Old books

Remember, in 1984, old books were illegal.

http://unamusementpark.com/2018/05/reading-old-books-some-practical-suggestions/

Most of those books are 1. free 2. expose the modern rip-offs and 3. make you superior.

The Left hates when people ape their faux sophistication with the real thing.

Their worst nightmare is poor people doing it. There are no free liberal arts MOOCs for that reason, entry barrier. You wanna kill them, smash up their Ivory Towers? Put up all their material without the nonsense online. Lesson plans already exist.

Virtue signalling with real virtues make them nigh suicidal.

Ah, I love the sweet smell of thoughtcrime in the morning.

Hypnotic.

It smells like tea and doubt.

Peter Thiel and intellectual rights under Trump

Too much shop but you might get a tickle.

The question is understandable:

How do we reward innovators?

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/11/21/patent-views-peter-thiel-mean-trump-administration/id=74741/

The article is sound but I was drawn to this

comment
“Well, as Paypal and Facebook co-founder and investor, Thiel had no use of patents
He should try to invest in tech startups which develop something actually useful to people 🙂 (something like Dyson vacuums or Segways or VR headsets etc etc)
I am not saying that Paypal is useless or bad (aside from the fact that any smart 12-year old can open a paypal account and abuse Ebay – I had a BIG problem with that a few years back) – but it’s trivial, it would have come in one form or another regardless of Peter Thiel or Elon Musk
Bottom line: if you feel that you invented some unique and commercially viable technology you will not publicly share it with others unless there is at least some promise of eventual reward for your efforts”

It is interesting to note that Elon Musk and others who can afford it operate based on trade secrets to avoid publishing patents. I think that set know the system is flawed and needs to side with the creators.

He pointed out he might as well send them to China personally, which highlights the problem with fraud and infringement, essentially theft.

We need to stop basing STEM on the assumptions of Communism.
R&D is expensive into trillions, none of those people will work for free to see someone else profiteer. Capitalism comes from ‘to capitalize’, a VERB.

STEM is not academia, these people can’t be bribed into the public sector and don’t really care about a public that insults them.

Either you own what you make, whether it’s a widget or the blue of the widget, or property rights have exceptions depending on your line of work, which is silly when the huge megacorps are throwing their weight around on owning rounded corners.

https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/

But what is patent infringement, if not theft? Inventions are property AND the first object of government is to protect them. So said America’s founders. All such court decisions relegate inventions to second class property, at best, and encourage if not legalize their theft. Does America need another war of independence…from SCOTUS? These are the sort of decisions that make a growing number of Americans believe appeals in patent cases to SCOTUS should be ended. Do they know what they are doing? Has the court become a safe harbor for thieves? They show no respect for or even recognition of property rights.

Those who bribe the politicians want to weaken the underdog, the capitalist competition that might overtake them.

All these decisions do is make it easier for our much larger competitors to rob and crush us. Show us a country with weak or ineffective property rights and we’ll show you a country with high unemployment and a weak economy. Congress must now act to restore property rights in America. When thieves win America loses.”

Most of the thieves operate from Asia, especially China.
The Western governments do not care. Then they cry out in horror when STEM progress decays.

The journalists opposing patents never want to forsake their own IP, the copyright, which is unfairly granted automatically.

Link: Overselling Patriarchy

It isn’t the All Man dominate All Womankind scenario the feminists try to paint, it’s a complex system of traditional social exchanges for the mutual benefit of most, if not all. The people who go with the SJW Woman’s-Only Apocalypse view aren’t selling Patriarchy at all, much like atheists who try to flaunt it as an anti-belief belief system. Oxymorons. There’s a reason we conceive government as a man and justice as a woman. Both sexes are needed to bring balance to the Force, whether you think it’s divine or evolution.

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/03/overselling-patriarchy.html#more

A portion of the Alt Right continues to believe in these ad hoc virtues. And many of these ad hoc virtues are true, just not true enough to justify Patriarchy. Let us look at few examples:

Women are so much less rational than men that, for the good of society, they should be denied all political and economic power.

Don’t be such a drama queen! I agree that, on average, men have slightly more logical minds than women. Researchers are divided on the existence of gender differences in intelligence, but even those who support the notion that men are smarter find that the gap is no more than 5 IQ points.

