« NY Times article about Stuyvesant and cheating | Main | MTV's Jersey Shore »

September 27, 2012

Comments

Good post. This is a big idea in very succinct language.

"status is at odds with having children because children are expensive and get in the way of purchasing positional goods."

True. Another wrinkle is to view children themselves as positional goods. The performance of a child impacts the status of the parent. So the child needs to go to private school, learn piano, attend an elite college, gain white collar employment, marry a high status person, etc. As the cost of education and housing soars, it's harder and harder to ensure that 3 or 4 children will meet all these hurdles. So families opt for one or two (or none).

****It’s sad that we’re just a bunch of animals trying to reproduce****

Well, it saddens *me* that you think that's really what we are. I enjoy your blog sometimes, Sigma, but other times it makes me feel really dirty, and this is one of those times. I can't ever tell if you are trolling your readers, or if you actually think that human existence can be reduced to the quest for "status". You're spiritually dead, man, and while I recommend Christianity, I think you'd be better off with ANYthing else besides what you've got.

While large families may not be fashionable, kids are still the ultimate status symbol.

What's sad about being a bunch of animals trying to reproduce? Sounds like good fun to me.

halfie, this is a decent re-imagining of maslow. however, the prime directives -- to survive and reproduce -- remain unchallenged. all other human concerns and endeavors must serve these two directives. so even though a man will receive much pleasure from attaining top dog status in some socially relevant field, ultimately the dopamine rush from the status acquisition is there to compel him to strive and achieve so that women will find him more desirable to bang. the god of biomechanics resides in our groins.

Some original insight. I think there are some sound general truths in this.

But what you're hypothesizing entails that though conforming low-status losers can expect to survive, practical reality would suggest that such conformist omega male types may never even copulate, let alone successfully reproduce. This phenomenon requires explanation and qualification. Conformity doesn't guarantee reproduction for many men, whereas many very non-conformist (that is, criminal) men have little trouble in reproducing.

Also, nature doesn't give a damn about species. While it's a useful construct for the layman's understanding of biological science, as Dawkins said, genes are selfish. Species only exist because selfish genes find synergistic advantage in recombination -- pairing up with other genes that can increase their survival -- or force mulipliers of fitness. Genetic isolation is a double-edged sword, however.

At any rate, Maslow was a genius, but you're touching upon something useful here. Much more cogent than your pleading (and pointless) pro-Romney posts, anyway. Keep at it.

The metatext of what I'm saying is that you, Half Sigma, have all the arrogance necessary for narcissistic self-centeredness, but none of the attitudinal abandon to leverage it to fucking fertile women. You're stuck in the middle of Conformity -- playing by the rules to stay above the masses but realizing none of the advantages of rule-breaking.

What does "top dog status" mean? Doesn't look like a meaningful definition to me.

Not being a loser in their peer group is probably enough status for most people. After attaining a "non-loser" status, people can theoretically do what they really want to do with their lives, and this is what is meant by "self-actualization". Some will strive for higher status, but some will not.

We are what we are. Nothing less, nothing more. Those basic drives you describe and the things we do to accomplish them built our modern civilization and put men on the Moon. That's worth keeping in mind.

In any case, for the bottom stratum, it's more accurate to say that nature's primary purpose for all organisms is to propagate the genes *that particular organism* contains. Screw the species, that's a happy accident.

"Well, it saddens *me* that you think that's really what we are. I enjoy your blog sometimes, Sigma, but other times it makes me feel really dirty, and this is one of those times. I can't ever tell if you are trolling your readers, or if you actually think that human existence can be reduced to the quest for "status". You're spiritually dead, man, and while I recommend Christianity, I think you'd be better off with ANYthing else besides what you've got."

Don't be so hard on Half Sigma: he is the expert on NAMs, proles, value transference and social status. His intellectual acuity and novel contributions make him the equivalent of Saint Augustine in the HBD sphere.

I'll also mention that Mitt Romney has achieved all those things: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-20-2012/moment-of-zen---mitt-romney-s-boyhood-dreams , and is currently working on reaching the very pinnacle of that hierarchy (by becoming the tip top dog)...

"in a society in which conformity means NOT having a big family and in which status is at odds with having children because children are expensive and get in the way of purchasing positional goods."

The solution is to get out of the urban SWPL wasteland that is rendering you infertile.

My wife works at a high-status institution in one of the most elite neighborhoods in the US. Her status instantly shot up when she announced her pregnancy. Nearly all of the people that she works with are old women who, because of their quest for status, ended up never having children. My wife is achieving the goal that they could not. These women are millionaires but they thought that they were too poor to have children. Now they defer to her.

Children are expensive in that one parent needs to give up working, but the marginal cost is close to $0. Food is not too expensive, and medical care is charged at a flat rate (whatever it costs to insure your family through your employer). If you are going to have two you might as well have six.

You could argue that by not having the money to send my kids to fancy private pre-schools my children will be unable to compete with the children of social climbers. That would be true, if these social climbers had children to compete with mine. However they don't, and so my children will win by default. The future belongs to the fertile.

We are evolving from having an instinct for sex to having an instinct for raising children. We can measure one v the other by looking at the birth and adoption rate of gays. They lack the desire for procreative sex so all of their children are the result of a desire for children.

Here is another interesting thought: condoms are a major new addition to the human environment. Men who enjoy sex with condoms are going to see fewer children than those who hate sex with them.

We are not the only species that have a weak reproductive instinct. Look at giant pandas.

"It’s sad that we’re just a bunch of animals trying to reproduce."

Pretty much. That's why we need to 'problematize' having children. Our intelligence serves NO purpose, it's tragic, that what makes us unique also makes our capacity to suffer limitless.

Also, shouldn't DON'T DIE form the basis of the pyramid? You can't have kids if you're dead after all...this could explain instances of maternal infanticide, you know, get rid of an unhealthy child if raising him would tax the mother's resources too much to invest in a potentially healthy child...

Samson J. has a point.

Would also recommend reading Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. There really is more to life than Gossip Girl for grownups.

Samson,

Half, Roissy, or various similar sources should be regarded as the best sources for understanding how the world actually works if atheists are right and it is entirely a matter of secular materialism. While one can occasionally find a flaw or two in their logic or examples they are small and secondary to the overall thrust. The truth is this is the inevitable result of that line of thinking.

If such a result leaves you feeling empty and feels incomplete perhaps the natural implication is that its secular materialist base is false.

