Culture makes your brain better

Switch off the Top 20, switch on some Classic FM.

However, this study is poorly designed.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-04-culture-brain.html

In the case of dyslexia in particular…

ah.

You can’t draw normative assumptions from a pathological population.
This reminds me of the billionaire’s breakfast articles.

It’s well-known nowadays that dyslexia was just the old PC term for low IQ.

The new one is ADD/ADHD.

I have covered this. People have studied this. It is no longer opinion.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/adhd-add-nurture-studies-to-piss-off-the-idiots/

back to this study

Comparing illiterate individuals and adult readers highlights repeatedly just how much learning to read changes our brains. 

No, it’s a personality of the highly intelligent, who are more likely to read than the normal population.

You’re comparing above and below average, cutting out the middle.

No wonder you had a significant result!

Sampling bias, children, look for it.

On the other hand, you can also test for those traits and they have biological bases too.
Different sides of the same phenomena.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-reading-lights-up-your-mind/

back to study

According to a study by French and Spanish researchers, people who are unable or barely able to read not only find analysing sequences of letters more difficult – they have similar difficulty processing sequences of images.

Literally like a monkey.

The difference between a human and non-human primate’s brain is its “difficulty processing.” Language is symbolic. Symbolism isn’t something they’ve really evolved for, their culture is crude to show for it.

I bet they couldn’t find funding for that study. It would actually help the illiterate though. Head Start didn’t work because it assumed too much about the brains’ equality to begin with. It’s amazing how upset people get when you frankly acknowledge evolution in the broadest sense and the personal genetic one. Regarding biology cases.

Oh but Christians are the bigots.

Atavism does exist in some cases, I have linked to language studies previously and language has a genetic basis too, and some of those genes which are halted in the individual organism will code for brain function.

Brain function or destruction (noise). We shouldn’t lie to brain damage patients about what is wrong with them. It’s like telling a person in a wheelchair that they aren’t praying hard enough.

A further study in Portugal found that illiterate persons also find it harder to distinguish how an object is oriented in space—for example, a hammer depicted diagonally, where the head and handle can point in various directions.

Compare them to a chimp.

No, I’m totally serious.

Watch this thing.

Animal models are the only answer.

According to my lawyers.

Working memory is a significant component of IQ, yes. The researchers above are intentionally hiding this from the public. PC culture is killing off scientific curiosity. Asking particular questions about abnormal performance groups is considered ‘hate speech’ although it needn’t be enforced more than socially. You can’t have censorship without censoring censure. Whatever happened to let’s agree, to disagree? AKA the non-bigoted response.

Only the wrong fear they can’t persuade an audience if their opponent is allowed to speak.

Cultures are defined by what they oppose (hatred). Diseases by what is damaged.

You cannot understand their work without salient facts on the subjects.

If you are uncomfortable with discussing those, work in something else?

Being nice will just doom them to more of the same or worse suffering. If a sufferer’s ego is more important than their condition, maybe they were misdiagnosed. The more rotting degrading aspect of political correctness is its perversion of medicine, where recently they’ve been forced to treat disease like a good thing.

You are not your illness. It isn’t personal. There is something wrong with you. Common sense? Diseases shouldn’t have PR campaigns. Technically, there is no such thing as mental illness, it’s just illness presenting with psychological symptoms. Stop distinguishing where there is NO objective difference.

Neither is a person with a condition an automatic Saint beyond reproach. It absolves you of sweet FA. Look up how many disabled people are physically violent to their carers. The PR groups cover it up. So much for caring.

The standards of reality don’t drop, they get higher. Society’s should reflect this. If they really are ill, they shouldn’t be happy about it! That sounds an awful lot like malingering. If their condition magically presents exceptions when they have a desirable motivation, they do not have that condition.

To de-stigmatize disease runs contrary to the entirety of medicine.
Stigma encourages people to seek help and last through treatments.
To glamorize disease is evil. At the least it induces helplessness. It promotes human suffering, it’s vicious and cruel and inhumane.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/medical+model

His diabetes isn’t a disease, that’s mean! You should be locked up for saying this person is any different from another person!

No, because if there’s nothing wrong with them, they cannot be treated differently. They cannot be made allowances, treated specially socially and especially, given any money.

