Why the low IQ and useless disrespect the high IQ (and useful) as “lazy”.
They cannot imagine what they can’t see.
It’s called work for a reason.
There is genuine corruption but they don’t produce, but steal.
Why the low IQ and useless disrespect the high IQ (and useful) as “lazy”.
They cannot imagine what they can’t see.
It’s called work for a reason.
There is genuine corruption but they don’t produce, but steal.
They wanted money?
In other news:
They want to control your curiosity. Part of the mentacide protocol.
Dya have a license to search for the holodomor?
But curiosity has also been associated with characteristics that reflect risk taking, stress tolerance and thrill seeking. This is how curiosity got its bad wrap as a mortal danger to felines.
They’re trying to replicate white characteristics so they can replace white people.
Doesn’t work – the genome is one whole thing, even junk DNA affects the rest.
We all know some people tend to be more curious than others. Supporting this, research shows some individuals experience curiosity more frequently or intensely than others. But is curiosity as a personality trait just a level of degree—more versus less?
They know it’s connected to IQ.
Everyone knows at this point.
Epistemic curiosity has been widely researched. This describes a person’s desire to acquire new information—such as facts, concepts or ideas—and bridge any gaps in their knowledge.
God forbid people seek out their own information and fact-check you asshats instead of blinding swallowing your shit.
Hey, didn’t you a-holes say “educate yourselves”?
I know it was a master-suppression technique but Ys and Zoomers actually listened.
People who show perceptual curiosity, on the other hand, try to maximise the sensory information they take in—like your friend who can’t stop looking around at anything and everything.
That’s called bad parenting. It’s connected to low IQ. That is perverting the definition of curiosity.
Curiosity = need for cognition.
This research can help us to understand how we can better harness curiosity in the real world, such as in work and educational settings.
Imagine your boss dialing up your arousal at work like a fucking thermostat.
Gaining knowledge in this way would be very different from just delivering a set teaching material.
Trying to cover IQ range differences in school, eh?
Maybe another century of pretending that works, might work?
If the teachers are so lazy, replace them with robots.
Current research has shown that the effects of curiosity on learning are even stronger for children from families with a low socioeconomic status.
Idiots are less likely to zone out if you jangle keys, can confirm.
“The fornix is part of the limbic system.”
So it’s an r/K thing.
Need for Cognition, Intelligence, and Aging
This study examined the constructs of need for cognition and intelligence (using the constituent
crystallized and fluid abilities that comprise overall intelligence) in relation to one another and over aging. Fifty young-old adults (54-69 years old) and 55 old-old adults (70-92 years old) were tested on a variety of measures, of which need for cognition, digit symbol (a measure of fluid intelligence), and vocabulary (a test of crystallized intelligence) were identified as outcome variables. The results suggest that need for cognition is significantly correlated to crystallized intelligence, need for cognition remains stable over aging, and fluid intelligence is best predicted by age.
They want to brainwash your kids out of all instincts for self-preservation.
“The study, led by Professor Elinor McKone, examined the “other-race effect,” a phenomenon
they made up
noticing things means you brain is WORKING
in which people have difficulty telling apart individuals of a different race to their own.”
This is why you don’t go on Third World foreign holidays, btw.
Unless you want them going off age 18 and turning up dead in Thailand with their false sense of security finally burst.
Kids need more bonding time with BOTH parents (no deadbeat dads), the oxytocin will offset the propaganda.
“The other-race effect can have serious real-world consequences,” Dr. Dawel said.
“For example, inaccurate cross-race eyewitness testimony has contributed to wrongful criminal convictions, passport misidentifications and even magazines mistakenly illustrating stories with a picture of the wrong person.”
That isn’t serious so they’re lying.
The team is now working on developing new training methods to reduce the other-race effect in adulthood.
That doesn’t sound ominous at all.
They’re still only studying the women. Like women self-impregnate.
Can’t have the guys knowing all the DNA damage of soy, wheatgrass, HGH, etc.
Look at diet and bone marrow, duh.
Humans never admit they wronged another species.
Some argue that before they were replaced, Neandertals had cultural capabilities similar to modern humans, while others argue that these similarities only appear once modern humans came into contact with Neandertals.
Better than ‘humans’ of the time, clearly.
“Lissoirs like these are a great tool for working leather, so much so that 50 thousand years after Neandertals made these, I was able to purchase a new one on the Internet from a site selling tools for traditional crafts,” says Soressi. “It shows that this tool was so efficient that it had been maintained through time with almost no change. It might be one or perhaps even the only heritage from Neandertal times that our society is still using today.”
