- While riding my bike the other day, I saw a line snaking around a shoe store. Sure enough, the line was full of NAMs. What were they waiting for? Probably some new Jordan sneakers. While whites protest outside, NAMs wait in line outside to buy overpriced sneakers. Caveat emptor. I wonder how many of them are on welfare. This is value transference. By selling NAMs overpriced sneakers, Nike is being an oppressive racist evil corporation. They should start an affirmative action shoe selling program, where NAMs pay less than whites for the same shoes. I guess when you are poor and want to show off your status, you buy Jordan basketball shoes since you can't afford SWPL.
- White people eating salad with chopsticks. SWPL is real.
- I see a bunch of stereotypical black youths gangsta walking around the mall. Before I can become an angry racist, I crimestop and tell myself, "they are just a bunch of upstanding young men". When I walk out the mall, I spot them again. This time one of them is gyrating like only a black person can whooping and pissing on a car while the other two chuckle and hoot. Crimestop failed. Damn.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Looking around
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Yelp and Demographics
http://www.quantcast.com/yelp.com
The average Yelp user is a female SWPL.
At 9%, African Americans are underrepresented on Yelp but not to the extent that I expected them to be. Blacks on Yelp are probably more SWPL than ghetto. It's hard to count on Yelp in the ghetto because there are so few reviews. I've tried it before and the only review on "Wong's Ghetto Chinese Food" goes something like "Dat some good shit this here kung pao chicken be. MmmmMMmmm."
At 15%, Asians are over-represented by a magnitude of 3. This is not surprising given that Yelp is software developed in Asian America. Asians love things that go beep. This plus Asians genetic tendency to food review and take pictures of the food leads to Asian over-representation.
Yelp is a liberal forum. Any conservative opinions are closely monitored and for the most part not tolerated. Don't even think of voicing an opinion about immigration as Yelpers are dedicated towards a lenient policy so that "ethnic food" options will increase.
Yelpers hate non-hip chain restaurants and will bash them every chance they get. The positive is that Yelpers have much better taste buds than boring old white middle America who prefer Orange Chicken over Ethiopian raw beef.
Unfortunately, I was banned from Yelp for repetitive violation of the code of conduct, even though I had written numerous popular reviews and was part of the Yelp Elite. It sure is funny how 20 people can find a review "funny" and then all of a sudden it will be flagged by someone who is offended by my writing and then taken down by the administration. Is it really that offensive to note that the Asian fusion restaurant that everyone is in love with is full of a certain type of white person when the same offended will go on to write a review about how "authentic" a restaurant was because all the other patrons were ethnic? Campaigns against SWPLs are not taken kindly by SWPLs.
I suppose I also did cross the invisible line when I slammed the clientele at AYCE buffets for being too fucking fat. But I think people deserve to know the truth. Eating huge portions of disgusting food is made worse when you are surrounded by disgusting people engorging themselves without a care in the world.
The average Yelp user is a female SWPL.
At 9%, African Americans are underrepresented on Yelp but not to the extent that I expected them to be. Blacks on Yelp are probably more SWPL than ghetto. It's hard to count on Yelp in the ghetto because there are so few reviews. I've tried it before and the only review on "Wong's Ghetto Chinese Food" goes something like "Dat some good shit this here kung pao chicken be. MmmmMMmmm."
At 15%, Asians are over-represented by a magnitude of 3. This is not surprising given that Yelp is software developed in Asian America. Asians love things that go beep. This plus Asians genetic tendency to food review and take pictures of the food leads to Asian over-representation.
Yelp is a liberal forum. Any conservative opinions are closely monitored and for the most part not tolerated. Don't even think of voicing an opinion about immigration as Yelpers are dedicated towards a lenient policy so that "ethnic food" options will increase.
Yelpers hate non-hip chain restaurants and will bash them every chance they get. The positive is that Yelpers have much better taste buds than boring old white middle America who prefer Orange Chicken over Ethiopian raw beef.
Unfortunately, I was banned from Yelp for repetitive violation of the code of conduct, even though I had written numerous popular reviews and was part of the Yelp Elite. It sure is funny how 20 people can find a review "funny" and then all of a sudden it will be flagged by someone who is offended by my writing and then taken down by the administration. Is it really that offensive to note that the Asian fusion restaurant that everyone is in love with is full of a certain type of white person when the same offended will go on to write a review about how "authentic" a restaurant was because all the other patrons were ethnic? Campaigns against SWPLs are not taken kindly by SWPLs.
I suppose I also did cross the invisible line when I slammed the clientele at AYCE buffets for being too fucking fat. But I think people deserve to know the truth. Eating huge portions of disgusting food is made worse when you are surrounded by disgusting people engorging themselves without a care in the world.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Books in College
I estimate that only 1 out of 10 students actually completes the assigned reading in college. At stupid schools, the number is probably closer to 1 out of 20 (stupid people aren't interested in reading books, and if they do read, it's not on the post-modern analysis of revolutionary France ). You have to possess an unnatural amount of intellectual curiosity to even attempt completing the large amount of reading in a typical upper-division humanities course at a respectable university. The average undergraduate does not have the time nor the patience to do this. And yet, due to grade inflation, they will still likely leave the class with a C at worst and more likely a B or perhaps even an A. I've never met anyone who failed a humanities course.
Being an overachiever, I foolishly spent hours upon hours pouring over books while my classmates were out having fun. I thought assigned reading meant assigned reading, but it really means "suggested", and most people just ignore the reading since it does not interest them nor does the act of reading actually improve grade point average in any significant way. In one of my history classes last year, I was disheartened to find over 12 books of varying lengths on the syllabus. Last semester I read over 40 books. I read one a week for the semester even though half of the books bored me to tears--and I was actually interested in the subject. My hard work did pay off though--I was able to demonstrate my mastery of the subject on the exam--something that people who did not read struggled with. If you don't read, you don't have much to write about.
Funny story involving racism. One my classmates who did not do so well inquired about my grade under the theory that the professor was prejudiced against Orientals and would not award us A's. Bubble burst.
I think the dearth of reading can be attributed to the economics of grade inflation. I have the impression that most professors do not expect the students to complete all the reading and issue grades based on this knowledge. If you can have a shot at an A- without reading, then the marginal cost of reading everything (huge amounts of time) is much higher than the marginal benefit (a small increase in grade point average) and it is simply not worth it for many to do the reading. Of course professors hope that students are actually passionate about the subject and read to satisfy intellectual curiosity (another benefit), but this is very rare.
A high school honor student I am mentoring recently gloated to me about how she received an A+ on a paper that was about a book she never read. I laughed and congratulated her on the "accomplishment" but was silently fuming inside. Maybe it is my Calvinistic sense of compunction, but I would never have considered such a thing, and I often wonder how people could do this. Of course, if Madoff can be Madoff, then not reading a book is a trifle in comparison. But the slippery slope is there. The harsh reality of life is that some of those who cheat will eventually learn their lesson. But others will go on cheating and prospering until they die a rich death in the expensive coffin. And then there are those who live their lives honestly but still end up falling on hard times.
