domain:inv.nadeko.net
FtttG
7m ago
Richard Hanania certainly agrees with you.
Reddit is really not a good place to have reasoned arguments with people who are interested in actual engagement. I tried getting back onto there under an alt account talking mainly about non-political topics, and made a fairly long post where detractors (including a small number of self-proclaimed credentialed professionals) came in and decided to soapbox at length while refusing to address any of the statistical data posted - instead preferring to substitute bad anecdata and motivated reasoning for proof and pretending I had not engaged with arguments which I actually had. The overwhelming sense I got was "I don't have time for this crap".
Just reminds me how much better this forum is as a place for discussion. Not perfect, but stepping foot back onto Reddit is like debating with a bunch of bad actors who really just want to soapbox about how right they are, and who love engaging in selective myopia as soon as something doesn't confirm their viewpoint. It's not the kind of forum I'm interested in anymore.
I've been thinking that perhaps the woke/liberal/feminist (there is a lot of overlap between these groups) hatred for intelligence research and FUD-creation around the IQ concept is not merely about the incendiary topic of "race" or ethnicity and IQ that might pop up if society takes IQ seriously, and not just about the basal opposition to anything that goes against "tabula rasa", but perhaps also because men are more extreme in IQ than women. Nature takes more risks with men, while women are somewhat more clustered around the mean. Why does that matter, if the average IQ is almost the same for women and men? Because most of the geniuses are going to be men. Even at 130 IQ there is a major difference. Something like 6/10 of individuals with 130+ IQ are men. If you go up to 145+ IQ, there are fewer and fewer women compared to men. With high intelligence being one of the key ingredients to make for better leadership of groups and societies, this should naturally lead to an overweight of positions in the highest offices being filled by men in a meritocratic society concerned with getting the best results for its future. Feminists may have discerned this IRL and in data, and of course do not want to be ruled over by men. Thus they seek to obfuscate and mislead around the topic. Thoughts?
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
48m ago
So, what are you reading?
I’m finally on ‘The Far Side of the World’ – perhaps the most famous novel in the Aubrey/Maturin series.
Captain Jack Aubrey, expert sloth debaucher, knowingly recruits enough lunatics and mutineers to fill out the complement of the ‘Joyful’ Surprise, before pursuing an American cough ‘French’ Man of War around Cape Horn and into the Pacific.
And after spending nine novels vociferously proselytizing his hatred of alcohol abuse to anyone who will listen, Dr Stephen Maturin has now chewed, injected, snorted, smoked, enema’d, or otherwise ingested most drugs found anywhere in, on, or adjacent to, the entire Seven Seas.
Aware of his addiction to the laudanum from his own medicine chest (that somehow didn’t make it into the screenplay), junkie Maturin decides that the only sane course of action is to wean himself off with the aid of a new wonder drug; Cocaine.
And that’s before he tries to cover up a fellow officer’s cuckoldry.
Unhappily, Peter Weir somehow felt the need to rewrite the film version to appeal to a broader audience.
For shame.
The other day I started reading Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. Only about twenty pages in but I'm liking it so far.
More options
Context Copy link