They know we non-Africans have their genes, they hope we don’t know.
Maybe human genius is just higher percentages of Neanderthal. It would explain NW Europe’s incredible ingenuity and science, even compared to other Whites.
Haven’t you wondered why they want your DNA? (Before whites die out, ofc).
And the companies privately researching never find/report Neanderthal DNA, unlike real geneticists?
You know how they acted like this is a vague finding?
Left until right at the end, where only nerds read:
The results place the Pech-de-l’Azé I bone tool to approximately 50 thousand years ago.
This is well before the best evidence of modern humans in Western Europe, and it is much older than any other examples of sophisticated bone tool technologies.
Negative evidence of ‘human’ superiority.
“Education is wasted on the lazy and stupid, and they’re the same people. That’s Dunning-Kruger. They’re blind to what they’re missing because they’re missing it!”
“If someone works harder than you, they deserve to beat you! Add up hours studied and you’ll find female (and male) conscientiousness isn’t bias, they activate with their IQ the traits which help them. The guy or girl “winging it” the night before deserves to fail*. Low IQ don’t have the IQ to know what they’re NOT doing! That isn’t everyone else’s fault! If there are systemic forces against men in some fields, the same must be true of women in other fields because that is how systems work, ya dummies!”
“..It just so happens by nature that there are more lazy men! So yeah, they fail! Confound!
You’re supposed to control for prevalence without ignoring the population. It’s like the IQ studies conducted by men that exclude stupid, lower class men to push the middle-class male genius narrative because the former dwarfs the latter mathematically if they don’t rig it.
(They also don’t control for education and class because they’re faking, like saying ugly people are intelligent in spite of correlations).
Another example of ignoring half: promiscuity/divorce risk studies that never look at men. That is scientism, like ignoring cooling data. They have looked but refuse to publish because it hurt their feelings. I’d like to see an atheist/divorce risk study.
You cannot ignore the left half of the bell curve, men overpopulate it!
Muh Bell Curve (ignores 50%).
They’ve simply never survived in these numbers before because responsibility is the new leprosy in a decadent West. It makes a lot of sense actually. No prior society (that didn’t collapse) ever had to tolerate this much stupid and it shows.”
I decided to drag up a study or two for the idiots who’d dispute it.
First, look at the materials put out to businesses.
“Of the five main personality factors, Conscientiousness has been shown to be the most consistent, significant predictor of workplace performance.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 For example, meta-analyses on the prediction of job performance from personality dimensions have demonstrated that broad measures of Conscientiousness predict overall job performance,15, 16 even controlling for cognitive ability.17, 18
AKA you can’t cry sexism, conscientious men (like Christians) do fine. Actually, that might be why. There are plenty of conscientious men so it isn’t an exclusive thing, the averages only vary slightly.
In addition to overall job performance, broad measures of Conscientiousness have been shown to predict a number of other valued workplace behaviors, such as organizational citizenship 19, 20 and leadership 21
as well as undesirable behaviors such as procrastination, 22 to name a few.
Conscientiousness is the best noncognitive predictor of performance across a wide variety of job types and work outcomes.”
NON COGNITIVE PREDICTOR OF PERFORMANCE.
Mr “Emotional Intelligence isn’t real”.
You have emotions. You have intelligence. You have an EI score, like it or not.
“17 Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational
psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272–290.
18 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262]”
“we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five‐factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.”
reference B, 85 years of research
This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and Ihe 18 other selection procedures.
Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed.
And when you look for a genetic connection ‘cos genes, like hips, don’t lie.
“The heritability of conscientiousness facets and their relationship to IQ and academic achievement”
“Our findings confirmed positive associations between IQ and the facets of Competence and Dutifulness (ranging 0.11–0.27), with academic achievement showing correlations of 0.27 and 0.15 with these same facets and 0.15 with Deliberation. All conscientiousness facets were influenced by genes (broad sense heritabilities ranging 0.18–0.49) “
Whew, up to 50%!
The idea of a smart douchebag is a myth to keep them appeased, or at best, they’re only mildly above average (1-2SD), true genius can cooperate (and self-regulate) but idiots can’t perceive anyone above them.
Your IQ isn’t an excuse to be antisocial.
Remember, in 1984, old books were illegal.
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.
It smells like tea and doubt.