You've got to get married.

You are getting you ass kicked.

Fertility in first world countries are declining due to clever social engineering by the various national governments, who are in collusion with international bodies such as the UN.

While at some level the fertility will continue to decline until technology allows the political elites to "breed through cloning" or allow engineering of perfect designer offspring, which will be preferred over risking mingling with the profane masses.

The other level will be driven by the various multinational conglomerates that will always need cheap interchangeable cogs to feed into their profit machine for value creation, thus the state will tolerate some level of prole reproduction to replenish the supply of workers.

The worid is a business, since God created men from the slime.

I'm starting to worry Sigma is obsessed with social status.

Btw, Maslow hated his now famous hierarchy chart.

"This explains why birth rates are severely declining. On the other hand, it simply might be the case that instincts which in our past led to more children now lead to less children in a society in which conformity means NOT having a big family and in which status is at odds with having children because children are expensive and get in the way of purchasing positional goods."

The upper classes do want to have children because once elites become middle aged they want to compete with other elites through raising their children to become elites.

The reason the upper classes have had lower birth rate since Galton's time is because they postpone childbearing until they have established themselves and are prepared to spawn elite children in a high status home.

Unfortunately, by the time elites are ready to spawn, elite wives no longer have enough egg reserves left to bear elite children.

If you look at the CDC's breakdown of birth rates by age and by state, you will see non-white Hispanic women OVER the age of 30 in higher income states like Connecticut and Massachussets have higher birth rates than women in more fertile states like Oklahoma.

Btw, if you want to ensure your kids will have a good chance of becoming elites, don't race mix because the act of race mixing leads to children inheriting cognitive profiles that will make their becoming elite even more unlikely.

An elite white person who breeds with a NAM will inherit the disastrous NAM cognitive profile.

Half black children have IQs of 92 and lower STDEVs than whites (the white IQ STDEV is 16.7 and the black IQ STDEV is 13).

Look at what happened to Jeb Bush's children because he miscegenated with a low IQ NAM from Colombia. His son has only managed to be a partner at a Texas real estate trust and his daughter inherited the NAM drug addiction genes and became a drug addict with a criminal record. And these two were born into one of the most well connected families on the planet and they still wound up failures compared to what even a mediocre white scion would have been able to achieve.

Also, don't intermarry with Asians unless you use a white egg donor or sperm donor to produce an all white kid because Eurasians inherit the Asian characteristics that keep Asian workers from getting past the famous corporate "bamboo ceiling".

Eurasian guys inherit the Asian characteristics that make prevent them from getting dates and inspiring white guys to follow them such as low sex drives, introversion, general lack of personality, smaller penises, more difficulty building muscle, lack of athleticism, lack of humor, and shortness (Over 60% of American CEOs tend to be over 6 feet tall).

Eurasian men also tend to not be notably intelligent or academically distinguished in my experience. However Eurasian women appear to be more academically impressive than Eurasian men. So, there appears to be minimal synergystic effect when combing high Asian IQ with high white IQ.

Eurasian women appear to be a bit brighter, but they have less SMV to elite white men because they inherited the East Asian lack of boobs, butt, and less striking facial features.

I suspect the reason the elites used to be strongly opposed to race mixing in the past was because they knew race mixing would lower their children's chances of entering the elite.

Also, on the topic of miscegenation, has anyone else noticed more Asian female-Black male couples?

I posted this in the other thread, about the cheating scandal at Stuyvesant, but the comment is much more appropriate here:

"Another reader, more realistic and much more depressing, thinks rich people are afraid of losing status. It's hard for me to even understand status. If you use status to get your way with people, it's different from paying them, different from physically threatening them, and different from being actually qualified to tell them what to do. As far as I can figure, status is a mental shortcut, the appearance of being qualified to tell people what to do, for observers who are too lazy to discern the reality. The word "prestige" comes from French and Latin words for deceit and illusion."

I should have just saved the quote in a word document and waited for Half Sigma to do a status post, which he does something like every other day.

The whole child thing is one of those situations where I am amazed about the ability of supposedly educated people to absorb basic facts about the world.

When I was a child in the 1970s there was a big to-do about the world population cracking 4 billion. About 35 years later it hit 7 billion. While there is a debate about what exactly the "carrying capacity" of the world is (how many people the Earth can actually support, the ability to continue using cheap fossil fuels is a big part of the equation), and also when and at what number this population growth will level off, its a big deal. Other people added on net an additional 3 billion humans since I was a child.

So if you don't have children at all (I have one), its OK, it seems other people seem to be picking up the slack. And to the extent this population growth is actually straining the world's carrying capacity -again there is a big debate about this- not having children may contribute more to the success of the human race than having children.

I realize there will be something like a dozen rejoinders saying "but I have to propegate my genes", but in this situation a more effective strategy to do this would be to help in raising your siblings' kids.

"If such a result leaves you feeling empty and feels incomplete perhaps the natural implication is that its secular materialist base is false."

Or that the idea that procreation, or life itself, are good, is false.

"Also, nature doesn't give a damn about species. While it's a useful construct for the layman's understanding of biological science, as Dawkins said, genes are selfish. Species only exist because selfish genes find synergistic advantage in recombination -- pairing up with other genes that can increase their survival -- or force mulipliers of fitness. Genetic isolation is a double-edged sword, however."

What or who nature "cares" about is inscrutable, but we can be confident that the species concept is absolutely necessary for correct understanding of sociology, just as the body concept is absolutely necessary for correct understanding of medicine. You would not argue that the human body - which is a Mexican-standoff scenario between thousands of Dawkinsian selfish genes - is a mere "useful construct for laymen" based on the selfish gene principle.

The species is so important a concept because the species is the social canvas upon which individuals exercise their emotional and status "instincts" as Half Sigma would call them.

"The metatext of what I'm saying is that you, Half Sigma, have all the arrogance necessary for narcissistic self-centeredness, but none of the attitudinal abandon to leverage it to fucking fertile women. You're stuck in the middle of Conformity -- playing by the rules to stay above the masses but realizing none of the advantages of rule-breaking."

Half Sigma is likely an aspie. I used to wonder what an Ironic Aspie whose area of proverbially narrow and intense interest is human social dynamics would look like and what sort of compendious things he would have to say about his topic, but now we know. 

[HS: I'm not an aspie, not that there's anything wrong with having Asperger's syndrome.]