I find a poor existence devoid of guilt much preferable to a lavish life built on compounded wrongs. But I honestly find myself questioning the universality of guilt in the human race. Are there those who steal without looking over their shoulder? My heart wants to my say no, but experience tells me, yes, yes and yes. Is this a progressing trend in human affairs? With the death of God and the emergence of a chaotic and uncertain world, perhaps it is.
This scenario also highlights the pathetic state of the American education system. America. Where you can receive and A+ in an AP English course without ever reading. This was not the first time that a student I mentored did this. More than a few of the high school dumb jock types would just moan about hating reading and brag about how they never read books, but they were in the stupid classes, so it was to be expected.
Being an overachiever, I foolishly spent hours upon hours pouring over books while my classmates were out having fun. I thought assigned reading meant assigned reading, but it really means "suggested", and most people just ignore the reading since it does not interest them nor does the act of reading actually improve grade point average in any significant way. In one of my history classes last year, I was disheartened to find over 12 books of varying lengths on the syllabus. Last semester I read over 40 books. I read one a week for the semester even though half of the books bored me to tears--and I was actually interested in the subject. My hard work did pay off though--I was able to demonstrate my mastery of the subject on the exam--something that people who did not read struggled with. If you don't read, you don't have much to write about.
Funny story involving racism. One my classmates who did not do so well inquired about my grade under the theory that the professor was prejudiced against Orientals and would not award us A's. Bubble burst.
I think the dearth of reading can be attributed to the economics of grade inflation. I have the impression that most professors do not expect the students to complete all the reading and issue grades based on this knowledge. If you can have a shot at an A- without reading, then the marginal cost of reading everything (huge amounts of time) is much higher than the marginal benefit (a small increase in grade point average) and it is simply not worth it for many to do the reading. Of course professors hope that students are actually passionate about the subject and read to satisfy intellectual curiosity (another benefit), but this is very rare.
A high school honor student I am mentoring recently gloated to me about how she received an A+ on a paper that was about a book she never read. I laughed and congratulated her on the "accomplishment" but was silently fuming inside. Maybe it is my Calvinistic sense of compunction, but I would never have considered such a thing, and I often wonder how people could do this. Of course, if Madoff can be Madoff, then not reading a book is a trifle in comparison. But the slippery slope is there. The harsh reality of life is that some of those who cheat will eventually learn their lesson. But others will go on cheating and prospering until they die a rich death in the expensive coffin. And then there are those who live their lives honestly but still end up falling on hard times.
I find a poor existence devoid of guilt much preferable to a lavish life built on compounded wrongs. But I honestly find myself questioning the universality of guilt in the human race. Are there those who steal without looking over their shoulder? My heart wants to my say no, but experience tells me, yes, yes and yes. Is this a progressing trend in human affairs? With the death of God and the emergence of a chaotic and uncertain world, perhaps it is.
This scenario also highlights the pathetic state of the American education system. America. Where you can receive and A+ in an AP English course without ever reading. This was not the first time that a student I mentored did this. More than a few of the high school dumb jock types would just moan about hating reading and brag about how they never read books, but they were in the stupid classes, so it was to be expected.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
EQ BABY!
Dali:
This is an example of a low-EQ HBDer being a bad person. How could you give up on someone who has an IQ of 70? Have you ever thought of how that individual came to have an IQ of 70? If Albert Einstein grew up in terrible conditions in Africa without access to good sanitation and education, he would also have an IQ of 70. An IQ of 70 is NOT a limit when it comes to understanding pure mathematics because IQ is highly malleable and therefore cannot be a limit. By providing the correct stimulating environment, we can raise that IQ by more than 55 points and allow that individual to have a chance at understanding pure mathematics. Anyone with enough EQ should be able to see this. EQ, baby, EQ! We are talking about humans here, not superheroes!!! There is no evidence that genetic limits exist. There is no evidence that we cannot turn someone with an base of IQ of 70 into a genius. It has been done and will be done again. After all, all babies start at IQ=0. It is a matter of education, not genes.
I don’t think HBDers actually believe in limits (to an extent) or question an individual’s capabilities, as most of their evidence is purely statistical. Genius black people and athletic Asian people exist, but they are many standard deviations from the norm. However, having an IQ of 70 is definitely a limit when it comes to understanding pure mathematics.
This is an example of a low-EQ HBDer being a bad person. How could you give up on someone who has an IQ of 70? Have you ever thought of how that individual came to have an IQ of 70? If Albert Einstein grew up in terrible conditions in Africa without access to good sanitation and education, he would also have an IQ of 70. An IQ of 70 is NOT a limit when it comes to understanding pure mathematics because IQ is highly malleable and therefore cannot be a limit. By providing the correct stimulating environment, we can raise that IQ by more than 55 points and allow that individual to have a chance at understanding pure mathematics. Anyone with enough EQ should be able to see this. EQ, baby, EQ! We are talking about humans here, not superheroes!!! There is no evidence that genetic limits exist. There is no evidence that we cannot turn someone with an base of IQ of 70 into a genius. It has been done and will be done again. After all, all babies start at IQ=0. It is a matter of education, not genes.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
A Critical Error
James Watson:
At least I think BigWowo is responding to James Watson. I have never argued this before and I am not exactly sure what his point is here. He seems to now agree with me that equality would be a highly unlikely outcome in any event. I have been pointing this out to him over and over again and he would shoot back with the idea that equality is the most desirable outcome and therefore should the burden of proof should be placed on those who claim inequality. No one has suggested that anyone is afraid to test--Africans have been tested and their IQs have been found to be significantly lower in Africa. Yeah, it's a strawman, and this is probably the first time I've seen someone fail to destroy their own strawman.
there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.Big Wowo:
“Well, if we tested people across different populations, I really doubt you’d get equal results! You’re just afraid to test!”
Indeed, it’s impossible to test across different populations fairly, as one would have to compare populations of equal wealth, education, etc. But even if it were possible…few people think that the results would be equal. If I compared population heights, vertical jumps, IQ, bowling scores, head sizes, or whatever, it’s highly unlikely that I’d get the exact same results. It’s a strawman
At least I think BigWowo is responding to James Watson. I have never argued this before and I am not exactly sure what his point is here. He seems to now agree with me that equality would be a highly unlikely outcome in any event. I have been pointing this out to him over and over again and he would shoot back with the idea that equality is the most desirable outcome and therefore should the burden of proof should be placed on those who claim inequality. No one has suggested that anyone is afraid to test--Africans have been tested and their IQs have been found to be significantly lower in Africa. Yeah, it's a strawman, and this is probably the first time I've seen someone fail to destroy their own strawman.
.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
A Statistics Problem
A: East Asians are on average much smarter than blacks.
B: You are wrong and here is why. Thomas Sowell is a very smart man and he is black. If East Asians were in fact much smarter than blacks, then Thomas Sowell would be Asian, not black. He looks very black to me. The fact that Thomas Sowell is smart and black conclusively disproves the racist notion that East Asians are on average much smarter than blacks.
A: East Asians are on average less athletic than blacks. (In my mind, a controversial statement, it depends on how we define athletic, but let's suppose athleticism equates to success in 100m and 110m hurdles, and even this is problematic, I don't know of any evidence suggesting the greater average athleticism of blacks, only their much higher propensity for being on the far right of the 100m/110h bell curve).
