Wednesday, February 22, 2017

IQ is more than ability

It is also a disposition, as Bruce Charlton explains:
IQ not just an ability, but also a disposition

Although general intelligence is usually conceptualized as differences in cognitive ability, IQ is not just about ability but also has personality implications [17].

For example, in some populations there is a positive correlation between IQ and the personality trait of Openness to experience (‘Openness’) [18] and [19]; a positive correlation with ‘enlightened’ or progressive values of a broadly socialist and libertarian type [20]; and a negative correlation with religiousness [21].

So, the greater cognitive ability of higher IQ is also accompanied by a somewhat distinctive high IQ personality type. My suggested explanation for this association is that an increasing level of IQ brings with it an increased tendency to use general intelligence in problem-solving; i.e. to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense.

The over-use of abstract reasoning may be most obvious in the social domain, where normal humans are richly equipped with evolved psychological mechanisms both for here-and-now interactions (e.g. rapidly reading emotions from facial expression, gesture and posture, and speech intonation) and for ‘strategic’ modelling of social interactions to understand predict and manipulate the behaviour of others [16]. Social strategies deploy inferred knowledge about the dispositions, motivations and intentions of others. When the most intelligent people over-ride the social intelligence systems and apply generic, abstract and systematic reasoning of the kind which is enhanced among higher IQ people, they are ignoring an ‘expert system’ in favour of a non-expert system.
Thus explaining why intelligence isn't always behavior-optimizing.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Alpha Mail: how Gammas "help"

People who spend most of their time attacking their own side. I have seen you mention this several times in the past. I just got done dealing with someone who did this exact thing, with their reasoning being that:

1. There is a higher standard and thus it's more important to criticize your own people.
2. If he attacks his own side, this forces them to "use their brain" and come up with better arguments/positions.
3. He's actually helping in the long run so no one should be mad at him.

I pointed out that it doesn't particularly help since all he is doing is presenting a fractured image that will embolden others, but he really seems to be riding the "I'm actually helping and we should be grateful" thing.

I suspect if I point out that his actions are almost identical to a traitors, I will be told that I just don't care or don't believe enough, or that I am shortsighted/ungrateful/dumb/whatever.

What is bothering me most is that, I follow the logic of what he is saying, but the attitude is strangely excited and zealous when it comes to this sort of thing. I'd except this sort of zest when arguing against someone else, not your own people.
The answer is pretty simple. Gammas are risk-avoidant social scavengers. It's dangerous to attack the enemy. They hit back. So, they always prefer to leap in, boldly and loudly, whenever someone on their own side is fully engaged, then stab them in the back.

This is relatively safe, provides them with a sense of moral superiority, and allows them to advance in social status at the expense of the victim.

The correct response, of course, is to throw the treacherous little weasel out of the group, which has two benefits. One, no one is going to miss a treacherous little weasel that no one liked anyhow. Two, it will teach the other gammas that there are more serious risks to be run by attacking one's own side than by simply fighting the enemy.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

How science fiction became gamma

It was because Isaac Asimov was a spaghetti-armed nerd who hated and envied stronger men whom women liked better than him:
“I imagine that almost any male would at least occasionally wish he had biceps as hard as chrome steel and could wield a fifty pound sword as though it were a bamboo cane and could use it to drive vile caitiffs to the chine…Oddly enough, I shudder at such things…Heroes date back much farther than Conan, you may be sure. They are as old as literature, and the most consistently popular one are notable for their muscles and not much else…

It took the ancient Greeks to come up with something better. In the Odyssey, however, the hero is Odysseus, who is an efficient enough fighter but, in addition, he had brains…In this battle of brains and brawn, however, the audience is never quite at ease with the victory of brains…Clearly, the readers are expected to feel that it is noble and admirable for the hero to pit his own superhuman strength against the lesser physiques of his enemies, and also to feel that there is something perfidious about a magician pitting his own superhuman intelligence against the lesser wit of his enemies.