What you have listed as "conform" should be labelled "cooperate."

A grab bag o' smack:

"Well, it saddens *me* that you think that's really what we are. I enjoy your blog sometimes, Sigma, but other times it makes me feel really dirty, and this is one of those times."

You deny that we are animals based on propagating our genes? Do you deny evolution & natural selection? What other explanation do you have to account for life? Do you think humans are not animals?

"I'm starting to worry Sigma is obsessed with social status."

This is a blog designed to cover topics such as status. What else would be posted here? Using the highly-pejorative words like 'obsessed' strikes me as a typical social attack instead of a rational response. (Ironically itself a status-motivated thing).

"Our intelligence serves NO purpose"

It gives the animal that possesses it an advantage in survival and mating.

"You have all the arrogance necessary for narcissistic self-centeredness"

Another social attack; it seems like discussions of status, like that of race, trigger emotional and socially-based responses instead of objective discussion. He's a nerd who thinks he's better than us but isn't getting any! I don't think you understand what narcissism is, and in any case, combining it with "self-centeredness" is redundant.

"Also, on the topic of miscegenation, has anyone else noticed more Asian female-Black male couples?"

Centralization of male fecundity and male wealth come quite naturally to the Bantu. Feminism is simply a way for non-Bantu females to indulge their inner Bantu while rationalizing it in high sounding jargon. That's why "Game" works.

Centralization of wealth is merely a way to for non-Bantu guys to try to compete with real Bantus for females.

This used to be held in check by individual male combat -- not boxing but real live tool-using kill-the-other-guy-with-everything-you've-got natural duels. Civilization took that defense against Africanization from us.

"An elite white person who breeds with a NAM will inherit the disastrous NAM cognitive profile.

Half black children have IQs of 92 and lower STDEVs than whites (the white IQ STDEV is 16.7 and the black IQ STDEV is 13)."

Huh? Group statistics describe groups. An elite white person who breeds with a moron will have half moron children, regardless of the race of the other parent. And elite white person who finds an intelligent NAM to breed with will have intelligent people. An individual child will inherit the properties of his parents (for the most part). All group statistics determine is how hard it is for an elite whitey to find an intelligent NAM (they are substantially less frequent, not non-existent).

As for HS's primary point, the problem isn't seeking status, it's what a group sees as markers of high status. A sick liberal society like Noo Yawk City will value vain and empty things as status marker (or more of them, rather, as everyone everywhere values some stupid stuff), and thus people of all classes in such a culture will be reduced to rats in a maze.

"On the other hand, it simply might be the case that instincts which in our past led to more children now lead to less children in a society in which conformity means NOT having a big family and in which status is at odds with having children because children are expensive and get in the way of purchasing positional goods. "

I was going to respond to this theory of yours in your previous post, but I was too busy because guess why? Notice how I'm hardly ever hanging out on the Internet anymore? It's not because I don't still love you.

There are a lot of reasons to limit family size other than desire to buy positional goods and status. Time is a fixed resource.

Short, Fat, and Snugly,

"Do you think humans are not animals?"

Yes, I believe in the soul. Which makes men both animal and spirit. I think this conclusion is self evident.

However, I do agree that Sigma, Roissy, etc describe our animal half with near perfect accuracy.

Some Guy,

Liberalism is the inevitable result of placing worldly concerns highest. It is only natural for elites to be liberal since they value worldly aims the highest, and those who do so are most likely to end up in charge of the world.

As a side note on NAM IQ I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the multi generational IQ trends in mixed race couples. Are smart NAM great grand children more likely to be like their smart ancestors or to revert to the mean for their race? I have honestly not seen research on this and can't form an opinion.

"Samson,

Half, Roissy, or various similar sources should be regarded as the best sources for understanding how the world actually works if atheists are right and it is entirely a matter of secular materialism. While one can occasionally find a flaw or two in their logic or examples they are small and secondary to the overall thrust. The truth is this is the inevitable result of that line of thinking.

If such a result leaves you feeling empty and feels incomplete perhaps the natural implication is that its secular materialist base is false."

Well, I've always known intuitively since I was a child that Enlightenment, Darwinism, biology, neurology and chemistry ("materialism", "scientism", "pure reason") ultimately lead to nihilism. Humans are special animals up to the extent that their frontal lobes allow them to analyze their condition and bypass their emotions. If, say, reproducing doesn't have any objective meaning, then the most intellectually acute among humans, who have a thirst for meaning, won't reproduce. HalfSigma, for example.

The philosophical answer to this problem, which I suppose is yours, is that we need to create our own gods and our own meaning (existentialism), get back to christianity, or get back to ancient tradition such as the nordic gods or wotanism.

The problem is that, as I've said above, the most intellectually acute among humans *need* objective meaning, and not subjective meaning; Sartre, the great thinker of existentialism, actually died childless, full of doubts and depressed after a life of hedonism and activism for Marxism (a hedonistic ideology, all things considered).

That being said, I agree on the fact that less intellectually acute humans, i.e. the masses, need some kind of religion imposed to them by their elites to behave correctly.

As Voltaire summarized, "I can't and don't believe in God, but I want my maid to believe so she doesn't steal from me".

In Maslow's terms, if you "need" to be Top Dog the 2nd highest tier is probably your ceiling.

The self actualized in theory are not primarily motivated by status-seeking and admiration but platonic ideals.

And his descriptions make them sound like unusually easy-going, uneurotic people (like someone who has recently experienced LSD or a religious epiphany) rather than say... Ivy-educated BIGLAW attorneys.

"individual male combat -- not boxing but real live tool-using kill-the-other-guy-with-everything-you've-got natural duels"

Needs to come back. The man who gets challenged chooses the weapons, no seconds allowed. Instantly solves so much of the bullshit.

"[HS: I'm not an aspie, not that there's anything wrong with having Asperger's syndrome.]"

Yeah, the "aspie" thing is getting a bit tiring. I am under the impression people use it as a (pejorative) synonym for intellectual, while it is obvious finding books more attractive than parties is far from sufficient to qualify as a psychiatric disorder.

Matt in RTP,

"Or that the idea that procreation, or life itself, are good, is false."

This is the only honest response to the materialist perspective. If you follow its assumptions to its logical conclusion you end up with nihilism and anti-life.

Only by not thinking about your assumptions and their results critically can you escape this problem. Most people who are materialists still cling to certain assumptions of religion even if they are unaware of them. That's how they can get through the day.