B: Liu Xiang is a very 110m hurdler and he is Chinese. If you were right, then Liu Xiang would have to be black. He doesn't look black to me.
B: You are wrong and here is why. Thomas Sowell is a very smart man and he is black. If East Asians were in fact much smarter than blacks, then Thomas Sowell would be Asian, not black. He looks very black to me. The fact that Thomas Sowell is smart and black conclusively disproves the racist notion that East Asians are on average much smarter than blacks.
A: East Asians are on average less athletic than blacks. (In my mind, a controversial statement, it depends on how we define athletic, but let's suppose athleticism equates to success in 100m and 110m hurdles, and even this is problematic, I don't know of any evidence suggesting the greater average athleticism of blacks, only their much higher propensity for being on the far right of the 100m/110h bell curve).
B: Liu Xiang is a very 110m hurdler and he is Chinese. If you were right, then Liu Xiang would have to be black. He doesn't look black to me.
Genetic Limitations
There is no evidence that people have genetic limitations.
A man who believes that he has no genetic limitations and can fly like a bird then proceeds to jump off a cliff is a dead man. We all, at present, have a final limitation, and that is death. The universality of death is evidence of genetic limitations. Unless that is of course you believe in the whole heaven narrative.
This is assuming that science does not progress to the point where we can in fact fly or perpetually avoid death.
A man who believes that he has no genetic limitations and can fly like a bird then proceeds to jump off a cliff is a dead man. We all, at present, have a final limitation, and that is death. The universality of death is evidence of genetic limitations. Unless that is of course you believe in the whole heaven narrative.
This is assuming that science does not progress to the point where we can in fact fly or perpetually avoid death.
Friday, October 14, 2011
365 Black. Brutal beating at Manhattan Mcdonald's.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/14/shock-video-savage-attack-at-manhattan-mcdonalds/
This is a great video. I believe that the cashier did the right thing by beating up the unruly girls, even if he is going back to jail for a long time because of it. What made them think they could hop behind the counter anyways? They have now learned a good lesson about the importance of being polite to McDonald's employees who are the bottom of our social pyramid and have been oppressed by the McDonald's corporate structure.
I couldn't discern the race of the combatants, but some of the racist posters suggested that they were black. I am very surprised. I know all the racist pig white "HBD bloggers" are going to be all over this event by Monday (especially Half Sigma, since he is the NYC HBD blogger), but I will preempt them and mount an emotional defense of these black victims (they are all victims here). This is an attempt to improve my "Emotional Intelligence", so bear with me. Black people are peaceful and innocent-- this kind of violence is out of the ordinary. While the violence was horrific, we shouldn't blame the black girls for jumping over the counter or the black employee for using the rod to discipline them. Personal responsibility does not apply to black people. It is not their fault, but rather the fault of white people, who are responsible for the institutional racism that causes these black people to be angry and act like this in the first place.
Mcdonald's tries hard to fight racism with its black 365 program, but it hasn't prevented horrible things from happening at their restaurants whenever black people are around. We can look back a few months and find the Baltimore Mcdonald's incident incident, when a transgendered thing was brutally assaulted. In any case, maybe it is time for Mcdonald's to go back to Jim Crow days and refuse to serve and hire blacks? Then maybe these incidents would stop. Who knows.
This happened in Greenwich Village, not the ghetto!
The comments on the article are fascinating and very politically incorrect. A lot of people agree with me and think that the bitches deserved it. Here are some of the highlights.
There are many other great comments, but I am not bored enough to read all of them.
All this talk about McDonald's is making me hungry. I am going to get a Big Mac now. Bye! Please pray for my safety.
This is a great video. I believe that the cashier did the right thing by beating up the unruly girls, even if he is going back to jail for a long time because of it. What made them think they could hop behind the counter anyways? They have now learned a good lesson about the importance of being polite to McDonald's employees who are the bottom of our social pyramid and have been oppressed by the McDonald's corporate structure.
I couldn't discern the race of the combatants, but some of the racist posters suggested that they were black. I am very surprised. I know all the racist pig white "HBD bloggers" are going to be all over this event by Monday (especially Half Sigma, since he is the NYC HBD blogger), but I will preempt them and mount an emotional defense of these black victims (they are all victims here). This is an attempt to improve my "Emotional Intelligence", so bear with me. Black people are peaceful and innocent-- this kind of violence is out of the ordinary. While the violence was horrific, we shouldn't blame the black girls for jumping over the counter or the black employee for using the rod to discipline them. Personal responsibility does not apply to black people. It is not their fault, but rather the fault of white people, who are responsible for the institutional racism that causes these black people to be angry and act like this in the first place.
Mcdonald's tries hard to fight racism with its black 365 program, but it hasn't prevented horrible things from happening at their restaurants whenever black people are around. We can look back a few months and find the Baltimore Mcdonald's incident incident, when a transgendered thing was brutally assaulted. In any case, maybe it is time for Mcdonald's to go back to Jim Crow days and refuse to serve and hire blacks? Then maybe these incidents would stop. Who knows.
This happened in Greenwich Village, not the ghetto!
The comments on the article are fascinating and very politically incorrect. A lot of people agree with me and think that the bitches deserved it. Here are some of the highlights.
Marot
Question: Whats the combined i.q. of the two ghetto chicks? Hint…its in the single digits.
October 14, 2011 at 7:31 pm | | Report comment
rightsaidfred
Those beoches deserved worse than that. WOW people freak out when others decide they aren’t going to let black people get away with attacking them. Hurray for the worker, he should be given an award.
October 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm | |
Jakes
McDonald’s is getting more ghetto by the day. Who eats there besides the losers whose entire family lives off government assistance?
October 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm | |
There are many other great comments, but I am not bored enough to read all of them.
All this talk about McDonald's is making me hungry. I am going to get a Big Mac now. Bye! Please pray for my safety.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Byron Wrong
Byron Wrong, AKA, BigWoWo, AKA Jaehwan (?), has been busy deriding HBD on his blog. Is passive-aggressiveness more prominent in East Asians because of genetics or is it culture?
He claims that HBD bloggers and intellectuals lack emotional intelligence.
What does this kind of worldview look like? It means that anything that causes emotional harm to any group of human beings or individual can never be true, because a characteristic of truth is love. Therefore a scientific claim like Satoshi Kanazawa's study that provided evidence behind the lesser attractiveness of black women is false on the basis of it being offensive to black women (his methodology was suspect, true, but this does not detract from my main point, no study has been done that I know of which demonstrates the equality of beauty across races).
And I don't see any problem with Half Sigma stating that Herman Cain sounds stupid and low-class. Half Sigma, more than anyone, probably has done the research on Cain's credentials and probably came to the conclusion that Cain is pretty damn smart. But the claim here is that he sounds stupid, not that he is stupid. Cain is just much smarter than he looks/sound. Is it really that offensive to note that Cain sounds stupid?
The idea of HBD causes human harm to NAMs, therefore it must be evil.