Being a victim (different from the norm) is something you’ll have to accept if you want the recognition of that status. You cannot be both normal and abnormal, bad and good, special and ordinary. It is impossible.

We shouldn’t be listening to the mentally ill’s opinion of their own conditions anyway. With mental disease, they cannot see it clearly, that’s the whole sodding point! Otherwise, there’d be no need for a whole profession, you could send them back home to toddle off and spend a little time on WebMD before ordering their junk off of ebay.

You have to be dominant in a power hierarchy over them, to HEAL them.

nb Programming is not a difficult skill, as you can see. It’s called a code monkey for a reason. Any idiot could learn it with enough time.

There is no shortage. Look at India’s population demographics for proof positive of that.

back to study, minor notes

Practised readers can only guess at the disadvantages faced by those who have never had the chance to learn to read and write.

Wait. Wait, you DID control for race, right?

If you’re comparing East Coast Jews in prep school to some rural Indian girl, that isn’t scientific.

You control by age, race, sex and education, maybe class (or some proxy like diet) This is basic medical methodology. You can’t do anything less and say it counts.

You don’t look for prostate cancer in middle-aged women and report zero findings.

Well, maybe these people do.

Have you seen their national IQs? Ninety-fucking-five.

Why don’t researchers study themselves?

Why not? EVER.

What are they afraid of?

One area to which little attention has been paid is the cognitive tests used by doctors to diagnose early stage dementia in the elderly.

brain damage, like I said

Greek researcher Mary H. Kosmidis points out that these tests are designed for people who are literate.

How high is that horse? Shaming people for reading, FFS…. now I’ve seen it all.

The abilities they test are often trained by reading and writing, and results from these tests are likely to be skewed accordingly when employed on individuals who are illiterate. In Europe, there are still numerous older people in particular who are unable to read and write.

Prove they are trained before you claim that. Sociologist’s fallacy.

You can’t just say it’s nurture automatically, you have to rule out nature first.

He argues that the effects of

~~no~~

literacy do not end when children have learnt to read, but that it has profound and lasting effects on their cognition and knowledge.

If you’re born into a society that lasted long enough to become prosperous and prosocial enough to teach you to read, your genetic load must be low. Test that and then get cocky about how we need a new Head Start for the world.

Start with the small fish, like reducing corruption in Asia. India has a billion people, many illiterate but the Government is useless. Genetic load leads to cultural problems including corruption. I can’t prove that but I have seen no study to refute it. The disease rate backs me up. There is a connection (also to cleanliness).

Cleaner societies are less corrupt.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/06/why-is-the-anglosphere-less-corrupt.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The hilarity of “perceptions” to one side, given the topic.

Notice anything about the Top 10?

One race is decidedly over-represented. Looking for genetic explanations (the hardest science here) would require scholarship, a set of balls and a mighty big calculator.

China is at the same ranking as Brazil. Go look. Keep scrolling….

Sure, I believe HK/China’s self-reported IQs. As they position below Greece on corruption…

Back to the study for the last of the lies.

The ability to read and write is essential to the ability to analyse complex problems

no

other way around

and you know it

The ability to process information is essential to learning many skills, including reading and writing. Pick up a biology textbook sometime. Babies can process in the WOMB.

No Cat on the Mat there, bitch.

Why do schools have sets, if we’re all the same in the brain? Why have year-based classes? Isn’t that oppressive?

and for the flow of ideas and critical thinking.

Since English is the most complex language, doesn’t that mean it’s racist?

Aren’t you basically saying that simpler languages are for idiots? Or certain language speakers (subraces) cannot think properly?

Or maybe, as in the studies of the genes, language is fucking genetic you potatoes.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409215/the-genetics-of-language/

It facilitates informed public debate and sensible collective decision-making.

no, IQ

higher IQ people also vote more

http://anepigone.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/iq-and-voter-turnout.html

from

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/data-drive-iq-immigrants-and-economy-prosperity/

And education isn’t a proxy for IQ either
https://iea.org.uk/are-brexit-voters-really-less-intelligent-than-remainers/
found that exams had become progressively easier over the last ten years, with exam boards competing for business by making it easier for pupils to obtain higher grades.”

What’s the average IQ of each university (total/students) and their vote? Compared to subject requirement minimum? (not UCAS points)

What you want is a magical POP! where all the severely mutated genes die out. You want a higher proportion of genes in the country for higher IQ on average. It doesn’t work that way. It’s a process, a eugenic process.