Alex,

It's rather the opposite. The masses have better religious instincts. It may not be as sophisticated a faith as Thomas Aquinas, but at least they are getting the big stuff right. High IQ people are prone to pride and mental abstraction that makes religion difficult. It's not impossible though, the main problem is pride. If you can overcome that even the among the highest IQ people there are devoutly religious.

"the most intellectually acute among humans *need* objective meaning, and not subjective meaning"

Nothing could possibly be more objectively meaningful then an omnipotent God. That is the very definition of objective meaning. All other things are by definition subjective.

One should not assume because you don't get an e-mail from God every morning telling you what is good and what is bad that such a thing doesn't exist.

"we need to create our own gods"

Is just a silly statement if you think it through. Either they exist or not. We can't create or destroy God.

Also, I would drop all this "we" stuff. "You" should start living a life of faith. Let God handle the "we" as he sees fit. That "we" is pride talking.

@ TUJ

Only low status White men date and marry Asian women. These men would never become elite in the 1st place. Less successful Jewish men are notoriously known to hook up with Asian women, because of the hypergamous nature of Jewish women.

Asian men have the hardest time dating in cities where the elites predominate. The Northeast-NYC corridor is a good example. They are better adjusted in prole territory such as the South and Midwest. A study was done to confirm this.

"Only low status White men date and marry Asian women."

Sure, like News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch. Or CBS chief Les Moonves. Or UBS I-Banking vice chairman Phil Gramm. That's just three counter-examples that immediately popped in my head; I'm sure there are plenty more.

A lot of the anti-Asian comments here seem to have the same purpose as the anti-NAM comments: to make the commenter feel better about himself by putting down another group.

"This is the only honest response to the materialist perspective. If you follow its assumptions to its logical conclusion you end up with nihilism and anti-life."

I would generally agree with this, and that is the ultimate reason why, even as an intellectual prideful and agnostic, I found ontological materialism to be unsatisfying, but nevertheless managed not to "succumb" to faith for years, since I realized that how subjectively satisfying an ideology or philosophy has no influence on its veracity. I ultimately saw no inherent value in human life or purpose in human existence, seeing it only as the consequence of chance and "auspicious" cosmological and chemical circumstances in an eternally inflating, infinite universe in the string landscape. But, when I was a skeptic, was I really motivated by pride and contempt for the faithful for being apparently intellectually unsophisticated, or a sincere desire to maintain my intellectual integrity by not readily taking conform in religion? The latter attitude certainly has epistemological and practical utility since skepticism can assist one in the pursuit of knowledge and prevent one from being hoodwinked by charlatans; while the former is detestable hubris at the expense of the faithful, and I must humble myself and contritely ask for forgiveness for that sin.

Returning to the issue of the value of life, I thought abortion was morally permissible, not basing my primary justification on Peter Singer's utilitarian ethics that denies the "personhood" of the fetus or feminist libertarianism that upholds the primacy of the woman's ownership over her body, but because that life would be exposed to a ruthless world of scarcity and would suffer. Therefore, it is hard to see any inherent good coming from human existence. This "anti-life" argument is merely an application to the classic "problem of evil" argument to the abortion issue. Most pro-lifers fail to acknowledge the power of the nihilistic argument that denies the inherent goodness of human life, and often erroneously base their arguments on the fetus being a "unique" human life that merits moral protection due to its status as a human. That argument has no secular allure and would most certainly not convince an avowed skeptic and nihilist since it does not assail his/her primary philosophical assumptions. But it seems that in practice, "pro-life" is more of a term with political and religious connotations, often associated with an agenda to influence social policy by restricting individual liberty, instead of an abstract philosophical view. It still believe it is almost impossible to be coherently pro-life, narrowly defined here acknowledging that killing unborn humans is morally wrong in most circumstances, without concurrently believing in the value of human life given by God himself. Essentially, due to the despondent and cruel nature of the material human condition, this requires one to believe that the ultimate teleology of human life is extra-material: we are created beings of God, intended to serve him faithfully and enjoy his fulfilling and perfectly loving presence, the beatific vision, for all eternity.

(Still, I don't consider myself politically pro-life, and I find most conservative religious view, at least those manifested in US politics, as disgustingly "prole". I am a Marxist-Leninist politically, so fuck bourgeois politicians and elections! :) )


Besides my religiosity, I still love talking and reading about g, g-loaded tests, status signaling, and NAM and prole dysfunction. Half Sigma offers all of that.

'Are smart NAM great grand children more likely to be like their smart ancestors or to revert to the mean for their race? I have honestly not seen research on this and can't form an opinion.'

You can't form an opinion on a topic that research has answered for white individuals? Nothing changes when you substitute 'NAM' into the equation. IQ is still genetic, and it still follows the same rules.

'High IQ people are prone to pride and mental abstraction that makes religion difficult. It's not impossible though, the main problem is pride.'

Yes, it's my pride that gets in the way of me failing to believe in God. Just like my avarice prevents me from believing in Mr. Moneybags, and my envy prevents me from believing in Superman.

...

No, I lack those beliefs because objective evidence fails to support them. Nothing more, nothing less.

'Nothing could possibly be more objectively meaningful then an omnipotent God. That is the very definition of objective meaning. All other things are by definition subjective.'

Silly. How many gods and interpretations of God are there, exactly? In one church, God remains as he was in the old testament---I wouldn't be surprised if the pastor conceptualized him as a white man with a long flowing grey beard and ready to smite at a moment's notice. In another church, he may as well be a divine Jerry Garcia, tolerant of any and all kinds of sinful behavior including but not limited to homosexuality and single motherhood---pastors probably even conceptualize him playing guitar.

So no, adopting one silly belief out of a bunch other silly beliefs gets you no closer to 'objective' meaning.

Life lacks objective, external meaning. Or at least meaning that one can access through logic. The next best thing is to trust our innate sense of what is 'good' and 'bad'---our emotions.

....

I don't agree with HS that everyone wants to be Top Dog. Instead, I believe that most people want to be part of an elite. They want to just get across whatever arbitrary threshold that marks 'elite.'

"Life lacks objective, external meaning. Or at least meaning that one can access through logic. The next best thing is to trust our innate sense of what is 'good' and 'bad'---our emotions. "

If I didn't believe in God, I believe my purpose in life would either be reading Half Sigma and learning more about NAMs and proles, or facilitating a proletarian revolution (assuming that it is a realistic goal in the medium and long-term).