My God the man knows his stuff.

Such a pleasant change.

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

So what? Is the plan to confine all social and political power to the smartest 1%? Then why discriminate based on sex? Why not just ask prospective voters to take an IQ test or solve a Sudoku puzzle?

Bravo and good tidings

That would a meritocracy, Sir. They don’t want that. They want to punch down as males, terrified of other men, and in their mind, that means rhetorically punching down at women. They’re a male supremacy movement as vapid as the feminists. Besides, they’re the first to complain women succeeding in any form of academia are useless in the real-world, and IQ is an academic measure of intellect. It has little real-world value, few billionaires and businessmen would score well. Like any test, it implicitly tests for the ability to sit down, shut up, passively take in information and regurgitate it. I don’t think we require that in more political leaders, thank you.

Discrimination based on anything other than merit is wrong. They’ve thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Merit is such a flexible metric it applies to any situation.

It is true that men are over-represented at both the high- and low-ends of cognitive ability, but again, the difference is nothing compared to the racial gap.

hallelujah

That’s all I ever wanted on this topic, a simple admission of the comparative data. Yes, there are sex differences, I’m first to admit, but those are as nothing compared to race, as you’d logically presume since autosomes outnumber sex chromosomes. I’ve heard people trying to pass themselves off as Alt Right deny this evidence as a terrible case of racism (really, just like the SJWs). The male/female divide can be accounted for by error or chance. The racial divide is so crystal cut (localized evolution ftw), that if you don’t believe in it, you cannot have understood the data. Pointing and shrieking about the exceptions like a White Knight is an error too, because group patterns don’t apply to individual cases. Judging individuals based on group membership conclusively is doomed from the start, it isn’t open-minded or scientific. But when women (like myself) tried to point out that it is, for instance, merely possible for a random woman to be high IQ (because the data says so) I got shouted down, when I was pointing out a logical fallacy and the fact outliers exist. Anyone making conclusive value judgements (and being the closed-minded type of judgemental) about a huge group with such wide variance is an idiot. Prejudice is useful for limited predictions, for groups, and they’re never conclusive, however, when you have case-specific information, that is primary and the rest of the group is meaningless, unless you’re a literal bigot and see the nominal group as something inherently shameful (sex, race, pick a poison to harp about), whatever merit (or other dominant factor) you claim to care about.

I would quote more but I’d feel bad keeping the traffic.
As for intellectual curiosity, it’s almost impossible to define. What most people assume, the learning of random facts as a mode of procrastination, is not it. It’s a trade-off between curiosity and perseverance. Like an RPG, nobody has maxed out all their levels.

Some comments intelligently go into the SJW (Cultural Marxist) tactic of Divide and Conquer. If you wanted to weaken and kill white men (Western Civ’s Patriarchs) who would you divide him against? His women of course! And then he’ll commit cultural (women hold the moral standard) and genetic suicide! Total obliteration. Accusations of White Knighting are common but nobody is saying to defend the outgroup, it defines ingroup in genetic terms (for life, mother AND father, and a future) rather than lesser identity politics (distractions). You don’t have to defend anyone, but everybody will remember the male cowards, who they are and they won’t be flooded by offers once this is over, put it that way. Men used to wish for moments to prove their valour and today’s Metrosexual Male Chickens–ts scurry away like Pajama Boys as if taking a punch is a fate worse than death. Women are attracted to men who protect them, as they keep reminding us yet refusing to act upon, saying it’s …weak (how Orwellian, strength is weak). Arm the women then, if you’re too scared to perform your precious gender role, and we might have a hope in Hell of defending ourselves.

This comment was gold and I reproduce it in full hoping the author will forgive me.

No no, this is all wrong – we’re supposed to blame girls for all of our problems. It wasn’t the jews who ruined us, it was the mean ol’ girls, including those yet to be born. Some people don’t know this, but George Soros is actually a white girl in an elaborate disguise. Tim Wise is also a mean ol’ white girl. All of the great villains and traitors of Western history were actually white girls, like Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Morganthau and Lazar Kaganovich. Hollywood, the porn industry, and global finance are all in the tight grip of these horrible white girls. Clearly, the men of every race should unite and stand as one against white girls. We should join forces with turks, negroes, chinamen, jews, hindus and homosexuals against these infernal white girls.