We have had a few pandemics to get there in NW Europe, hanging to finish off the remainder (High Time Pref) and I don’t think you’d like them.

The more literate people are, the better they are able to exercise control over public affairs and contribute to genuinely democratic government.

Democracy isn’t bottom up. They only want literacy to continue the brainwash train.

The average man on the street doesn’t care how the streets are paved, just that they are. We should not all become mini despots, politicians on a micro scale. That’s what SJWs are and it makes them mad. Little control freak thought police drunk on the facade of power of a Little Emperor. No. Make the representatives transparent (no NGO bribes) to the nation and accountable (for outcomes) and legally responsible, personally. Everyone else is responsible for what happens on their watch at work. Actually represent the tax payers. Yes, the tax payers, and NOT the voters. It is the taxpayers’ money they spend, NOT the voters’.

They used to mean the same thing. No longer.

Aside from a citizenship model, anyone who pays tax in this country should be allowed to vote on what it’s spent on. If you don’t care enough to earn enough to pay in, you don’t care enough to take an interest in how it’s paid out (self-interest needs to be shamed but every vote is by nature, self-interest incarnate). Yet it’s self-interest backed by investment.

Back to the corruption index.

23 France (LOL)

24 UAE

28 Israel

31 Taiwan

50 Rwanda

60 Cuba

60 Italy

64 South Africa

69 Greece

75 Turkey

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915392/turkey-join-european-union-membership-tayyip-erdogan-jean-claude-juncker-donald-tusk-talks

79 Brazil

79 China

79 India

166 Venezuela

173 Syria (those lovely refugees)

Video: Hidden Psychopathy + Sherlock/Moriarty

I’m going to do something here I’ve never done online before. This is how I pick up on stuff.
A casual linguistic analysis, an excerpt from this video, transcribed by me. And pop culture comparison for fun.
Key: Bold and italic, by me too, note for tone. (round bracket) implied, covert or omitted. [sq., clinical note, overt presentation]

Of note, ~9:00 in:-

(serotonin amelioration explanation)
…so Psychopaths will get very angry but they’ll stay angry. …I said when I get mad, I don’t show it to anybody. I said I could be furious at you and you’d never know. I show no anger whatsoever. I don’t show anxiety. I said first of all, you’ll never know. I can sit on it for a year or two or three or five. But I’ll get you. And I always do. And they don’t know where it’s coming from. They can’t tie it to the event and it (seemingly) comes out of nowhere. And something dramatic happens in their life but I’m very careful, almost pristine about it, that’s a fair response. So if somebody does something [DS: note linguistic distancing] you can do a lot, you know. [DS: linguistic hedge, appeal to popularity/commonality]. You can say anything to me and I won’t get mad, really. [superficial] Those things don’t get me mad. [unique triggers] Somebody’s trying to get me [challenge, disrespect] , it’s like another psychopath or another (…) you know, someone’s trying to mess with me [perception of threat]. I have uh, I have a high (standard) threshold [pattern-seeking, repetition of slight required], so many things really don’t get me mad. You can just about do anything. I’m pretty cool that way. [rarely emotionally involved personally or socially] But if you really do [personal attack, repeated or major, provocation] then I always get even [balance scales, sense of justice] and I’ll make sure [intellectual control] it’s the same sort of intensity [proportion, category] that their initial damage (caused). …I can stay cool and it’ll happen (inevitable) and they’ll look around –
What happened with their job, what happened with their family, what happened [I happened. Person as event/God.] they won’t know. [stealth] And they both said that’s psychopathic. That’s exactly it. …..
Really when I saw Dexter, I absolutely understood it, because he was being fair, he was being fair to the universe [moral code, higher power appeal] and the world of ethics of the universe he was absolutely fair. Morality wise not so much [minimisation] but I could really understand [empathise] that behaviour. [decision-making process]
……..It was always the most selfish behaviour. ….It gets worse than that. ….It would extend to everything I was doing. [global traits] …Everything I’m doing is maximally selfish. (tries to change) I said you know I don’t really mean it. My wife goes I don’t care. ….I couldn’t believe it. I thought, you see, I had taken the whole thing of empathy and meaning beyond what people behaviourally are asking for [deep, higher processing, sincerity in social observance of norms] … people said you’re trying and that’s all that matters. This really blew me away and I really still don’t understand it [DS: it’s interpersonal respect, respect for observance of norms]….