Insider,

Flippancy, didn't see that coming.

"You can't form an opinion on a topic that research has answered for white individuals? Nothing changes when you substitute 'NAM' into the equation. IQ is still genetic, and it still follows the same rules."

Given enough generations white descendants tend to revert to the mean for the race. I'm not sure what the long term heredity or trend for mixed race couples is. Its a more complicated genetic question then your making it out to be.

"Silly. How many gods and interpretations of God are there, exactly?"

This is a poorly conceptualized argument against God that would not hold up five minutes thought on your own part. I leave you to look up the relevant counterarguments if you can't come up with them on your own.

"Life lacks objective, external meaning. Or at least meaning that one can access through logic."

That's because that's not the appropriate use for logic.

It's kind of like using a paring knife to grow watermelons.

You can dig around in the soil all you want to, but you aren't going to make any watermelons that way.

Oh, and while we are on the of religion and HBD, in today's life lesson, we learn that as there are people who are intellectually challenged, there are people who are spiritually-metaphysically challenged.

Yes, Virginia, it's possible to be a spiritual aspie.

We call these people scientific materialists.

"I don't agree with HS that everyone wants to be Top Dog. Instead, I believe that most people want to be part of an elite. They want to just get across whatever arbitrary threshold that marks 'elite.'"

That sounds about right. Whether you're alpha, beta, or omega, you yearn to be part of the elite. Once they have become part of the elite, alphas seek absolute top dog status, while betas are content to simply not fall to non-elite status. Alpha elites are respected for the force of their personalities, beta elites are respected for their pleasantness, while omega elites are feared for their wanton misuse of their elite status, and not truly respected at all, even by the lower classes.

"This is the only honest response to the materialist perspective. If you follow its assumptions to its logical conclusion you end up with nihilism and anti-life."

Mitchell Heisman realized this and delineated the implications of that philosophy in his manifesto/"Suicide Note" and then killed himself once it was finished. It seems religion would be an antidote for his condition.

"Besides my religiosity, I still love talking and reading about g, g-loaded tests, status signaling, and NAM and prole dysfunction. Half Sigma offers all of that."

"If I didn't believe in God, I believe my purpose in life would either be reading Half Sigma and learning more about NAMs and proles, or facilitating a proletarian revolution (assuming that it is a realistic goal in the medium and long-term)."

Ok, HS needs to hook up with this groupie. And blog about it.

'Once they have become part of the elite, alphas seek absolute top dog status, while betas are content to simply not fall to non-elite status'

I honestly believe that Omegas cannot be true elites. To me, Gatsby is what an omega 'elite' looks like----not truly accepted, not truly fitting in, etc.

'This is a poorly conceptualized argument against God that would not hold up five minutes thought on your own part.'

It's not an argument against the existence of God. It's an argument against God automatically giving life an objective meaning. You see, the existence of an entity is not where meaning or purpose comes from. The commandments for how one should relate to that entity are where meaning comes from---and if there is no objective source for interpreting/promulgating those commandments, objective meaning remains absent. Even though you failed to back up your assertion with of evidence, I'll provide you with a nice concise blog post on the subject. (There's more resource for this, if you're interested)
http://philosophersdog.tumblr.com/post/22227224170/god-does-not-and-cannot-give-meaning-to-life

'That's because that's not the appropriate use for logic.'

I'm ambivalent about this viewpoint. Intuitively I agree with you, but I'm fond of Plato's Socrates. So, as much as the issue of 'meaning' in life seems separate from material discovery through logic, the entire point of Plato's Socrates was to go against this intuition.

'If I didn't believe in God, I believe my purpose in life would either be reading Half Sigma and learning more about NAMs and proles, or facilitating a proletarian revolution (assuming that it is a realistic goal in the medium and long-term).'

It seems like you should check your personal value system.

'I'm not sure what the long term heredity or trend for mixed race couples is. Its a more complicated genetic question then your making it out to be.'

Mixed race individuals, as a group, have an average IQ. The same variables that affect the answer to this question for white individuals, affect the answer to this question for mixed race individuals. I'm open to changing my mind if you put something substantive forward.

"Well, I've always known intuitively since I was a child that Enlightenment, Darwinism, biology, neurology and chemistry ("materialism", "scientism", "pure reason") ultimately lead to nihilism."

"This is the only honest response to the materialist perspective. If you follow its assumptions to its logical conclusion you end up with nihilism and anti-life."

You guys give up too easily. I'm a materialist, but and I'm with Kant, Plato, ect. who believe that there can be an objective morality based on reason. And if there isn't any such morality, believing in a God won't help you anyway.

That is piramyd for guys. For ladies, the piramyd is different: Married - on Top, then Widowed, then Divorced, then Single (Never Married). Having a child is higher status than not having.

Omega Elites = Elite Virgins

I think the need hierarchy, starting with the most basic needs, would look more like this:

Need for survival

Need for physical comfort

Need for sex

Need to protect family (including race in some cases)

Need for resources (wealth)

Need for social acceptance

Need for companionship

Need for status

Need for intellectual stimulation or spiritual fulfillment 

Need to fulfill one's potential

Need for significance/legacy 


I think half sigma, you are too dismissive of higher level needs like self-actualization, saying it's only about status. Obviously you can never have too much status, just like you can never have too much money, or for that matter too much sex, however once people achieve a threshold level of status, higher level needs begin to also emerge. Some of these have no evolutionary purpose, because our ancestors didn't have the opportunity for such higher level needs to be expressed (they were in survival mode) but i suspect higher level needs evolved as an accidental byproduct of our cognitive and emotional evolution.

T said: "My wife works at a high-status institution in one of the most elite neighborhoods in the US. Her status instantly shot up when she announced her pregnancy. Nearly all of the people that she works with are old women who, because of their quest for status, ended up never having children. My wife is achieving the goal that they could not. These women are millionaires but they thought that they were too poor to have children. Now they defer to her."

What bizarre institution is dominated by old, status-hungry, unmarried women who are also millionaires? I seriously have been racking my brain and have come up with absolutely nothing thus far.

The fashion world maybe?

Black_Rose, I completely agree with the argument in your first of two epic paragraphs above. Here's my tl;dr version:

We criticize religious people for having beliefs that aren't the result of pure logical inquiry, but the reason we reject and criticize those religious beliefs is that we enjoy feeling superior, not because we have found a sound alternative.