You don’t really hear men online look for data.
Why? They’re dumb enough to assume their opinion = fact.
In evobio, for example, if you actually look, women are likelier to be good at say, spatial intelligence.*
And remembering where they left the baby.
And obvious chick stuff like cave painting.
It’s simple enough to test.
The cognitive performance of normal men and women was studied, grouped according to whether the subjects had relatively high or low salivary testosterone (T) concentrations. Men with lower T performed better than other groups on measures of spatial/mathematical ability, tasks at which men normally excel. Women with high T scored higher than low-T women on these same measures. T concentrations did not relate significantly to scores on tests that usually favor women or that do not typically show a sex difference. These results support suggestions of a nonlinear relationship between T concentrations and spatial ability, and demonstrate some task specificity in this respect.
This explains STEM.
Naturally both sexes have an important place in the tribe. Only Americans would be dumb enough to assert otherwise. It’s the lone wolf myth. In biology, the lone wolf dies.
And men have no excuse to perform poorly on chick subjects.
It’s mostly productive personality traits like grit and conscientiousness. Basically, the only subject where your T levels matter is as a competitive athlete.
Meatheads can’t do maths. I find it funny they think they can calculate their own testosterone supplements (clue: more = better), much favoured is the Popeye to spinach approach.
“Why are there so many women in STEM?” they bitch.
Well, when it’s a blinded, fair test, they’re literally better at the material.
*Spatial should be studied separately from mathematical.
They are different types of intelligence.
It’s kinda like conflating a false equivalence of dancing and music composition.
Similar but very different.
Human populations living during the Holocene underwent considerable microevolutionary change. It has been theorized that the transition of Holocene populations into agrarianism and urbanization brought about culture-gene co-evolution that favored via directional selection genetic variants associated with higher general cognitive ability (GCA).
aka the people who didn’t eat their seed crop lived to tell about it
To examine whether GCA might have risen during the Holocene, we compare a sample of 99 ancient Eurasian
genomes (ranging from 4.56 to 1.21 kyr BP) with a sample of 503 modern European genomes
told ya so
You wouldn’t need to keep distinguishing it if they were synonymous.
(Fst = 0.013), using three different cognitive polygenic scores (130 SNP, 9 SNP and 11 SNP). Significant differences favoring the modern genomes were found for all three polygenic scores (odds ratios = 0.92, p = 001; .81, p = 037; and .81, p = .02 respectively). These polygenic scores also outperformed the majority of scores assembled from random
evolution is directed to fitness, quelle surprise
SNPs generated via a Monte Carlo model (between 76.4% and 84.6%). Furthermore, an indication of increasing positive allele count over 3.25 kyr was found using a subsample of 66 ancient genomes (r = 0.22, pone-tailed = .04). These observations are consistent with the expectation that GCA rose during the Holocene.
To a large extent, your survival is pre-destined.
I haven’t posted about this because I presumed anyone interested would read the book.
How silly of me. You need to read something online first, right?
It’s new but there’s a lot there since emotional processing and regulation are cognitive abilities.
“Gender and race differences in EI are also meta-analyzed”
Yes, it’s totally SJW propaganda, they love looking for that stuff.
Not a day goes by, those pesky feminists don’t look for racial differences!
Did not one of you bother to look this up? I’m not even looking hard and finding great methods.
“both self-report EI and mixed EI exhibit modest yet statistically significant incremental validity (ΔR2 = .03 for self-report EI and ΔR2 = .06 for mixed EI) and large relative importance (31.3% for self-report EI and 42.8% for mixed EI) in the presence of cognitive ability and personality when predicting job satisfaction.”
You’d have to be quite stupid not to believe in EQ, it’s the technical side of what’s commonly mistaken for personality metrics. Do you not have a personality too? Do the people who “don’t believe” in IQ fail to have one?
If I dislike one MENSA member, IQ doesn’t cease to exist, I just think the person testing him should’ve tested him more.
If you can turn up your nose at meta-analyses, you must be intellectually dishonest. There’s no greater test available.
An hysterical or over-emotional person would also have a low EI/Q like the unfeeling robot, this isn’t emotionality or neuroticism. Those already exist.
If you read Daniel Goleman‘s book called, funnily enough, Emotional Intelligence, he explains many emotional difficulties men have, which lead to outcomes that are recognized and bemoaned by the same people that ignore EQ/EI (crime, divorce, suicide, depression)… male problems.