And why does Byron Wrong keep insisting that HBD people vouch for the inferiority of Asians? If anything, they believe Asians to be superior.
My position on the whole IR deal, specifically in regards to the plight of Asian males, is that the American social structure gives white males higher status which leads to the IR disparity. I feel that the majority of people are in general, only sexually attracted to those of the same race as themselves. But on the very margins of interracial relationships, biological differences would give the edge to white males over Asian males. Ideally, 90% of Asian Males would be married to Asian Females and about a 1/3 ratio with AF/WM having the advantage over AM/WF. In my opinion, there is too much miscegenation going on these days...
He claims that HBD bloggers and intellectuals lack emotional intelligence.
“Intellectuals should stop dreading the ever-increasing evidence of human biodiversity and start delighting in it.”Why hasn’t this worked? Hmm. I mean, other than the fact that there’s no proof of HBD?I remember him also writing something about pulling funds out of Africa because blacks weren’t smart enough to ever be independent. I’m not sure how he would know this.
The main thrust of his argument is that the only possible reason why anyone would consider such a thing as human neurological diversity as truth is because they are full of hate. Therefore, a belief in HBD necessarily entails a low EQ. For him, human biodiversity can never be true. This is why it is pointless to argue with him, as I demonstrated with an experimental personal comment about his family, he fails to examine reality objectively, and instead relies on emotion. Which is coincidentally why he would probably consider himself as someone who has high EQ. From what I understand, what a high EQ means for Byron Wrong is simply a high consideration of other people's feelings.Going to the whole HBD thing, a person with a higher EQ might be able to see beyond a test score, might be able to realize that there are reasons why poor people in dangerous countries might not do as well on test scores. Culture is something that takes EQ to understand (very unsubstantiated declaration here). Plus, related to IR, he might realize that Asian women usually don’t go for buff White dudes–he would see this if he weren’t driven by emotions. (and yeah, they are emotions. Again, I’ll cover this in my final HBD post.)That’s the thing with EQ. You often miss things if you don’t have it. It’s easy to say a person or group of people can’t do something. It’s much harder to find solutions, which require EQ as much as IQ (?).So from my view, one cannot dismiss his ideas as low EQ thoughts or blinded by emotion on race. There’s a point in his ideas on that.“This morning I saw Herman Cain on Squawk Box, and I thought, this guy sounds really stupid and low class. He would never have been promoted by Pillsbury to be the head of a pizza chain if he were white and he spoke like that. This is why it’s rather hypocritical of him to be telling those white Occupy Wall Street people that they are too lazy to get jobs. If any of them were black, they’d probably have no problem getting hired by some big corporation seeking diversity. ”I don’t know if he’s blogging just to get a rise out of people, but you get what I’m saying. There’s lots of emotion there that causes some real human harm among the people who read his site regularly. Even some of his commenters (many of whom are racist) had to point out Herman Cain’s educational credentials.
What does this kind of worldview look like? It means that anything that causes emotional harm to any group of human beings or individual can never be true, because a characteristic of truth is love. Therefore a scientific claim like Satoshi Kanazawa's study that provided evidence behind the lesser attractiveness of black women is false on the basis of it being offensive to black women (his methodology was suspect, true, but this does not detract from my main point, no study has been done that I know of which demonstrates the equality of beauty across races).
And I don't see any problem with Half Sigma stating that Herman Cain sounds stupid and low-class. Half Sigma, more than anyone, probably has done the research on Cain's credentials and probably came to the conclusion that Cain is pretty damn smart. But the claim here is that he sounds stupid, not that he is stupid. Cain is just much smarter than he looks/sound. Is it really that offensive to note that Cain sounds stupid?
The idea of HBD causes human harm to NAMs, therefore it must be evil.
And why does Byron Wrong keep insisting that HBD people vouch for the inferiority of Asians? If anything, they believe Asians to be superior.
My position on the whole IR deal, specifically in regards to the plight of Asian males, is that the American social structure gives white males higher status which leads to the IR disparity. I feel that the majority of people are in general, only sexually attracted to those of the same race as themselves. But on the very margins of interracial relationships, biological differences would give the edge to white males over Asian males. Ideally, 90% of Asian Males would be married to Asian Females and about a 1/3 ratio with AF/WM having the advantage over AM/WF. In my opinion, there is too much miscegenation going on these days...
The Lost Generation
From the New Yorker (Hat tip "Wade Nichols" at the Half Sigma blog):
This is what we are. There are those of us who are lucky enough to obtain a job with benefits at a corporation or in government, and there are those of us who linger on the sidelines frantically trying to hold on. I didn't grow up among the middle-class, but among the elite, so most of my friends are either in the first category, and if they are in the second category, they don't have any student loans to speak of and can live off of their trust funds comfortably. Until I went to University, I didn't even know that people took out loans to pay for school, I thought everyone just drew a check out of their bank account and that was that! Of course even rich people in the US are irresponsible and don't know how to save--I know several kids whose parents have enough money to drive new luxury cars all the time yet can't afford the tuition at shitty private college.
The ten most popular words were: “job,” “debt,” “work,” “college,” “pay,” “student,” “loan(s),” “afford,” “school,” “insurance.” On the face of it, these results suggest the primary issue for the protesters is excessive student loans. Together with the median age being twenty-six, this lends credence to the theory that the protest movement represents a “lost generation” of unemployed or under-employed college graduates.
I don't think the primary issue for the protesters is excessive student loans. Excessive student loans are a symptom, not a cause. The cause of this movement and all other social movements is liberalism. The belief in the universality of education, home ownership, Keynesian economics, and other related items associated with achieving the fantastic ideal of the American Dream have created a dysfunctional and inefficient system with a bloated parasitic class of bureaucrats and administrators. It has wrecked havoc on the economy--leading to...guess what, no jobs for these recent college graduates. Don't protest Wall Street, instead work for the abolition of Democracy. The solution is not more Democracy, but less, preferably none. Their college education in History was a waste of time, but they should be able to take their "education", and use it to understand the arguments of my one of my favorite bloggers, Mencius Moldbug. But no sane American would ever support the end of Democracy-- they will get behind the End of History.
Back to our unemployed and underemployed college graduates. We have recognized that there is a systemic problem that begins with Government, not with corporations.
Where HBD ultimately leads
Charles Murray and others argue that the truth of HBD does not lead to any particular political position or action. One could make a convincing argument with Ralwsian Justice--redistribution of resources from those with higher genetic capability to those with lower genetic capability, right?. I now have come to the conclusion that the truth of HBD not leading to any particular policy is flawed. It is simply a way to deflect liberal accusations and to make HBD more palatable to the masses.
If we use Machiavelli's scientific approach to politics, the logical conclusion that follows from HBD is eugenics.
The Korean turns against the liberals
The liberal BIG LAW Korean finally sums up the courage to attack liberals in response to an NYT essay on "Super People", who are high achieving kids with a slew of accomplishments. How exciting! Most of the time you hear him yapping about how the Dream Act is so great and how Mexicans are just as smart as Koreans, but this time it's him bringing down the hammer on "NYT liberals", aka, the SWPLs.
But where the Korean goes wrong is in his approach to the nature of achievement.