I think this is incredibly true, in so many areas. For example, the whole Less Wrong/rationalist movement strikes me as a religious movement itself, with this ideal of "rationality" (however poorly defined an unattainable) as its god. Even more obvious is the related transhumanist movement, with religious-belief in superintelligent machines.

I usually post as Anon on here but I'll change it to "Always Anon" to make it unique.

Ian,

Research Museums. It doesn't pay that well but these people are usually married to men (usually senior civil servants) who do quite well financially. Quite well by my standards... they all think that they are poor. Basically upper middle class people who are comparing themselves to even richer people and ending up feeling inadequate.

"Mitchell Heisman realized this and delineated the implications of that philosophy in his manifesto/"Suicide Note" and then killed himself once it was finished. It seems religion would be an antidote for his condition."

I'm happy to see I am not the only one who found in Mitchell Heisman a very able thinker, and not a "depressed teenager" as some very indelicately and stupidly put it.

His magnum opus "Suicide Note", though requiring a certain acclimation time as it breaks much of the codes of traditional philosophy, could actually be considered as a 21st century "The Brothers Karamazov" or "The Stranger"; truly a brave and marvelous exposé of the unavoidable spiritual consequences of the rejection of Judeo-Christianity, in a time when the subject seems de facto taboo.

I agree with your conclusion that the ideals of the Enlightenment ultimately lead to civilizational suicide, but I however strongly disagree with your conclusion that we need to get back to Judeo-Christianity in order to survive, proposing transhumanism as a temporary solution.

"Ok, HS needs to hook up with this groupie. And blog about it."

It's almost certainly not a girl. Women hate this stuff.

I do agree that there is a human religious instinct, and that people who do not believe in God frequently replace it with ideals of rationality or, before 1989, Marxism/Communism etc. However, that does not mean God exists, simply that we are biologically primed to believe in one because it is a useful group cohesion mechanism. People who are less religious frequently have weaker group-cohesion genes (empathy, etc.), with all the problems that implies. Ever notice how fewer women are nerds, and how women are more religious? These things are connected. ;)

So, no, the truth doesn't set you free, just makes you prone to depression and keeps you from making friends. Lovecraft was right about that, minus the tentacled monsters.

This is the legit needs hierarchy. Good job cutting down all the mental masturbation in Maslow's. Even on here you have humanists who believe the meaning of life is in poems or some other nonsense. It's about status and sex you delusional SWPL.

"Also, on the topic of miscegenation, has anyone else noticed more Asian female-Black male couples?" - TUJ


Speaking of miscegenation I hope the mongrel offspring suffer a lifetime of bullying, insecurity, and self doubt. They'll never fit and that puts a smile on my face. As for Asian female-black male couples yeah I've seen them in general I've seen a lot more mixed race couples since Obama became president. Grotesque.

Sure, like News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch. Or "CBS chief Les Moonves. Or UBS I-Banking vice chairman Phil Gramm. That's just three counter-examples that immediately popped in my head; I'm sure there are plenty more." - Dave


It's different when the women are actually attractive. Although Phil Gramm (Mr. Enron) doesn't have a hot wife and nor does Mitch Mcconnell. Both of these men are powerful but old and ugly and not elite enough to get attractive Asian women like Murdoch or Moonves. Asian women are hardcore golddiggers.


"A lot of the anti-Asian comments here seem to have the same purpose as the anti-NAM comments: to make the commenter feel better about himself by putting down another group."


Much of what is said here about NAMs and Asians is true. You may find it distasteful but this is the only place where we can speak openly. Otherwise it's non-stop love and adoration for these groups by mainstream sources. We attack SWPL and proles too. Is there some nefarious agenda there as well? Hmmmm

Off topic but has anyone here seen Dredd? It's one of the best action movies of the year. I'd highly recommend it. It's a reboot from that horrible one with Stallone. The new Dredd is also one of the few comic book adaptations that's rated R. It's struggling at the box office which is a real fucking shame so if you're in the mood for a movie please check it out. I promise you'll enjoy it.

T said: "Research Museums. It doesn't pay that well but these people are usually married to men (usually senior civil servants) who do quite well financially. Quite well by my standards... they all think that they are poor. Basically upper middle class people who are comparing themselves to even richer people and ending up feeling inadequate."

Ah, okay, I thought it might be some sort of non-profity type of thing. Non-profit gigs can definitely be high-status jobs for women, especially if they're young and attended a reasonably good school. It's also pretty easy for them to drop out of that market for at least a few years (allowing them to have kids).

I still don't understand why any of them would be childless unless it's a personal choice, they're unattractive, or they've got physical problems.

"It's almost certainly not a girl. Women hate this stuff."

Women can have masculine intellectual characteristics as some women are autistic although at a relatively lower rate than autistic men. I was always an outlier in most respects and usually do not like residing near the mean of any bell curve for psychometric traits: I fucked up by about 200 points on the SAT (very rare); I am highly neurotic and autistic; hold far-left political views while living in the United States in the 21st century; and I am religious with nerdy interests such as baseball statistics and HBD (almost a contradiction).

Women should be concerned with prole and NAM values; aren't G2 and E women at least disturbed and repulsed by prolish men? Do women want to live in a "NAM-infested", crime-ridden ghetto or in a trailer park with a bunch of proles?

I don't have a taste for racist HBD, just the scientific, classist HBD. HS's expertise on NAMs and proles is unrivaled, and he is quite knowledgeable on public policy, economic trends, social status, signaling, political philosophy and ideology, demographic and cultural trends, and psychometrics. One could rarely such an intellect with catholic (universal) interests and competence. It's a testimony to power and precision of his Triple Nine calibre mind. The Venerable Half Sigma is the quintessential cynical realistic, and doesn't get a hundredth of the respect he desires.

There are a few female HBD bloggers, although they are eclipsed by Steve Sailer and Half Sigma.

*respect he deserves

"biologically primed to believe in one because it is a useful group cohesion mechanism."

This kind of "just so" group cohesion explanation of religious instinct has been shot down before.

@ Conquistador

Some people just don't want to know the truth about Asians and NAMs. They're ok with it, when it comes to Proles and SWPLs.