This double standard is very evident in sword-and-sorcery, in which the sword-hero (brawn) is pitted against the sorcery-villain (brain), with brawn winning every time. The convention is, furthermore, that brawn is always on the side of goodness and niceness (a proposition which, in real life, is very dubious…Nevertheless, I consider the typical sword-and-sorcery tale to be anti-science fiction; to be the very opposite of science fiction. It is for that reason that you are not likely to find anything of the sort published in Isaac Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine.”
Gammas destroy everything they get their hands on, because they are primarily motivated by negativity. They have no desire to build or improve, they harbor the desire to get even for past wrongs both real and imaginary.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Lack of action has consequences

This social scientist is going to come in for absolute hell from feminists, but he's telling the simple truth:
The consequences of men being sex-starved by their wives are deeply worrying. For such a sexual drought has a profoundly negative effect on our society — fracturing families and potentially leading to violence and crime.

I’ve found that deep sexual frustration results in men having affairs — which was the case with Suzanne and Michael — and then, all too often, divorce and family breakdown. Sexually starved men are more likely to visit prostitutes, view pornography and, in the worst cases, even molest other women.

So insisting on fidelity within a marriage is all well and good, but unless women ensure they are also having enough sex with their husbands, they are calling catastrophe into their lives.
Not only that, but it makes other, younger men much more likely to avoid marriage as they hear what the experience is like from older men. And indifference from a wife towards his physical needs tends to breed indifference from a husband towards her emotional and material needs.

This isn't rocket science. And the imbalance tends to get worse, not better, as married couples age.
And it is, make no mistake, mainly women in long-term relationships who lose interest in lovemaking — not their husbands. Younger men experience sexual desire twice as often as young women, while older men feel aroused four times more than women in the same age group.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Between Gamma and Lambda

Anonymous Conservative explains how extreme /r reproduction occurs:
It is counterintuitive to think specimens like this would have greater fitness than traditional K-selected males, but when fighting is not necessary, fighting is a Darwinian disadvantage. And in truth, I do not think I could actually bring myself to beat one of these characters to death, even if they attacked me. It would just feel like killing a handicapped child. I suspect after parrying one of their girlie deathblows, I would turn away in horror, screaming, “Just go, just go!” And they would live to fearfully boink a manjawed feminist ball-grabber yet another day.

So what does r-selection do when fighting and being beaten to death is a Darwinian disadvantage? It causes r-selection to evolve men to adopt the appearance and manner of handicapped children – and that appearance and manner is itself actually evolutionarily advantageous. Females in r-selection, on a deep level, know this and seek out male mates with those traits, so their offspring are inoculated against being beaten to death too. I would say it is elegant in every way – except in the result it produces.
Yeah, we'll see.

Monday, February 13, 2017

That's not funny!

Salesforce made the mistake of hiring a comedian to entertain its employees, but thankfully, a female VP quickly leaned in and informed them what was, and what was not, funny.
Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff has been known to hobnob with celebrities—the company has brought in luminaries like Stevie Wonder, U2, and for its annual Dreamforce customer event. So it's probably not a huge shock that comedian Chris Rock made a surprise appearance at the company's annual sales kickoff last week.

Rock's humor can be controversial, so in his introduction, Benioff cautioned that the upcoming set might be racier than the company's normal fare and that those who might be offended might want to leave early, according to sources, one of whom was at the employees-only event.

Then Rock took the stage. For the most part the set, which capped the first day's events, was a hit. But some of Rock's material, referencing his own recent divorce and women marrying wealthy men, rubbed some in the room the wrong way.

Most notably, those remarks apparently did not sit well with Stephanie Buscemi, Salesforce's executive vice president of products and solutions marketing, who stood up, requested the microphone, and talked about how offended she was by these comments.
Presumably those responsible will be appropriately punished by losing their jobs and being publicly shamed. So brave. Thank you for this.