There have been some suggestions that we follow our own cultural traditions with regard to gender roles and relations. These people have gone so far as to suggest that we show kindness toward women, and that we should protect them from rape and abuse by foreigners. These people are called white knights and cock-blockers. Anglo-Saxon culture is especially white-knighty and we should discard it for the much better traditions of sub-saharan Africa. Africans know a woman’s place: to be a beast of burden, duh! Negroes are such alpha-males, they know what life is all about – muh dick.

As we all know, young white girls are notorious time-travelers; they like to slip into time machines and travel back to the 1960’s where they conspire with radical feminists to destabilize Western culture. It’s only logical, therefore, that we hold these treacherous time-travelers responsible for the damage that feminism has caused. And don’t do anything stupid like fall in love with a pretty girl, marry her and make a bunch of cherubic little blue-eyed babies. That’s beta-male stuff. No, if you have to deal with beastly females, make sure it’s an oriental; unlike mean ol’ white girls, these chinese types don’t have any feministy hangups and will gratefully accept sexual advances from any quarter, the way it should be.

The key feminists and SJWs aren’t white, they’re Jewish.
Will the ever-logical ‘men’ admit this? Nope. It requires decisive action, that’s too masculine for them.
Continue to deny the data, and be comfy in your little safe space where wimminz are the evil. I think those misogynists are so virulent because the (naturally more attractive) white women reject them.

Aspergers (and other autism) is NOT genius

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-relationship-between-aspergers.html

Clinically, Asperger’s doesn’t even exist anymore. It was removed from the DSM-V and subsumed under the Other category. Most autistics are not geniuses (pop culture myth) and further, savants (what most people mean) don’t need to have a mental illness. Some are genetic, some are accidental. The autistic savants are easier to spot.

Universities filter for the precocious, and I believe this is a core reason we don’t see geniuses in academia anymore (plus the excessively long training times, stifling environment, low wages like a slave and the expectation of hoop jumping like a prize dog).

A lot of reddit morons go around bragging about their Asperger’s because they believe it equates to genius. Don’t bother uttering the words ‘false equivalence’.

Academic genius (Binet IQ) doesn’t necessarily mean jack either. It’s about what you do with it. If you sit on your arse doing nothing and playing video games, you might as well be retarded. Creative genius is what people praise, not a G score on a piece of paper. They see it as a license to be lazy. More fool them.

On the other hand, most people with Asperger’s syndrome are not geniuses (not even partial or potential geniuses), even when they have exceptionally high intelligence – because they lack the intuitive style of thinking which is vital for real creativity.

In my experience, real genius has a drive, a grit and resilience toward their subject/s.
Motivation is not a problem for them. Ever. As one told me: I have found my life’s calling, why would I want to do anything else? 

Einstein wrote widely on intuition in science but don’t expect the supposed rationalists to listen from pride. They see it as a girly thing.

They are not anti-social either. The party-hard model of modernity is unnatural. They don’t buy into it. At most, they are asocial, they can do without, unless they’re selective. It’s a choice.

A genius is one whose main focus and motivation is not social, nor sexual; but instead abstract, asocial – whether artistic, scientific, technical, or whatever it may be.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-genius-famine-book-online-excerpts.html

Always happy to plug great work.

Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god. ~ Aristotle

Get over it, Genius is genetic (mostly at least)

article

But what exactly is it that makes great artists?

Painting something real?

Exceptional individuals are made, not born. At least, one could be forgiven for thinking this was the case given the statements made by K. Anders Ericsson and colleagues. …

The “10,000 hours” theory propagated by these authors and others—in which it was claimed that expert performers only really differ from non-experts in the total number of hours for which they have practiced (and to be exceptional, 10,000 hours is minimal)—has captured the imagination not only of the public, but also the scientific community. The paper in which the claims were originally made has been cited over 1,500 times. Many otherwise clear-thinking scientists have cited the theory without reference to the myriad criticisms that have appeared since.

Such criticisms have come to a head recently, in what is a clear swing of the proverbial pendulum away from “10,000 hours” and back towards “hereditary genius. A special issue of the journal Intelligence was recently dedicated to discussion of talent and practice, and in particular, to consideration of Ericsson and colleagues’ claims (Ericsson has written a response). Particularly damning evidence against “10,000 hours” comes from one paper in the special issue, on the study of child prodigies who cannot possibly have practiced for such extended periods, but nonetheless show incredible feats of, for example, musical ability. …

A beautiful recent paper by Zach Hambrick and Elliot Tucker-Drob shed even more light on the genetic and environmental origins of talent. Examining musical talent in a sample of twins, they showed, first, that musical accomplishments (including winning prizes for musical ability or performing in a professional orchestra) were, on average, 26 percent heritable (that is, 26 percent of the variation in accomplishments in the sample was explained by genetic differences). Second, they showed that the frequency of engaging in music practice was even more strongly influenced by genes: it was 38 percent heritable. Most interestingly, though, they found evidence for gene-by-environment interaction. Splitting the sample into those who did and did not practice, they showed that there was a far larger genetic contribution to the variance (59 percent) in accomplishment among those who regularly practiced than those who did not (1 percent). The practice, then, was the canvas on which the genes were painted.

In a world in which everyone had the same instruction, the same practice, and the same experiences, we should still expect large, genetically-influenced differences in achievement.

I may appear smug, in fact that's just the sound of maths rushing through my mind

Admittedly, the psychological literature contains few studies of the type discussed here that address playwrights or painters. Nor, naturally, can it study individual masters such as Shakespeare or Vermeer, preferring to focus on garden-variety experts and exceptional performers rather than true one-offs. [DS: real work] Nevertheless, since the “10,000 hours” theory turns out to be an extraordinary popular delusion for each of the domains yet studied, there is good reason to give short shrift to accounts that glibly emphasize the making of expertise at the expense of its inherited nature.

Conclusion

The public fascination with ideas like the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the Hockney-Falco thesis and the “10,000 hours” theory is evidence of a strange doublethink: even as we lionize the achievements and creativity of great geniuses, we secretly wish them brought down to our level, and revel in sublunary theories that purport to expose their secrets and crutches. But the psychological literature shows that to write off genius as only experience, trickery, or hard graft is to miss the critical—though still largely mysterious—contribution of innate talent, acting via one’s genetic endowment, to creative achievement. One can only hope that the new wave of psychological research on talent, pushing back as it does against “practice-only” accounts, will allow us to make real progress in understanding this most mercurial of human faculties.

The entire article is good, I just quoted the research dense parts.

Game Theory: Rock Paper Scissors

I came across a theory of Rock, Paper, Scissors I think it prudent to share.

  1. Rock: Power, brute force

    Littlefinger would own you at Rock Paper Scissors

    Weakness: dissolution of size and reduction of intensity.

  2. Paper: Money, covert force

    What happens to people who suddenly land a windfall

    Weakness: flexible personalized trickery to impose harsh limits on their gains.

  3. Scissors: Intellect, adaptive force

    Cutting remarks are the forte of the intellectual badass

    Weakness: arrogance of believing a quick cognitive reflex compensates for a strong standing or presence where physical limits are imposed.

This analysis of weaknesses explains the puzzled reaction to the rule that Paper beats Rock. Ideas carry a power all their own and the fractional fiat currency is a very big idea, isn’t it?

I could take the easy route and spout platitudes over old misquoted sayings… For the record, it is absolute power that corrupts absolutely, the love of money (above virtue) which is the Biblical root of all evil and there are no good quotes about intellect which don’t end in accusations of madness. Sherlock Holmes’ “I am a brain” is the closest, purist quote in circulation.

You could read into which is better but it depends largely on the cause of the problem and one’s personal strengths in approach. Intelligent people develop their minds at the expense of other abilities, powerful people develop into tyrannical brutes if given all they desire and we know the ways having money and holding it for a legacy can go wrong by idiom. Truth be told, there is a place for them all, and the wise person would build a passing familiarity with their weakest techniques and least preferable tactics for the much the same reason we’ve each done fire drills in the early hours.

Games are generally an exertion of adversarial forces intended to mimic war. Hence, chess is considered the Ultimate Game. It is deceptively simple, compared to point-and-press FPS fantasylands with unlimited ammo. If you lose your King, game over.

I like the idea of apparently ‘nice’ child games like RPS containing hidden significance.