But sort the hundreds of comments by "Readers' Recommendations," and a disturbing trend floats to the top: attacking the achievements themselves, and celebrating sloth and ignorance instead. Indeed, even the criticisms that appear facially legitimate have an undertone of contempt for more knowledge, more experience and more doing.I think it is fair to say that achievement celebration and opposition to affirmative action are two of the most common non-liberal positions assumed by Asian-Americans. Celebration of achievement, especially with regards to academics, is a keystone of East Asian culture (though Mao and now Kim have done their best), therefore it unsurprising that Asian-Americans would be loath to celebrate sloth. I agree with the Korean and say that we should celebrate these super people, many of them are genuinely passionate about all of their varied interests, and even if they are not, it does not lower the value of their achievements. The Korean fumes at the most recommended comment coming from a fellow NYT columnist, Jane Gross.
The prevalent image invoked by the phrase "celebrating ignorance" might be that of a rabid right-winger denying evolution or climate change. But this troubling trend of anti-intellectualism is an American trait that infects the entire American culture, including the presumably well-educated, left-leaning New York Times readers. Achievement-denial, in fact, has become the liberals' version of evolution-denial.
When do these Super People have time to ruminate, to day-dream, to eschew GPS systems in their cars because it's interesting to get lost once in a while? When do they have time to be kind? To be a good friend? To go the woods with their dog? To dead head their gardens, mindlessly, for an entire afternoon? To sleep for 11 hours and let their bodies and mind do whatever bodies and minds do when they're sleeping? I couldn't do a square root in high school and still can't, unsure then and now what a square root even is is and why I need to know it. I remember nothing of my SAT scores except that they were very high, without benefit of tutors. I wasn't an extra-curricular activities kind of girl. My bandwidth was narrow then and far narrower now, at 64. But I held my own for 29 years at the New York Times. I wrote a book that a serious publisher paid good money for. Starting out in the world today, I'd be a loser. Why am I not properly ashamed of that?What can we attribute the emergence of super people to? It's not as Atlus suggests, higher income inequality , evolution (?), greater health consciousness (?). Our world has become more competitive and the super people are simply a result of a different competitive environment. As a character in the wire would say, "this here game has changed". Jane Gross would be a loser today, she is right about that. Like the Korean, it infuriates me that Jane Gross and many other commentators are suggesting that super people have no hearts and do not appreciate life.
But where the Korean goes wrong is in his approach to the nature of achievement.
There should really be no debate about the fact -- the truth -- that the achievements listed in Atlas's essay, if genuinely attained, would lead to making of a better person. Musical training leads to increased brain activity and improved memory. So does bilingualism,which in turn leads to improvements in multitasking -- not to mention the obvious benefits of accessing completely different modes of thought taken from a different culture. Excellence in sport teaches the value of toughness, grit and teamwork. Travelling to a foreign land broadens one's perspective, and even more so if one volunteered to help the needy while traveling. These benefits are so obvious that the Korean cannot even believe that he has to spell this out.The truth is that many people simply are genetically incapable of becoming a super person or even coming close to it. Yes, there are many out there who squander their potential in a mire, but there are also many more out there who strive and strain, yet are still taking the bus out of an empty small town ball park sustained only by dreams of the big leagues.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Who has the higher IQ?
This is a question that has been on my mind for a while. Which team has higher IQ, the Bayi rockets or the Georgetown Hoyas?
Georgetown students are very smart. They are smart enough to get blow jobs from an intern and still remain POTUS. A look at admissions data will tell you that the average Georgetown student has an SAT score nearing 1400. Those are smart kids! Why am I even asking this question?
But wait. We are talking about the basketball team, which benefits from both affirmative action AND recruiting. I bet the average SAT score of the basketball team is under 1000. But aren't Georgetown players all super-smart kids who speak 5 languages and wanted to be doctors like Dikembe Mutumbo? No way. Or are they superstars who say, "Homework? I am franchise player and we're sitting here talking about HOMEWORK?". More likely the latter than the former, but the truth is somewhere in-between.
How smart are the Bayi Rockets? The average Chinese person is much smarter than the average black, but even then, despite all the slights against AA and athletes, the Georgetown basketball team probably has a higher team IQ average than the general black US population. And the players on the Chinese team didn't go to school to learn about how the history of white oppression--they just learned about basketball. Education makes people smart and the Chinese players don't have much real education, unlike the blacks on the Georgetown team who learned about calculus in Ebonics.
Which team do you think is smarter?
Chinese Girl in the Ghetto
I read this book on the flight to Oakland. It was shorter than I expected, but very good nonetheless. Ying Ma claims to be "politically incorrect", but when compared to a mean person like myself, she is very politically correct. Her book vividly depicts the life of a poor Chinese immigrant who grows up among ghetto blacks and Hispanics. Unsurprisingly, NAMs in the ghetto are very racist and bully weak Chinese people because they can. She rails incessantly against the brutal actions of the NAMs against Asians, but caves to the liberal narrative of race relations, as she appears to hold a racially motivated crimes to a higher standard. I don't really get this. If a black mugs an Oriental does it really matter if was racially motivated and does it make the crime even more heinous if race was a factor? Ying Ma seems to believe so. Though she tries very hard to make it sound like she has sympathy for NAMs in the hood, it is fairly obvious from the tone in the book that she holds NAMs in contempt. It's not a surprise, most Chinese-Americans do, especially poor immigrants who have not been exposed to the wonders of multiculturalism. I think her real uncensored thoughts on ghetto NAMs would go something like this. "I hate lazy ass NAMs who mooch off welfare and sit around all day doing nothing and shooting each other. So lucky to live in America yet waste it all away not taking advantage of good education. Stupid fucks." I think I probably have a more favorable view of NAMs than Ying Ma. I didn't grow up among them and still romanticize them a bit while Ying Ma experienced them in real life and it was not pleasant.
Note that this is not an acknowledgement of HBD. Some people have offered the idea that many Chinese people accept HBD as truth. I don't think this is the case at all. Most Chinese people just think NAMs are lazy and stupid, but don't make the connection to genetics, and instead attribute the failure of NAMs to their own refusal to study hard. Or they just hate blacks because they are black.
I enjoyed Ying Ma's book and encourage everyone to buy it. She astutely points out the hypocrisy of racial discourse in the US, a discourse in which NAMs can be as racist as they like and not be called on it. One of the best parts was when she fights with a Mexican Ho and tells her, "Go Fuck yourself, you Mexican Ho". More Asians should stand up for themselves like Ying Ma and tell NAMs who bully them to fuck themselves. They should not cower in fear like the Philadelphia students and call the authorities. This is weakness. They should harden their fists, train in martial arts, and arm themselves to prove to NAMs that they are not to be messed with. A good example to imitate would be the Chinese national team unleashing holy hell on the Georgetown black Hoyas.
Another tangential issue I have with Ying Ma is that she has below-average looks. A 3 at best. BigWowo called me out for noticing this and says it is a violation of "universal morality" or whatever, but I am sure Ying Ma, being politically incorrect, understands why I must point this obvious fact out.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Half Sigma and Unemployed College Graduates
Half Sigma writes in response to an instapundit letter from a reader:
Here are a couple of my thoughts on college and employment.