If those problems are real, the cause (low EQ/I) is also real.
Medical problem, biological cause. You’d think. So, what, are we not meant to study it? Because it might hurt some feelings? And you’re different from the SJW-types how?
“When measured as a trait, EI was more strongly associated with health ( = .34) than when it was measured as an ability ( = .17). The weighted average association with mental ( = .36) and psychosomatic health ( = .33) was higher, than the association with physical health ( = .27). Within the trait approach, the TEIQue showed the strongest association with mental health ( = .50), followed by the EQ-i ( = .44), SEIS ( = .29) and TMMS ( = .24). Furthermore, the cumulative meta-analysis indicated that this line of research has already reached sufficiency and stability. Overall, the results are encouraging regarding the value of EI as a plausible health predictor.”
Do you not have health, either?
Those numbers are too huge to ignore.
Do you not have job performance? Are those metrics made-up too?
(All metrics are made up, dummy).
“a significant correlation emerges from the data between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction”
Relates to depression.
“The results support the overall validity of EI”
What would Forbes know about economic productivity?
Emotional stability and cognitive ability? Useless! Because some guys online can’t stand the idea they might fail a test. A totally unreal test, for sissies.
It’s still your brain processing emotions so obviously it’s going to correlate highly with IQ, another metric of brain processing. (Your highly is not scientific highly).
“EI is not soft, fluffy or about wanting to be liked. Individuals who have high EI want to succeed, can control their emotions, are gregarious and have positive self-appraisals. Nothing fluffy there.”
There’s a 22% correlate with general mental ability too.
“This study used meta-analytic techniques to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and performance outcomes. A total of 69 independent studies were located that reported correlations between EI and performance or other variables such as general mental ability (GMA)”
Where’s the science?
The journals? Where they always were?
After controlling for other factors like IQ, it is still predictive of stress and life satisfaction.
Like IQ, you can improve, it’s possible to bump it.
The alexithymia men typically report is responsive to therapy, surprising no one.
“The construct of emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the individual differences in the perception, processing, regulation, and utilization of emotional information. As these differences have been shown to have a significant impact on important life outcomes (e.g., mental and physical health, work performance and social relationships), this study investigated, using a controlled experimental design, whether it is possible to increase EI. Participants of the experimental group received a brief empirically-derived EI training (four group training sessions of two hours and a half) while control participants continued to live normally. Results showed a significant increase in emotion identification and emotion management abilities in the training group. Follow-up measures after 6 months revealed that these changes were persistent. No significant change was observed in the control group. These findings suggest that EI can be improved and open new treatment avenues.”
Alexithymia, btw: “Alexithymia is defined by: difficulty identifying feelings and distinguishing between feelings”.
I’m sure that has nothing to do with emotional processing in the brain, nope!
Why would we want to help men with their mental problems, how sexist! Men don’t have feelings!
Anecdotally, women know men have low EI or EQ because whenever they ask us about something, they want us to process their emotions for them, by whining and venting and hoping we’ll do the emotional labour on their behalf. Yep, like women letting men fix their car.
Emotional labour can also be studied scientifically.
The SJWs didn’t make it up.
The skulls thing was popular so here.
So what is going on? Perhaps the derived Microcephalin allele helps us on a mental task that IQ tests fail to measure. Or perhaps it boosts intelligence in some indirect way that shows up in differences between populations but not in differences between individuals.
What would the term for that be?
The second explanation is the one favored in a recent study byWoodley et al. (2014). The authors found a high correlation (r = 0.79) between the incidence of this allele and a population’s estimated mean IQ, using a sample of 59 populations from throughout the world.
They also found a correlation with a lower incidence of infectious diseases, as measured by DALY (disability adjusted life years). They go on to argue that this allele may improve the body’s immune response to viral infections, thus enabling humans to survive in larger communities, which in turn would have selected for increased intelligence:
Hello, Mutation Load!
Come on down!
And since the brain has been proven part of the immune system since, the theory holds.
The Ice Age hypothesis in A Troublesome Inheritance appears to hold weight, the notion of tribal bonding. Altruism is only pathological if its exertion harms your genetic kin, your ingroup.
There are plenty of HBD blogs, people. Read!
Genetics? In science? What is this witchcraft! Both medical studies and hips don’t lie. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-african-american-women-diabetes-higher-er-neg.html
Turns out Africans in particular have terrible health out of the environment they evolved for.
Maybe racism has just been migration this entire time.
If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree…