Video: Islamic inventions

Check out Islamophilia.

The virus is so two-faced and patronising. Well, infantilizing is the literal term.
>”I invented everything!”
>”Of course you did, baby!”

It’s trendy to pick on Afrocentrism.
But to be truly on the edge, Islamocentrism.
Because stealing Greek manuscripts is the same as writing them.

Even IF.

IF.

That were true.

What the fuck happened?

Why is Islamic Dark Ages a term? Not during the European Middle ages, I mean the cultural shift to ignorance way beforehand.

Why do you resist reformation and basic science, like the earth revolving around the sun?

What have all your geniuses been doing for centuries (when you didn’t murder them on record) for over a millennium?

Why did white people have to invent the Scientific Method? NW Europeans, not even all white people!

Where were you?

Why do you still have Third World problems? Couldn’t your people have fixed these?

Why did you lose when we finally fought back against conquest in the Crusades?

Why did so many empires fall?

Why do you rely on the evil West for primitive 101 things like water supply?

Bestiality? At the very least, less incest. Not eradication, look at our Queen marrying her cousin, just less.

What’s the deal with the very current phenomena of child rape? Even little boys?

Where’s the self control in your young men?

 

You can’t take a culture that values lying and expect it to be intellectually honest.

A scientific society isn’t just something you can claim. It shows.

Where is the IQ data?

Video: Dunning-Kruger

FFS.

Conformity, signalling and confidence itself have nothing to do with this effect.
I love how the video itself misexplains. You can look up the papers.

It’s 2 things – 1. lower IQ assuming everyone is their level. The more quant side. The big find you cannot deny.
2. People inept on a task assuming it must be easy or they can already do it. Example: scrutiny or being good at sex.

This effect is an impersonal test of ability and specifically performance. Self-report differs, but it always does. To some extent people need to be delusional or depressive realism kicks in. The problem is the depth and extent to which is impacts anything else, including memory.
Stupid people have false memories of what smarties said BECAUSE they didn’t understand them.
That is the big take.
They suck on IQ in part because they cannot interpret the question. This is why tests exist. Again, this is why the testing concept exists.
Deep down, they suspect this, and THAT is why they do not link (like this video does not link to a single fucking thing).
It works in reverse, they think they can communicate, a performance task, when they objectively cannot.
The distance of subjective and objective performance is easier to garner on more objective topics and skills.
These types of video stop at wikipedia, and do not link any papers. I won’t because I’ve read so many and each concludes something subtly different. Yet they didn’t link a single thing and had no reason not to. It’s hilarious.
This is like the Schrodinger’s Cat of psychology, basically almost everyone gets it wrong for personal reasons – a false performance which proves the effect. Acting like you get it – and you never read the paper, any paper. Never genuinely understanding something. This is the scary part, most of the talkers know nothing about the subject and their sentences are taken as valid opinions.
I don’t blame normal people for this effect, average 100 IQ-ers. It also involves a lesser known ‘cognitive dissonance’, the two are often mentioned in tandem by scholars who know. *cough cough*
Humility is punished as stupidity, so the average, feeling the distance and squeezed in the middle, pinched by category, will usually arrogantly feign, hoping to wing it. The winging it they know, although this disconnects to their knowledge that isn’t -knowledge on the topic. Later, they misremember, false memories are yet another topic and these are highly related but distinct, no wonder normal people can’t cite them.
Misconceptions are not lies, lying to third parties is still a lie and they chose never to check, there’s no cover for that.

They’re bluffing, the bad boss who can’t do their own work for example.

Referencing my first point, low IQ people have shitty metacognition. They don’t know, but they don’t know that. They cannot argue for this reason, especially with a person who has new and scary opinions. They can never be controversial and basically marry the ‘accepted’ and ‘settled’ information in a society. They have no weapon to draw and you can see by some rude comments where this comes in here. Their ego is attached to appearing to people, a way other people have never perceived them. It’s funny because they assume everyone is stupid as they are, another assumption of shitty metacognition that can’t properly read other people either. Hence stupid people online are confused for autistic, the autistic too have shitacular metacognition.

They can’t think and they don’t know what to think.

They pretend they definitely know what they think.

What to do, apart from read around every angle and the original science articles where available?
Note: 99/100, a newspaper will not link to the original science journal paper. They don’t want you to know the truth and possibly disagree with them.

By comparison, I rarely use myself as an authority unless I’m giving a firm opinion. I mean, that’s why you’re here, my take.
I ask a lot of questions. This implies I do not know.
I allow comments that insult me and provide new information. No bubble. The bitchy ones embarrass themselves.
There is a range of references, from other blogs to newspapers to journals.
I do not hide resources I disagree with, on the contrary, I want people to read them, safe in the knowledge other intelligent people will see what I did. Plus it’s fun to mock.
I link papers but not too much.
Nobody’s going to read 200+ links.

Be realistic.

It’s ok to say you dunno.

What cultural appropriation?

That’s so disrespectful.

She was a monarch and she was murdered.

What’s next, Diana?

You gonna open with a slow-mo car crash?

American trash whore bloggers, plugging their shitty products (always the same dozen or so brands) and abusing our history to do it. These girls always trowel it on to hide their hideous real features as well, especially the nose. But they’re too vain to suck it up like the Jewish girls and get a nosejob. Sure, fine, lecture us on ‘real beauty’ from behind 17 layers of silicon….

Meanwhile, here’s what Marie really looked like.

Wear all the makeup in the world, you’ll never be 1% as naturally alluring as this woman.
Kills you, don’t it? If white women are so flawed, why u constantly trying to look like us, dress like us and name your kids like us?

This tart up top isn’t fit to lick the Queen’s boots, this is completely abhorrent to anyone who reads.
Marie and her husband weren’t actually responsible for the French Revolution, it was Louis XV and his debauchery. He was initially called The Beloved but reviled by the time he died, as people found out what a degenerate manwhore he was. Everyone despised him. Among his many crimes against morality was to kidnap nubile daughters, almost always against the parents’ will, have them locked up- and rape them.
http://world4.eu/madame-de-pompadour-political-power-general-influence/

“The foundation of that infamous establishment where Louis XV kept young girls, whom he had in many instances caused to be forcibly taken from their parents…”

You wanna talk about rape culture?
Dissolute monarchs completely deserved the block.
Marie is mentioned at the end. She never wanted to be Queen. Back up, hoe.

Do a French-inspired look, fine, we don’t give a shit. We can just laugh when you fuck it up because Europeans don’t use a fifth of the makeup of parvenu Nouveau-Americans.
Do not perpetuate lies about good people. Have you Americans lost all respect for the dead?
Looking at the way you treat statues (you might as well dig up dead bodies like we did Cromwell, ‘cept he deserved it) I’m thinking so.

Why do non-whites think it’s OK to rip off our history?

And who in their right mind wants cornrows and tacky patterns anyway?
You have yours, we have ours. That was the deal.

The whole Princess culture is strictly European, other cultures might’ve borrowed it but the closest is the Empress system of Asia or perhaps the geisha (who were prostitutes, the world is laughing at you if you imitate that).

It’s a repetitive thing where they lie with their camera and lighting choice and STILL dial up the contrast until they look white. I was shocked when the camera tracked on her real face, and that’s minus just the thick cack-handed makeup.

Warning: cack-handed makeup is always ugly makeup.

BTW, those white phenotype contacts lenses are always creepy.

Always.

Asian and black girls keep brushing on freckles now too.

Oh, so it’s fine for everyone else to racebend?

WTH.

I have another post I mostly wrote where I go into what’s really wrong with the ‘beauty community’, namely that men are allowed to dictate to women how we should look, what is feminine today: that we should look like men trying to be women.

However, a second and almost equally virulent issue is ripping off various ‘influences’ and acting like it’s okay to cosplay real, dead people. These people would reee if we pointed out Beyonce’s talentless thunder thighs but apparently they can rob the dead for cosmetic tips but there’s no equality.

???

Like, we are (free) to buy fake tan, but not (free) to buy skin lighteners in the West.

They’re allowed to be sold to non-whites though, who don’t actually need them for medical reasons, unlike white people. We’re allowed brighteners, which are close but don’t really work on white skin.

Anyone racebending looks stupid.

Anyone.

You cannot look a different race.

It’s forensic, you cheap-looking slappers.

Update: This girl isn’t even attractive by the standards of her own race/country.

She’s no Nutan.

Traitors gonna trait

This is why you don’t trust r-types pretending to be right wing or neutral in a clearly sided political conflict.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right
They’ll always stab you in the back for personal gain.
They didn’t study SJWs because they only want to pathologize one side. Communists have a known history of doing this, Lenin in particular.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5940212/how-the-soviets-used-their-own-twisted-version-of-psychiatry-to-suppress-political-dissent

see also Legacy of Soviet Dissent, by  Robert Horvath.

And who answers a political survey honestly? If anyone asks me, I always claim to be a Communist who attends global warming marches and Gay Pride. The worst part is, I can convince myself.
Most people troll these things, it’s the same way polls are basically lies now.
The Alt Lite / Alt Light / whatever is signalling for edge points, are after money. They’re shills for anyone with shekels.
I wonder who has the most money?

“Recently, psychologists Patrick Forscher and Nour Kteily recruited members of the alt-right to participate in a study to build the first psychological profile of their movement.

You were played.

“So while it is a preliminary assessment, it validates some common perceptions of the alt-right with data. It helps us understand this group not just as straw men but as people with knowable motivations.”

You’ve handed the enemy publishable strawman results.
You can’t outplay someone who is literally writing the results. They’re worse than journalists, I know.
They have data to point to now, thanks to these people.

” It’s a convenience sample of alt-righters on the internet who were willing to take a survey for a small cash reward.”

And people who didn’t know a trap when they saw one, tried to out-edge and troll in a scientific ‘hit’ piece or were plain paid to lie and pretend to be the most stereotypical neo-Nazi larper fag possible.

Excellent.

Who are these researchers?

Patrick Forscher
http://www.sciencecox.com/pub?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1
wrote a paper on “breaking the prejudice habit”… sounds completely neutral to me.
It’s instructive to see where a person’s work is mentioned.
http://www.academia.edu/9144015/Stereotypes_prejudice_and_depression_The_integrated_perspective
Here’s his page
https://sites.google.com/site/devinesocialpsych/patrick-schnarrenberger
“My research concerns the causes of disparities between social groups. I am investigating the antecedents of these disparities, such as intentional and unintentional bias, and whether changing these antecedents can help eliminate the disparities.”

translation: I want to brainwash everyone into liking everyone else. Personal safety or evolution be damned! Let’s play god!
So much for human right to freedom of association and freedom of thought. What about freedom of emotion?

papers
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lEXTftIAAAAJ&hl=en
Paper here: “A Meta-Analysis of Change in Implicit Bias July 1, 2017”
https://osf.io/b5m97/download
Yes, I can find basically anything on the internet.

A key mention
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/so-it-turns-out-implicit-bias-as-measured-does-not-predict-behavior.html
that won’t be.

Bias doesn’t mean shit because it doesn’t predict behaviour.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230881880_Foxhole_Atheism_Revisited_The_Effects_of_Mortality_Salience_on_Explicit_and_Implicit_Religious_Belief

Implicit bias paper linked on that page.

From this latest paper, this image made me laugh.


It’s completely inaccurate to the alt right, or to neo-Nazis or even to actual Nazis in the 40s.
You wouldn’t actually know that as a neutral reader.
I wonder who funded this paper.
These people do nothing without money.
Let’s see the other one.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=b2S9a0gAAAAJ
Lead author on “The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Dehumanization.”

“Not One of Us” Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to Ambiguous Targets”
The irony.

How can there be an outgroup if you aren’t allowed to deny what other people tell you because your own lying eyes say different?

“They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization.”
Is religious war reciprocal?
I had no idea.

“Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression”

This year: “Backlash: The Politics and Real-World Consequences of Minority Group Dehumanization”
No political motive whatsoever.

Texts here https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nour_Kteily

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-consequences-anti-muslim-anti-mexican-attitudes-actions.html
That picture you’ll see a lot of?

“In the study, the authors presented American participants with the popular ‘Ascent of Man’ diagram, and had each participant place groups of people where they thought they belonged on this scale, from the ape-like human ancestor (0) through modern human (100).”

That isn’t even a methodology, it’s totally and completely biased to ask participants to arrange people [italics] then gaslight them about doing what you ordered. Milgram and experimenter trust?

And Ascent of Man is pure Darwin, they are implicitly denying evolution.

I’m gonna get a lot of use out of that GIF.

Thanks, anti-science crowd! It stopped at the neck, didn’t it? Sure it did.

Don’t tell them about the oxytocin findings, chemistry and biology scares them because there’s no spin.

They basically endorse the You deserve it! line on terrorism.

If we use rhetoric and enact policies that make Muslims feel dehumanized, this may lead them to support exactly the types of aggression that reinforce the perception that they are ‘less civilized’ than ‘us.’ In this way, dehumanization can become self-fulfilling in the minds of the dehumanizers and justify their aggression,” Bruneau says.”

When Muslims kill white people, victim blaming is not only OK, but encouraged!
Forget how they kill a bunch of non-whites too!

Logically, if the aggression is there first, it wasn’t caused externally, merely provoked.
OR if provoked, it proves they aren’t the same, they harbour violent intentions. If the behaviour predicted is accurate to the behaviour demonstrated, they were proven correct to distrust the violent group who literally wants to kill them.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/14302019/ThomsenObaidiSheehy-SkeffingtonKteilySidaniusSubmitted-libre.pdf?sequence=2

“Individual differences in relational motives interact with the political context to produce terrorism and terrorism-support

This one IS interesting….
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181422

“The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare”
So it is warfare-specific, they acknowledge?

I’m bored, you find more.

Worse than a PR scare, from Vox;

Once we understand the psychological motivations behind the alt-right worldview, maybe we can learn to stop it.

They literally want to use state power to crush not only you, but also your worldview.
And you handed them the keys to the guard tower? You gave them an excuse to claim to speak on your behalf?

This survey is just a first step in that direction.

“One of the biggest reasons I wanted to do this in the first place was to find some leverage points for change,” Forscher says.

They’re not even hiding it!

They’re also trying the obvious tactic of conflating white political interests with wanting anything to do with anyone else.
Thanks, yokels.
America ruins everything.
THE ETERNAL YANK.