If you attend a good state school, you will have decent career options, but major is more important than it is at elite schools. If you attend Cal, UNC, Texas, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana (schools with highly ranked business programs), etc, major in business and you will have a shot at top management consulting and investment banking positions (most likely regional office). If high prestige positions are not of interest, you will still have good chances at securing a job with a Fortune 500 firm from on-campus recruiting. In any event, you can major in accounting and go to work at Big 4. Or you can major in engineering at these schools and still do well (provided you are actually decent at engineering). DO NOT major in liberal arts if you are considering a career in business. A humanities major from Michigan is severely limited when compared to a humanities major from Yale. In fact, at many schools like Michigan where undergraduate business school is an elite program, companies often only target business majors, leaving you out of luck if you are in the liberal arts school.
If you attend a school not in the two categories listed above, major in accounting (where you can get a job at a regional Big 4 or a middle-market firm), nursing, or engineering. This is if you do not have plans to go to professional school. If you are attending a school not in categories one and two you may be intelligent enough to make it to a decent medical school or pharmacy school so that is an option. But you are more than likely to not be smart enough to make a top LSAT score which is required for getting into a T14 law school, so don't do that, since Law School is a scam.
A student with a business degree from Southern Illinois is not that much better off than a student with a humanities degree from the same school. Once you reach a certain lower threshold of school quality, major doesn't matter that much anymore (outside of the three I named), much like it doesn't matter once you hit a certain upper threshold, except in this case, the student is in much worse shape.
On-campus recruiting is EXTREMELY important. The first job that you get (or don't get) is very important towards your career development. And most of the good jobs come from on-campus recruiting. So if your university doesn't have good on-campus recruiting and is not academically strong, your options will be SEVERELY LIMITED. So don't go in debt to pay 43 grand a year to major in History at Skidmore College. Just don't do it.
The bottom line is that many students who are in college now SHOULD NOT be in college as they have neither the interest nor the aptitude for real learning or appreciation of the subjects at hand.
I am always surprised at how many students do not show up to a 150$ class (that's how much you pay per class at many private schools), even when the professor is good (and these are smart kids). Most kids with IQs <120 are wasting their time in college.
As I previously wrote, two-thirds of college graduates major in something that sounds vocational or practical, and “area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies” is an extremely rare major. I suspect that many of them have rich parents or went to Ivy League schools so they weren’t concerned about their job prospects. The reason why college graduates are unemployed is because no one is hiring anyone and not because they majored in the wrong subjects.I’ve also been against the expansion of student loans for as long as I have been blogging. Eight years ago I was talking about the issue before anyone else. Back in the mid-1990s, I sent a letter to my Congressman about the problem (and received a form letter in reply). As usual, I was ahead of the times.
Here are a couple of my thoughts on college and employment.
- There are systemic problems with our higher (and to a greater extent, the whole) education system and general economy that can be fixed. This is a primary reason why college graduates are unemployed.
- Some college graduates are unemployed (and less employable) because they majored in the wrong subjects. Choices have consequences. Half Sigma is wrong to believe that the student cannot be blamed--in political science terminology, the structure vs. agency debate is simply structure for him with no consideration of agency agency. Of course if you have an IQ of 105 you don't really have much choice but to major in something easy.
- More importantly, some college graduates are unemployed because they went to the wrong school.
- The people who have it real bad are lower and middle-class students who took on large amounts of debt to major in a useless subject at an expensive but mediocre private college. Davver sums it up in a nutshell, "Its useless if your poor. Rich people are suppose to major in non vocational studies. Poor people serve rich people and are supposed to major in vocational stuff.A few poor people thought they were rich people. Mistake."
- The only majors that are really practical in are engineering, nursing, and accounting.
"D" writes:
I agree with Jack. Not everyone is meant to be a damn engineer or medical doctor. I am getting real sick and tired of people saying this. I attend a top university and I know quite a few people that have so called useless degrees with well paying well jobs. All of these people before graduating had strong internships as well a high gpas which allowed to get into competitive graduate schools long after.The school that you attend is very important. If you attend an elite school, you can major in whatever you want, and still have reasonable career options, mostly in business. You will have access to premier internships from on-campus recruiting. Take advantage of it. But nothing is certain in this economy,as evidenced by the anecdotal stories of Ivy League graduates without jobs on the internet.
If you attend a good state school, you will have decent career options, but major is more important than it is at elite schools. If you attend Cal, UNC, Texas, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana (schools with highly ranked business programs), etc, major in business and you will have a shot at top management consulting and investment banking positions (most likely regional office). If high prestige positions are not of interest, you will still have good chances at securing a job with a Fortune 500 firm from on-campus recruiting. In any event, you can major in accounting and go to work at Big 4. Or you can major in engineering at these schools and still do well (provided you are actually decent at engineering). DO NOT major in liberal arts if you are considering a career in business. A humanities major from Michigan is severely limited when compared to a humanities major from Yale. In fact, at many schools like Michigan where undergraduate business school is an elite program, companies often only target business majors, leaving you out of luck if you are in the liberal arts school.
If you attend a school not in the two categories listed above, major in accounting (where you can get a job at a regional Big 4 or a middle-market firm), nursing, or engineering. This is if you do not have plans to go to professional school. If you are attending a school not in categories one and two you may be intelligent enough to make it to a decent medical school or pharmacy school so that is an option. But you are more than likely to not be smart enough to make a top LSAT score which is required for getting into a T14 law school, so don't do that, since Law School is a scam.
A student with a business degree from Southern Illinois is not that much better off than a student with a humanities degree from the same school. Once you reach a certain lower threshold of school quality, major doesn't matter that much anymore (outside of the three I named), much like it doesn't matter once you hit a certain upper threshold, except in this case, the student is in much worse shape.
On-campus recruiting is EXTREMELY important. The first job that you get (or don't get) is very important towards your career development. And most of the good jobs come from on-campus recruiting. So if your university doesn't have good on-campus recruiting and is not academically strong, your options will be SEVERELY LIMITED. So don't go in debt to pay 43 grand a year to major in History at Skidmore College. Just don't do it.
The bottom line is that many students who are in college now SHOULD NOT be in college as they have neither the interest nor the aptitude for real learning or appreciation of the subjects at hand.
I am always surprised at how many students do not show up to a 150$ class (that's how much you pay per class at many private schools), even when the professor is good (and these are smart kids). Most kids with IQs <120 are wasting their time in college.
Emotional Intelligence and Logic
The Love blogger BigWowo, who has banned me from his site, yet continues to verbally assault me with his passive aggressive ways, opines about "EQ". Though BigWowo seems to despise evangelical Christians, his opinions and tactics are deeply Calvinistic and evangelical in nature. He wrote me to ask if I had "a hole in my heart that needed to be filled (or similar phrase, I can't quite remember)". Evangelical Christians love to employ the trite "hole in heart" tactic and then offer Jesus as the solution. BigWowo didn't offer me Jesus because he doesn't believe Jesus was the Son of God but does believe in biological racial equality.
