Posters here are posting under their real names or lasting pseudonyms, so they can't defend the un-PC arguments without making numerous crimethink statements that could rebound against them in real life.
While I'm not sure if avoiding the discussion altogether is an optimal solution I do share your frustration. It took me a while to realise that using my real name here was a bad idea. We aren't all that much less wrong.
Yeah, rule numero uno of the internet is to remain ANON as much as possible.
I don't think you understand Watson's point of view.
If I understand Watson correctly, he thinks the evidence suggests that the average IQ of native Africans is below 100. He didn't say that all Africans have IQs below 100. I don't know why you think he'd care that he's descended from a black person. Presumably he thinks a substantial minority of Africans still have higher IQs than 100, so if he really cares about the IQ of his black ancestor, it's still plausible that s/he had a high IQ.
But why would anyone care about the IQ of their ancestors? Even if you do think there are racial cognitive differences, there are better ways to measure your own IQ than to guess based on the race of your ancestors.
Why? To have a reasonable measure for the intelligence of their children.
Heard of regression to the mean? An unusually smart person from a background of dumb hick proles, is not going to have kids nearly as smart as they are.
People understand this at a genetic level when picking out mates. "Meet the family" before you decide to keep the girl/guy.
While looking for this info, I came across this tidbit: James Watson, who claimed blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, is 1/6 black. Wonder how he felt on finding that out, especially since he's the guy who said, "I didn't win a Nobel prize. I won the [meaning most important ever] Nobel prize."
I know a woman who I think had negative feelings about blacks, who learned, as an adult, that her father was black. She'd always thought he was Hispanic. She was a little upset by it, but mostly thought it was a funny story to tell people.
One original publication is in the Feb. 8 2008 Nature Genetics. I don't have it. Articles citing it here. None of the titles mention race.
-wtf am i reading-
that "1/6" black came from a funky genetics test.
A reasonable test for percentage of blackness, is going back say, about 5 generations, and seeing how many black people are in his ancestry.
There were none, since his parents/grandparents,yada yada came from Europe.
Wonder how he felt about it? He understood it was a bullshit media piece.
The extreme is uninformative, that's why I was asking if you came to any heuristics about finding and optimal point. Clearly there are benefits to muscle, besides status: strength and increased metabolism (the way I understand it is you actually have to exercise less with weights than with aerobics to stay in shape). Too much is likely to lead to injury and possibly other problems (possibly caused by extreme blood pressure during heavy lifting).
My personal conclusion is that bodyweight exercises are pretty safe, though I do use weights where bodyweight alternatives are too complicated or require annoyingly many reps.
Too many people run marathons and lift heavy weights for me not too say them.
I don't think that increased strength and increased metabolism are great benefits now. There are few instances in today's world where strength matters, and increased metabolism is really only important if you really like food, or are a competitive food eater.
Beyond not being obese and being able to play a game of pick up basketball with the guys, I am not convinced that exercise really means anything, beyond increasing status to some groups of people.
I would simply recommend doing the type of exercises that will make your body type appeal to those who you want to impress, or get along with, that don't have a high risk of injury(unless you like impressing the risky crowd, up to you)
I use weights a bit, and since you are on a rationalist site I'd ask this question: where is the point where lifting unusually heavy things contributes more to the destruction of the body than to its maintenance?
Well, after researching this topic for several years, i can condense it into this.
Lifting unusually heavy things, and running unusually long distances do more long term harm than good. Think doing heavy squats, and running marathons.
The only benefit I can think of for doing heavy lifts, is to impress to bros, and get buff for a party fast, while taking a semi-legal supplement. heavy lifting does not have long term advantages.
How old are you currently and where do you live?
Eh, I am 18 now. I currently live in riverside, at the college.
Yeah, needless to say, any advise I could give, I would give online.
Read "the bell curve"
basically, smart parents were more likely to go to a higher ranking school, and move themselves up in the social heirarchy.
Smart people tend to have smart kids. Dumb people tend to have dumb kids. Hence, the scores.
For the race aspect of this, you can find the stats where poor east asian kids do better than rich white kids.At least on the math portion.
I got the American bench press record for 15 year olds.
Its been about a year since I was into weightlifting intensely, but I am happy to help out with anything you might need.
I'm starting to regret writing the post in the first person, 'cuz people think I'm actually looking for employment. I'm not, really. Anyway.
I'm not thinking about how much money I could make, I'm thinking about how competent I think I am. What you say makes sense if I cared about money. What I really care about is being able to have the identity of someone who codes competently, in which case the 'value' of my labor is what determines that. I want to be good at what I do, and I'm complaining about the huge gap between me-now and me-good, no matter how much money I'd make in either case.
But that's off-topic for this post, so I shouldn't have brought it up.
Want some brutally truthful tests designed to see how competent you are?
Take the SAT test, , which measures math ability, and verbal ability. Find a few psychology tests that try and measure memorization ability(like, how quickly and well you can memorize a topic)
Why? Because real world success, in intellectual endeavors, is largely a combination of how large your fluid intelligence is+memorization ability+ work ethic. The rest is due to combos of other factors.
Besides the SAT, you can take the LSAT, and study for a few things on there that require specific knowledge. The test is the single largest predictive factor of success in law school, and blind tests of competence.
There are a few other tests you can take. I recommend the AMC, which requires studying some topics outside of the regular school curriculum, but not too much.
Or, you could play starcraft for 3 months, and see how high you end up ranking.
Beyond these,I don't know of many good tests to see how competent you are.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
"In order to break the habit, one must complete no-fap november"
Just made it up, but relevant for me.