from professions, than women.

Unintended consequences;

There would be more female scientists and more female doctors, purely based on the starting numbers from IQ.

You didn’t think this through, did you?

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

Now I get to the meat of this argument, the crux that really pisses me off: Invention. It’s a subject most people (and the manosphere) don’t understand because they believe MSM and Hollywood. They’ve probably never met a real inventor (not Hamburger Headphones types) in their entire lives, yet still feel qualified to discuss the group. I was actually discussing inventors with Henry Dampier in private once (yes, he’s a man, cool guy) and he knows a lot of them, without quoting him without his permission, his opinion was favourable and he appreciated the variety within the occupation (realistic, not the crazy hair crazy men film trope based on Einstein, not really an inventor either). Ask yourself, redpills, how this MSM lie conflicts with the real field full of real people you’re insulting, some of which blog here or know people who blog here (hi!) in the reactosphere.

When did you ever see a film about a female inventor? How many have you seen about male inventors? Compared to the fair hypothetical assumptions prior to evidence of a 50/50 split, or a biased one of 25/75, there’s something odd going on here (and we all know Hollywood is run by Jewish men, they admit it). We certainly know there are high IQ women in existence, it is possible and they must exist. Yet they aren’t in the media, it doesn’t fit Narrative (Einstein was a Jew, remember, his position in Hollywood tropes is no accident). Since the MGTOWER commentator wanted ancient examples, Hypatia is the best, estimated (by men) to have an IQ over 200, a true polymath. She was raised that way deliberately – by her father. This suggests the sexes are highly plastic in their epigenetic potential. Isn’t the manosphere begging for more geniuses? Would they reject the World’s Greatest Genius if they turned out to have a cracking pair of tits too? How would that not constitute actual, real misogyny? Does that polymathy of Hypatia make a random feminist smarter, or you, individual male readers, dumber? Of course fucking not. Cut it out. That’s magical thinking. I won’t tolerate that in a discussion on science.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

Opposite example for fairness: Ada Lovelace was a smart cookie. No doubt. High IQ. But most of ‘her’ accomplishments were actually those of Babbage, she was the PR for his ideas, that’s why he hired her, yet the feminists are doing the exact same thing with the sexes inverted: rejecting the Great Computer Genius – because penis envy. Don’t be like the feminists, please. You don’t need to put anyone down for something they couldn’t help e.g. sex, which is determined exclusively by the fathers btw. Lovelace frequently discussed Babbage’s work with credit for example, don’t turn on her either, one of the people trying to contribute to the world we all have to live in. Focus on the correct enemy, the people who lie, the talentless, the professional whiners.

The same people in the manosphere who shout down Edison (a man) will demand all male invention is sublime and perfect in the next breath, if it means they can put down a whole sex in the breath afterward (women, actual misogyny). I don’t use the word lightly, it’s the whole 100% group without factual basis (in fact opposed to it) yet they think they’re being subtle! It’s that obvious, it’s becoming common and it reeks of keyboard alpha weakness and confirmation bias. It’s 100%, completely obvious to neutral outsiders what they’re doing, and that’s why normal people (including men who smell BS) are being turned off the manosphere recently. IMHO.

I could list Male Inventors versus Female, but that’s a red herring. It doesn’t account for qualification, expense, historical prominence, legend, scale, lives changed, just general quality. It’s a similar problem in the patent system at the moment and the world law (inc EU) is gearing toward changes intended to assess objective quality. Superficial comparisons like that go for the fame whores instead, like Edison. Who also hired women and wrote his name on their inventions too, since we’re so useless…

American Psycho is the best satire of the 20th century

I could take the easy ironic potshot and remind you that without Hedy Lamarr the porn star (cracking pair of tits) you wouldn’t have this WiFi to bitch about how women are incapable of invention.
And the Allies might have lost WW2 because the Nazis were ahead on signal science prior. 
These are facts.

You know what I think bugs them, the fake MGTOWs? In the realm of speculation here, admittedly.

– Equality of opportunity. 
They honestly believed that women were inferior on all flanks thanks to MSM erasure, so when the outcomes began to even out from proof, they felt personally insecure. Like the men returning from war and seeing their replacements in the munitions factories, the world didn’t end. They were replaceable. After the Hell of war, they realized their work was disposable as their lives. Women already have the innate capacity to create life so womb envy might factor in their desperation to the claim of machine-creation ownership, as if innate to their sex, as well (hey, I mentioned penis envy above, it logically follows if one exists, so must the other).

IN CONCLUSION.

I’ll leave you by one crucial example to refute this fallacious claim. Really, it’s irrefutable without being logically incoherent aka lying.
Who is the Greatest Modern Inventor?

….

Say it aloud.

….

….

….

….
A lot of you said Tesla. Correct.
I assume you mean Nikola?

what wut robot stop eh hold presses a moment

It’s rumoured that Albert Einstein was once asked, “How does it feel to be the smartest man alive?”, he responded, “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”

This is a fair assumption and I believe it myself.

After all, Hedy’s work required electricity.

But what the manosphere and MGTOW overlap never asks, to cover this truth, is what Nikola Tesla himself thought.

The same man who thought that women, innately, without the corrupting influence of society, were superior to men?

“I had always thought of woman,” says Mr. Tesla, “as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.”

“This struggle of the human female toward sex equality will end in a new sex order, with the female as superior…. 

His prediction is coming true. These weak manboys I’ve covered before are threatened by equality of opportunity, by more competition on the professional playing field, in the same way ugly men are threatened by the open sexual marketplace, where the women rush the best men, when previously Patriarchy would have guaranteed them sex – with a wife.
By keeping that larger, smarter (on average, see Doctor outcome) group from the meritocratic opportunity of the marketplace, they selfishly help themselves individually – at the expense of freedom (individual human/woman), self-actualization (psychological) and the common social good of the progress that competition brings otherwise (making them liars when they call for this improvement in STEM and ask whine it isn’t happening fast enough).

It is not in the shallow physical imitation of men that women will assert first their equality and later their superiority, but in the awakening of the intellect of women.

Through countless generations, from the very beginning, the social subservience of women resulted naturally in the partial atrophy or at least the hereditary suspension of mental qualities which we now know the female sex to be endowed with no less than men.

But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent [DS: set by men] and startle civilization with their progress.”

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got

Yeah, they don’t like to talk about that part. #bluepillpussies
Nor WHY. Why did he think this way about women, psychologically? He took no wife, no lovers. It must’ve been earlier than that. Childhood, from social learning theory. In Victorian times?! Who was this creature?!! The role model, the proof of concept (real POC, real MVP represent). Where did the genes come from, for his vital visualization skills?

The reason little Nikola went into invention in the first place? The reason we know his name now? Who encouraged him? Who raised him? Who he modelled himself after? If you read his autobiography, My Inventions, you’ll know. A fellow inventor, in his mind, the best inventor: his mother.

That’s right, a woman!

Going by his own, male account. I’ll post a few choice quotes by Tesla about Mama Tesla just to drive home the point: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/quotes-by-nikola-tesla-on-mama-tesla/

When you hear these false excuses, claims that

  • Women can’t do science.
  • Women can’t inspire men to be men (aka mothers are useless).
  • Most of all, Women can’t invent.

Your idol says you’re wrong.
Don’t be a little bitch about it. Bitch is a verb as well as a noun.

Takehome: Read books on a niche subject before claiming to know diddly squat about it.

I’ll leave you with a quote about the woman, when it comes to claiming what you’ve no right to;

My mother understood human nature better and never chided. She knew that a man cannot be saved from his own foolishness or vice by someone else’s efforts or protests, but only by the use of his own will.

It’s alright, I won’t rub your nose in it. Then I’d be as petty as you.
Please just learn from this and quit lying.

Negatively intelligent or positively intelligent?

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/good-genes-or-genius-two-distinct-ways.html

I like this idea.
I suppose it’s a tradeoff from optimum functioning to directed specialization.
The genetically well-endowed (good structure) needn’t apply it to anything special. That’s the special in specialization, and as much as I abhor the modern over-reliance on it, there it is right within the word, bold yet demure.
And it is the latter character where the Great Geniuses are to be found, as in their case, there is likely something to overcome (average or below-average structural bequeath). Is this why we respect them more than the high IQ with great, yet unfulfilled potential?

Jacques Barzun on the epistemology of science

If they leave college thinking, as they usually do, that science offers a full, accurate, and literal description of man and Nature; if they think scientific research by itself yields final answers to social problems; if they think scientists are the only honest, patient, and careful workers in the world; if they think that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, and Faraday were unimaginative plodders like their own instructors; if they think theories spring from facts and that scientific authority at any time is infallible; if they think that the ability to write down symbols and read manometers is fair grounds for superiority and pride, and if they think that science steadily and automatically makes for a better world — then they have wasted their time in the science lecture room; they live in an Ivory Laboratory more isolated than the poet’s tower, and they are a plain menace to the society they belong to. They are a menace whether they believe all this by virtue of being engaged in scientific work themselves or of being disqualified from it by felt or fancied incapacity.

Victorians were probably smarter than you

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/taking-on-board-that-victorians-were.html

I would’ve thought the successful Revolution as proof enough.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/how-many-geniuses-does-it-take-to-make.html

I prefer Victorian books for this reason. A book is a peek into another’s mind, and theirs are simply the deepest I have encountered.

There are other factors involved, including creativity (originality) and parallel lack of mutation load (mental disease).

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-is-genius-so-rare.html

I would be uncharitable for once and ascribe this experimental outcome to two common social factors;

  1. stupid people with high time preference were literally left to starve in the streets and were generally derided (social-moral influence on the weak-minded to dissuade those considering it) as grasshoppers to the smarter ants of society who made their choice.
  2. the mentally ill were thrown into asylums and much like prison used to function, this served to keep their genes separate from the common population and out of circulation as it practically barred them from reproduction (this is the true punishment intended from prison as a form that everyone seems to have forgotten).

If we brought back certain elements of these population controls, no doubt g/RT would rise.

If you want a practical guide to these questions, ask yourself where our geniuses are? They all seem to have died off in the 20th C. Where’s our Voltaire, Newton, or Emerson? Do they not exist, or does nobody pay them attention; I don’t know which is worse?

“You can do anything” parenting and teaching is actively harmful

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/why-telling-kids-to-dream-big-is-a-big-con/

It comes down to IQ grade. IQ denialism, as it was suggested by Haidt, makes about as much sense now as New Earth Creationism in biology, there is simply so much evidence.

Grades are just proxies for IQ — which most parents are too dumb to conceive of.

IQ isn’t strictly a number, it’s a grouping with an error variance. The Binet IQ was intended for school application ONLY – to ascertain how the child’s learning process could be assisted by teachers at each stage (level of work compared to their chronological age), look at modern Sets for the truest application.

If you’re at the top grouping possible for a human, as an adult, A+/200+ High Genius or basic polymath, you have all the choices. And who doesn’t want options for their child (and by ego extension, a compliment to their own genetic material) but the further down the pyramid you go, the more restricted your future prospects. These are facts.

If you wanna be an astronaut, you’d better be making As and Bs. Just because you sat in the same classroom for decades doesn’t mean you’re equal in life quality potential or entitled to the same things as adults (public school kids and pronounced failures regardless of family fortune are the amusing example).

Telling children they all have equal potential may seem nice, and the Nurture Brigade of modern teaching insist it’s fair (if you are ignorant of their status yes, in case) and necessary (see former) – but it traumatizes the average and below-average children and sets them up for a lifetime of suffering, and probable mental illness (hark! Freud’s ghost laughing in the distance). Children blame themselves when they fail or something goes wrong. Fine if the changes needed are within their control… this is rarely the case here.  The self-esteem movement formed to prevent mental illness, theoretically as a shield against it, and now… many young people are popping pills.

This lie about potential doesn’t even sink in (because for this to apply, they are dumb) when they’re adults. Millennials are miserable. They see their age-peers succeed and assume (all else being equal) there is something they can do about it, and feel entitled (+) or wronged (-), that their own course isn’t going the same way (a few come up with lies i.e. their competition is cheating, or secretly evil).

n.b. IQ is computed by age, so child ones are unreliable although age 11/12 is highly correlated, it’s best to get retested as an adult and expect a small dive. Many supposed prodigies fail on this count because they were merely ahead of the curve at school (by external factors of socialisation, see Gladwell’s Outliers), and not genetically ahead (permanently ahead). Hence, prodigies seem to burn out, when in fact the fakes (harsh but true) merely crash into the wall of their genetic potential. Elements of the modern school system e.g. obedience to popular belief, lack of imagination and rote memory dependence also contribute to this false-flagging of intelligence, as it were, rewarding traits which are, in effect, the anti-genius. Lies on the other side of the IQ fence.

The genius personality and invention

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-endogenous-personality-its.html

….The Endogenous personality offers the possibility (but there is no guarantee) of a ‘breakthrough’ – a novel solution to a potentially-fatal social problem – e.g. the prospect of annihilation by the environment or another group unless there is a breakthrough; some new technology, some unifying art or religion, some way of extracting more resources per unit area, some new weapon or defense…..

Hence the Tesla cult we have now.

And Ada Lovelace et al…..