BigWowo writes:
He bans people from making unsubstantiated comments on his site yet finds it entirely appropriate to declare in big bold letters, "When it comes to succeeding in life, EQ is as important as IQ". I suppose this is an example of an unsubstantiated claim--but of course we must defer to Mr. Wong's supreme love in all issues involving emotion. This is just Mr. Wong's opinion, but as we know now, his opinion is fact. How about we empirically test this proposition? Mr. Wong's anticipated response would be, "Some things in life aren't empirically verifiable, so you can never prove me wrong, because I have the moral high ground, therefore I win".
Human biodiversity (sociolobiology, evolutionary psychology, game, etc) is a logically consistent theory on human nature. But is it logical to acknowledge HBD in the social context of 21st century America? Of course not! I don't see what "normal people see" because by acknowledging HBD in public and on this blog, I simply do not do as normal people do--normal people would recognize the high risks associated with taking such a position and refrain from doing so. They are being logical by believing in illogical political, social, and biological frameworks, if that makes any sense.
I am devoted to the truth, however unpleasant that truth may be. To take Mr. Wong to task, we may say that I have an emotional attachment to the truth.
AD HOM ALERT--
I would just like to point out that when Mr. Wong first attacked my blog I thought he was a strapping young man around the age of 25 judging from the hysterical way he blogged. To my amazement, I later discovered he was in fact, a family man nearing the age of 40. Needless to say, Mr. Wong is very immature for his age. I hope to God that when I am at that stage in life I will be more mature and have much better things to do than attack people on the internet.
BigWowo writes:
I would argue that this “ability to perceive, control, and evaluate emotions” is also predicated on the ability to experience a wide range of emotions. If you can’t empathize with people, it’s hard to know where they are coming from. If you have a narrow emotional range, it’s hard to communicate with people. And if you can’t control your flow of emotions, it’s hard to think logically when your adrenaline starts pumping and begins to affect the blood that goes to your brain. When it comes to succeeding in life, EQ is as important as IQ. Your ability to understand emotion, to feel emotion, and to conduct yourself in a way to communicate with others in an emotionally appropriateway is a huge determinant of your happiness, success, and journey.
We’ve had lots of discussions on this board with Asian Americans who follow HBD (Human Biodiversity) and PUA (Pickup Artistry). Both groups are full of intense emotion. But it’s mostly in a limited range–they feel fear, hatred, and anger–no love, sadness, happiness, or elation. It’s often hard to talk to them because they don’t see what normal people see. Their words are laced with fear, hatred, and anger, and often logic goes out the window because of that emotion. It’s usually the HBDers or PUAs who are the first to go outside of standard conventions of debate when emotion gets the best of them.
He bans people from making unsubstantiated comments on his site yet finds it entirely appropriate to declare in big bold letters, "When it comes to succeeding in life, EQ is as important as IQ". I suppose this is an example of an unsubstantiated claim--but of course we must defer to Mr. Wong's supreme love in all issues involving emotion. This is just Mr. Wong's opinion, but as we know now, his opinion is fact. How about we empirically test this proposition? Mr. Wong's anticipated response would be, "Some things in life aren't empirically verifiable, so you can never prove me wrong, because I have the moral high ground, therefore I win".
Human biodiversity (sociolobiology, evolutionary psychology, game, etc) is a logically consistent theory on human nature. But is it logical to acknowledge HBD in the social context of 21st century America? Of course not! I don't see what "normal people see" because by acknowledging HBD in public and on this blog, I simply do not do as normal people do--normal people would recognize the high risks associated with taking such a position and refrain from doing so. They are being logical by believing in illogical political, social, and biological frameworks, if that makes any sense.
I am devoted to the truth, however unpleasant that truth may be. To take Mr. Wong to task, we may say that I have an emotional attachment to the truth.
AD HOM ALERT--
I would just like to point out that when Mr. Wong first attacked my blog I thought he was a strapping young man around the age of 25 judging from the hysterical way he blogged. To my amazement, I later discovered he was in fact, a family man nearing the age of 40. Needless to say, Mr. Wong is very immature for his age. I hope to God that when I am at that stage in life I will be more mature and have much better things to do than attack people on the internet.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Steve Jobs is in Hell
According to the evangelical Christians, anyways. He was a Buddhist and I am pretty certain he never confirmed Jesus as his savior.
I don't understand pussy evangelical Christians who worship secular people like Steve Jobs yet still claim to be Christians. Don't they understand that Apple is not a Christian product? Using an Apple product is just like Eve eating the Apple the snake gave her.
I respect the Westboro Baptist Church because, at the very least, they are brutally honest about things, even when they might be horribly wrong. They stand up for their beliefs no matter what signals society send to them about the stupidity of their beliefs. At least they don't hide like our current breed of political correct urban evangelical Christians who want to have their Jesus and eat it too.
I don't understand pussy evangelical Christians who worship secular people like Steve Jobs yet still claim to be Christians. Don't they understand that Apple is not a Christian product? Using an Apple product is just like Eve eating the Apple the snake gave her.
I respect the Westboro Baptist Church because, at the very least, they are brutally honest about things, even when they might be horribly wrong. They stand up for their beliefs no matter what signals society send to them about the stupidity of their beliefs. At least they don't hide like our current breed of political correct urban evangelical Christians who want to have their Jesus and eat it too.
Eating salad with chopsticks
I would live in Marin county if I had a million dollars to spend on a house. The weather is perfect and the opportunities for outdoor activity are endless. I don't have that much money, so I'll just settle for visiting twice every year.
I stayed with some super friendly white people who offered their gorgeous place on the ultra SWPL site http://www.airbnb.com (which I highly recommend).
When I stayed with these white people (who are typical Marin liberals with a strong granola influence), I watched them eat a salad with chopsticks. Oh white people, how I love ya'll.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Terrible Job Search Advice
Lester Spence, a political science professor whose research interests include "the production and reproduction of inequality", responds to "a former student who graduated with a 3.5 who can't find job". Yes, in this economy, students with decent GPAs from top schools can't find jobs (or rather, can't find the dream job). It probably would have been a good idea not to major in political science where you can make great grades simply by sucking up to the professor and writing angrily about the superstructures of racial inequality. I don't see what practical advice he can offer a student as he probably has never held a real job in his life. Writing liberal propaganda and indoctrinating students does not count as a real job. It comes as no surprise to me that the advice he dispenses on his blog is totally useless.
None of this is practical advice. It is warm and fuzzy, but it won't help the student. Seeking out professors most of whom have never held a real job in their lives for job advice is a bad idea (different in b-school but generally true in liberal arts). For real career advice, I recommend Marty Nemko , but he is both a racist and a sexist, so he obviously cannot be trusted.