Having a few Asians in America is not bad thing, but for the most part they don't add any significant value to a White majority society, just like NAMs overall don't serve any purpose other than the talk of political liberal diatribe. Elite Asians lack the creativity, extroversion and trendsetting abilities of Whites. This is where the problem lies. Therefore, they really serve no particular useful purpose in America other than being good students and workers in our society, and all the money they've earned, is used for consumption instead of reinvestment. Again, this can easily be taken up by Whites, if our country wasn't so PC. HS and some of the commentators were offended when I said Asians are parasitic even though they are the harmless variety.

@Conquistador

"Speaking of miscegenation I hope the mongrel offspring suffer a lifetime of bullying, insecurity, and self doubt. They'll never fit and that puts a smile on my face."

Why?

@ Black_Rose

"Women can have masculine intellectual characteristics as some women are autistic although at a relatively lower rate than autistic men."

Yes, I know several women who are smarter than me -- my best friend's g/f is brilliant (double major in chemistry/French from an Ivy League, currently enrolled in a PhD/MD program, for which she has full scholarship), just to give one example, but she doesn't really seem intellectually curious as some of the duller' men I know, who spend all their free time prodding at, investigating, writing on, pondering certain subjects -- that masculine obsession with THINGS/THOUGHTS as opposed to PEOPLE/RELATIONSHIPS is exceedingly rare among women, and is almost never seen in very feminine women.

I think I am rather feminine in this regard, since I am not particularly invested in any particular subject, and I prefer conversing and gossiping with friends about mutual acquaintances, as opposed to discussing 'things' like politics (although I do enjoy talking sports).

"This is the legit needs hierarchy. Good job cutting down all the mental masturbation in Maslow's. Even on here you have humanists who believe the meaning of life is in poems or some other nonsense. It's about status and sex you delusional SWPL."

Life is also about love, friendship, camaraderie, reconciling oneself to the finality of death, and other heavy topics. Status and sex are important but things such as affection for one's parents, family, friends, old "war buddies," etc are also an important component of life and regularly inspire people to sacrifice status and sex. That is part of the reality that is easily missed in today's discourse where individuals have become so atomized, and organized social life has become so dysfunctional. But the Maslowian levels are a distillation of some of the indescribable primordial stew of human emotions and experiences, which is also the same source and wellspring for all the bad poetry in the world.

In general I would not go overboard with using reductionist, quasi-autistic computer-logic methods of analyzing status and sex. By doing so you can easily dull your instinctive feel for actual, real-life human relations. That is not to say brute-force sociology  does not have its place, an important one. But beyond a certain point, a sort of philosophical Heisenberg uncertainty principle kicks in-- all the complex insights and constructs one possesses renders one an ineffectual milquetoast who finds that he can no longer engage meaningfully with the world he claims to know. It's the same reason why understanding Nietzsche pretty much precludes one from becoming a Nietzschean übermensch. As Thomas Aquinas said, "God is pure act", for the most effectual of all there is no time for reflection.

"Off topic but has anyone here seen Dredd? It's one of the best action movies of the year."

Great movie, I agree.

"Speaking of miscegenation I hope the mongrel offspring suffer a lifetime of bullying, insecurity, and self doubt."

This is mean-spirited. It's not the children's fault that their Asian mother didn't find Asian men sexy.

Anyway, I don't see any evidence that happa children are disadvantaged compared to full-Asian children.

'but for the most part they don't add any significant value to a White majority society, just like NAMs overall don't serve any purpose other than the talk of political liberal diatribe'

Asians add a lot of value to the economy and represent a significant scholarly presence. Even if you assume NAM's have added nothing of intellectual value to this society, NAM's have added immense cultural value to society.

"Speaking of miscegenation I hope the mongrel offspring suffer a lifetime of bullying, insecurity, and self doubt."

Harsh, but the experience is even worse when the parents are interracial AND prole. My mom is Asian and my dad was from Brazil. My parents had no concept of prestige and status (or proper parenting for cultivating elite children). Most of my childhood/neighborhood friends are in community college or got married/knocked up before 21.

Luckily, I ended up going to a specialized HS (Stuyvesant) and from there HYPS for college and grad school. Going to the right schools (Stuy/top NYC private schools, HYP or similar colleges) is so unbelievably instrumental for status building that it cannot be stressed enough, if only for the people you meet/date. If done right, elite schools can easily shoot you to top dog status, at least in terms of perceived prestige, especially if you're a girl. Wearing pearl studs,good makeup, and a few designer pieces occasionally has for the most part convinced my school and work circles that my family's from a top NYC zip code rather than an outer-borough slum (where I still live to save money). Being able to work in certain industries and firms, such as bulge bracket Ibanks and megafund PE firms, has made blurring the SES line even easier as long as you keep coworkers at an arm's length from your living situation.

@Just Speculating

Asians not adding creative values? What planet are you living on?

The SWPL movement is pretty much reliant on Asian inventions such as the Prius, yoga, tea and sushi consumption.

You want specificity? The Japanese are responsible for inventing...

Flat-panel display, floppy disk, digital SLR camera, video cassette, camcorder, pocket calculators, portal music players (Walkman), quartz wrist watch, high-speed passenger train and CDs (Jointly developed by Sony and Philips).

Not to mention this in the near future.

World's First 8K Ultra High Definition Display

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

Conquistador,

You know, some men decide to stick with their wives and not trade them in for new models every few years. The idea that McConnell or Gramm aren't "elite" enough to find pretty young wives is ridiculous.

Just Speculating,

"Some people just don't want to know the truth about Asians and NAMs."

Your statement that only low-status white guys date Asian women is objectively false. Perhaps you need to recheck your premises. Also, the idea of all Asians being grinds is belied by the number of Asian American entrepreneurs -- not just coders, but CEO/founders of startups.

"As for Asian female-black male couples yeah I've seen them"

Of all the various gender/race permutations that's the one sort of mixed race couple whose numbers seem to be rising the fastest, at least as based on my everyday observations. I'm also noticing a lot more black male-white female couples. While there still are a lot of white male-Asian female couples, there don't seem to be as many as there used to be, and the ones I do see tend to involve people aged 40 and over.

"Huh? Group statistics describe groups. An elite white person who breeds with a moron will have half moron children, regardless of the race of the other parent. And elite white person who finds an intelligent NAM to breed with will have intelligent people."

It does make a difference because racial characteristics will tend to regress around the means means; e.g., a smart white who has a kid with a dumb white has a better chance of producing a smart kid because the white mean for IQ is 100 and, per Charles Murray, the white STDEV is 16.7. In other words, pure white couples are more likely to produce offspring that regresses ABOVE the white average.