This is the living example of a successful sociopath (non-criminal, prosocial psychopath).
BBC’s Sherlock, continually selfish, would also meet this (before they made him mushy and weak for the fangirls in Series 3).

a-friend-an-enemy-oh-which-one bbc sherlockMan, how many people do you piss off???

Despite the writer’s insistence they haven’t written one, he is. He totally is. They’re just reading sociopath as a criminal. No no, ‘successful sociopath’. Successful. High-functioning, almost. If you were to apply functioning criteria to this condition, yes.

And this bundle of characteristics, as it were, makes them so dangerous. Calculating, ruthless, precise. Think Moriarty. No doubts over that one, but aren’t they similar?

I listen in for linguistic cues and quirks like this at cocktail parties, with surprising results.
This is why successful sociopaths are best in business. It’s the ideal set of traits. Look out for these clinical markers I pointed out in conversations with high-flyer types. Sometimes I announce to them on the quiet that I know what they are. Good times, good times.

no one ever gets me bbc moriarty sherlockCome on, it’s transparent as a pane of glass.

Liberals choose girlier names for their boys

No wonder they’re confused about their sexuality and sex.

http://www.livescience.com/37196-politics-baby-names.html

Quick, make a guess: Are Liam’s parents Obama voters, or did they pull for John McCain? How about Kurt’s mom and dad?

If your gut suggested that Kurt’s parents might swing conservative while Liam’s are liberal, congratulations. A new study of baby names does, indeed, show that parents in liberal neighborhoods are more likely to choose softer, more feminine sounds, such as “L,” for their babies’ names, while conservative parents go for macho-sounding K’s, B’s and D’s.

The same research finds that liberal, well-educated parents are more likely to pick obscure names for their children, while conservative, well-educated parents take a more conventional naming path. Both methods seem to be a way of signaling status, said study researcher Eric Oliver, a political scientist at the University of Chicago–though it’s unlikely parents realize what they’re doing.

Reminds me of

Are personal pronoun pansies control freaks?

The use of the pronoun he to refer to men and women dates back to the 18th century. The Generic He is easier to pronounce and uses less ink.

They already have an alternative: it.

If you tell me you’re neither m/f, I am linguistically accurate in referring to you as an it. You are giving me no other correct option by omitting yourself from the chromosomal (read: real) categories. Even those intersex (“true hermaphrodites“) you love to bring up still fit in the binary, they happen to be both. 1+1 =/= 3

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/Adamson.htm

Languages need no more than three terms: masculine, feminine and neuter or neutral, the Other. These are psychological terms and there can be no logical objection to them. Plenty of European languages (those I’m familiar with) have a specific assignment per word e.g. mela is Italian for apple and it is classed as feminine, hence la mela or the apple. Introducing anything beyond the miscellaneous category of neuter is asking for a squared expansion on already densely packed (here, Romance) languages.

You have enough useless liberal arts graduates in your ranks to calculate the basic impossibility of including your personal pronouns on a linguistic level. They are called personal because you have no right to control the speech of another person. They can tell you that birth sex announced by a doctor is The Sex of a mammal for its entire lifespan (as a scientist or sane, honest person would) or they can respond to your passive-aggressive ‘request’ by telling you to accept their personal pronouns (those they use, because language is for dialogue) or fuck off because you’re incapable of healthy speech with another human being.

While you’re at it, Americans especially, quit appropriating the English language for your subculture.
Normal people do not appreciate grammatically incorrect power-tripping.
You’re not oppressed, you’re unpopular. Grammar-Nazi language policing won’t help that.

Get over yourself and learn something or GTFO loser

Why do humans argue?

Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.

paper pdf, here’s select from the abstract section ;

“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]

“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]

“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]

Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”

I like cogpsych papers, but they tend to miss the wider picture and the subtlety of linguistics in rhetoric e.g. emphasis.
Social signalling, in short. If your social reputation depends on empirical truth, suddenly it becomes the primary priority. This is why politicians don’t have lifelong careers at the top. Ownership is separate from outcome.
A theme that could be applied to this blog: smug