Hey XXXX. YYYY must have prompted you to seek me out. Good to hear from you.It’s not your fault. You’re likely going to spend a lot of time beating yourself up, like many of us are. It isn’t your fault. You like many of us are being victimized by a much larger process, the contents of which I’ve talked about over and over again in my classes. But while political action is called for you need a set of practices to deal with this day to day. I suggest four:1. Treat “finding your thing” as a job. With a beginning at the same time everyday, a lunch break somewhere in the middle, and a definite end.You want to take the act of “finding a thing” with that “thing” being a job, a passion, or a passionate job, very seriously. Treating it like a job will ensure that you maintain the discipline you need to get through this period. It also ensures that at some point in time during the day you will “come home”. This reduces your likelihood of breaking down mentally or physically.2. Surround yourself with people who affirm you and can when necessary be lovingly critical.Although I don’t really have much love for those who profess you’ve the ability to change your life simply by having a “positive mindset”, I do believe that you’ve got to be around people who can lift you up instead of sticking daggers in your side. Be wary oif people who are always critical of you, who consistently diminish your work and your value, who consistently blame you either explicitly or implicitly for your circumstances. You want to have people around you who instead are working as you are, who understand your power and your value, and can “pull you up by your coattails” but can truly do so in the spirit of love.Relatedly you want to remain in touch with these people.Of the four things I tell you this is the hardest. Because this may mean not contacting your family, it may mean changing friends you’ve had for a long time, it may mean weaning yourself off of your roommates. But for your mental health you have to. If you don’t have these people around you and can’t get them, seek regular counseling of some sort.3. Keep a journal.With the internet comes a variety of ways to store memories. You can blog, you can take pictures, you can make videos, you can save audio. Do this. Not only does it ease your mental health, not only does it build discipline, and your story telling ability, it creates a record for posterity. Something you, and perhaps later on your children, can look back on.4. Work politically.To the extent you’ve got other time I’d suggest working on some political issue connected to this. This will help put you in touch with other people in similar circumstances, will give you something to work on that will bnerThere’s other stuff, but people don’t tend to remember anything after more than a few points. Suffice it to say that even though I haven’t heard from you in a while, I believe in you and your capacity. You remain one of my favorite students, and if you need anything you know how to get in touch with me.peace
None of this is practical advice. It is warm and fuzzy, but it won't help the student. Seeking out professors most of whom have never held a real job in their lives for job advice is a bad idea (different in b-school but generally true in liberal arts). For real career advice, I recommend Marty Nemko , but he is both a racist and a sexist, so he obviously cannot be trusted.
Monday, October 3, 2011
A thought experiment
BIGWOWO: Given the lack of evidence, we have a moral responsibility to assume the biological equality of all races and base all laws on the assumption of complete biological equality.
Wong: I think there is strong evidence that supports the biological inequality of the races, especially with regards to intelligence (g). I also think that we should assume inequality, according to the laws of probability.
BIGWOWO: I will never believe in the biological inequality of races unless you can provide me with evidence that is impossible to collect. The assumption of equality is simply the American way. You lose Wong.
Wong: Fine.
BIGWOWO: And I think there are all kinds of intelligence. For example, I think John Lennon, Johnny Cochran, Kurt Cobain, Picasso, are just as smart as the average MIT physics student even though they can't score as highly on a test.
Wong: So... what you're saying, well, let's take Michael Jordan and John Nash, are they equally intelligent?
BIGWOWO (missing the point entirely and running off on a tangent): You are a racist for using that example because you don't know that Michael Jordan is not equal in intelligence to John Nash. You picked Michael Jordan because you think black people are stupid and hate them.
Wong: That's not the point. How do we empirically assess the equality in intelligence of John Lennon to an MIT student? I'm discussing (g), not other "types" of intelligence.
BIGWOWO: That's what makes my argument so convincing. We can't empirically prove the equality, so I can make this claim and you'll never be able to disprove it. I'm such a great debater, my claims can never be defeated.
Wong(seeing the pointlessness of arguing with BIGWOWO): Stop being stupid. Oh, by the way, (finds of a picture of BIGWOWO and family on the internet), I don't think your spouse is very attractive and neither are you. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
BIGWOWO: ROAR! You are such a mean person Wong, regular people would never do such a thing. You are only commenting on her because you know you've lost the debate. You are a loser. Besides, I think my wife is BEAUTIFUL and you know she is beautiful. ROAR ROAR ROAR. I am older than you and therefore wiser. When you grow up you will have correct political beliefs like me. ROAR ROAR ROAR. I am banning you because we have different values.
Wong-the thought experiment was successful. Notions of beauty and intelligence are fractious topics and most normal, loving human beings will come to the defense of their loved ones (or even just belonging to the same tribe) when accusations of a lack of beauty or a lack of brains are made, thus making it impossible for the majority of people to think rationally when discussing these topics as it applies to individuals or groups, at least in the public sphere. Privately, of course, it's a much different story.
The fact that BIGWOWO defended his family is part of the paradox of humanity. If he had simply scoffed at my comment, then it would have been a much different story. Even the fat man in the fat couple will defend his fat significant other, or he is not a man.
I rest my case.
Wong: I think there is strong evidence that supports the biological inequality of the races, especially with regards to intelligence (g). I also think that we should assume inequality, according to the laws of probability.
BIGWOWO: I will never believe in the biological inequality of races unless you can provide me with evidence that is impossible to collect. The assumption of equality is simply the American way. You lose Wong.
Wong: Fine.
BIGWOWO: And I think there are all kinds of intelligence. For example, I think John Lennon, Johnny Cochran, Kurt Cobain, Picasso, are just as smart as the average MIT physics student even though they can't score as highly on a test.
Wong: So... what you're saying, well, let's take Michael Jordan and John Nash, are they equally intelligent?
BIGWOWO (missing the point entirely and running off on a tangent): You are a racist for using that example because you don't know that Michael Jordan is not equal in intelligence to John Nash. You picked Michael Jordan because you think black people are stupid and hate them.
Wong: That's not the point. How do we empirically assess the equality in intelligence of John Lennon to an MIT student? I'm discussing (g), not other "types" of intelligence.
BIGWOWO: That's what makes my argument so convincing. We can't empirically prove the equality, so I can make this claim and you'll never be able to disprove it. I'm such a great debater, my claims can never be defeated.
Wong(seeing the pointlessness of arguing with BIGWOWO): Stop being stupid. Oh, by the way, (finds of a picture of BIGWOWO and family on the internet), I don't think your spouse is very attractive and neither are you. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.
BIGWOWO: ROAR! You are such a mean person Wong, regular people would never do such a thing. You are only commenting on her because you know you've lost the debate. You are a loser. Besides, I think my wife is BEAUTIFUL and you know she is beautiful. ROAR ROAR ROAR. I am older than you and therefore wiser. When you grow up you will have correct political beliefs like me. ROAR ROAR ROAR. I am banning you because we have different values.
Wong-the thought experiment was successful. Notions of beauty and intelligence are fractious topics and most normal, loving human beings will come to the defense of their loved ones (or even just belonging to the same tribe) when accusations of a lack of beauty or a lack of brains are made, thus making it impossible for the majority of people to think rationally when discussing these topics as it applies to individuals or groups, at least in the public sphere. Privately, of course, it's a much different story.
The fact that BIGWOWO defended his family is part of the paradox of humanity. If he had simply scoffed at my comment, then it would have been a much different story. Even the fat man in the fat couple will defend his fat significant other, or he is not a man.
I rest my case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)