Similarly, dumb white couples can produce children that are above the white average in terms of IQ. The Unabomber, for example, was born to prole Polish immigrant parents, but his intelligence level was high enough that he could have been a Fields Medal winner, if he hadn't turned to terrorism.

White-NAM children are not so fortunate. If the smart white marries a smart black it is more likely that their offspring will be less intelligent because their offspring is more likely to regress DOWN to the mean IQ for mulattoes, which is 92. Mullatoes also have lower STDEVs at 14.9 (the black STDEV is 13).

Regression also applies to ALL racial characteristics, mental and physical, not only IQ. NAM-white children are more likely to regress down closer to the NAM mean in terms of propensity to drug addiction, NAM criminality, NAM work ethic, NAM physical characteristics, and all other characteristics that make NAMs unsucessful.

From a cost-benefit analysis, there is no advantage to having any children with NAMs, especially if you want them to be elite. Just look at what happened to Jeb Bush's miscegenated children: one of them only made it to a real estate investment trust in Texas and his daughter has been in and out of jail for petty crimes and drug use. If Jeb had married even a prole white woman it would have been statistically much less likely his children would have wound up like this because of regression.

[HS: The Unabomber is another example of my theory that extremely high IQ children born to prole parents are at risk for bad outcomes in life.]

"Speaking of miscegenation I hope the mongrel offspring suffer a lifetime of bullying, insecurity, and self doubt. They'll never fit and that puts a smile on my face."

This would be counterproductive. It would be much more effective and humane to encourage mixed race children (especially girls who are more susceptible conforming with social norms) to reproduce using an white egg or sperm donor to produce all white children.

I also recommend anyone reading this who is dating an Asian to use a white egg donor if you are marrying an Asian in order to preserve white cognitive and physical characteristics for children in order to increase their chances of becoming elite.

This is the least morally objectionable way to deal with the results of race mixing and is 100% guaranteed to work. Since there are fertile women who choose not to get pregnant with their own eggs because they have a propensity to carry breast cancer genes, having mixed race individuals or couples use egg/sperm donors would not raise moral objections.

"Anyway, I don't see any evidence that happa children are disadvantaged compared to full-Asian children."

Not compared to fully Asian children, but compared to white children they are less likely to be elite for the reasons I listed above, e.g., they are more likely to be introverted because the Asian mean is set far more towards introversion than the white mean. Again, if you are considering marrying an Asian woman, strongly think about using an all white egg donor to make sure your children are statistically more likely to make it into the elite. Also, if you are mixed race happa and identify as white (which is normally the case with Eurasians) strongly consider using a white egg and or sperm donor to have children.

"HS and some of the commentators were offended when I said Asians are parasitic even though they are the harmless variety."

Parasitic isn't the right term, it's more that white cognitive traits, cognitive abilities, and cognitive characteristics are, from the perspective of Darwinian selection, better adapted to working within Western political/social/cultural environment than Asians. This is why race is linked to culture ---> Different races underwent different cultural selction pressures and are therefore better suited for different types of cultural organization than others.

NAMs, of course, are highly maladapted for Western cultural environments.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=common-parasite-linked-to-personality-changes

Extrovert might be result of diseases

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c0KYU2j0TM4

Introvert people are actually smarter . No wonder most extrovert are from underclass like Clinton .

Romney & Obama ate all introvert . Most stupid people are extrovert . So are most proles .

@ Dr. Anonymous

Most of those things you mentioned are consumer products that were incremental improvements to existing stuff. They weren't societal changing innovations like the internet or polio vaccine.

"The idea that McConnell or Gramm aren't "elite" enough to find pretty young wives is ridiculous."- Dave


Men are primarily judged by career success and sexual partner. With the latter imo being a higher marker of status. Guys with nice jobs are a dime a dozen but guys with hot girlfriends turn heads. They command a level of respect no striver dork can.


"Your statement that only low-status white guys date Asian women is objectively false." - Dave


Honestly I've never met anyone prefer a non-white woman if he had a choice. This includes non-white guys. Hell the first thing a lot of them do when they "make it" is to get a white girlfriend.

"This is the least morally objectionable way to deal with the results of race mixing and is 100% guaranteed to work."

This is 100% guaranteed NOT to work since the point of reproduction is to reproduce your own genes, not someone else's. That's Darwinism 101.

Regression to the mean often gets trotted out in discussion, but it is often misunderstood. If we eliminated the bottom half of the population by measured IQ, the average IQ of that population will change as the underlying genotype will have changed. The next generation will not have as high IQ as the survivors, as we would have eliminated some people with high-IQ genotypes who had low phenotypic IQ due to luck or environment, and vice versa. However, that population and their descendants will have a higher mean than the original population.

If only, say, 120+ IQ blacks survived, then the mean black IQ will rise. Means aren't eternally fixed. Otherwise evolution would be impossible.

"It would be much more effective and humane to encourage mixed race children (especially girls who are more susceptible conforming with social norms) to reproduce using an white egg or sperm donor to produce all white children."

You should practice what you preach and use a pure "Aryan" sperm donor to produce pure "Aryan" children.

Your hierarchy is simply the elevation of the lowest elements, mostly concrete aspects of success and materialism, with none of the higher-level aspects of self-actualization nor any of its nuances.

@asdf

"If such a result leaves you feeling empty and feels incomplete perhaps the natural implication is that its secular materialist base is false."

False, eh? As in, factually and/or logically incorrect? The mathematical/scientific sort of false? Or the moralistic sort of "false" whereby a proposition need not be formally disproved in order to be declared "false" if it merely contradicts the official dogma?

Since when do "feelings" have any bearing on truth or falsity, anyways? That's what I want to know. How can a negative feeling possibly lead to any logical implication whatsoever where a given proposition is concerned? Would this not constitute the most elementary error of logic - appeal to emotion? Explain the reasoning, if you can.

And no one else picked up on this? Amazing.

I am suspicious of the extrovert thing.

First, men are more extroverted and smarter, so...

The dumbest men are also the most introverted.

Anyway, in a group of men who all have IQ >130, extroversion means more money, women and kids, oh, and status on average.

So, extroversion just seems like a healthy trait.

@ asdf

You're on a roll today.

"Nothing could possibly be more objectively meaningful then an omnipotent God. That is the very definition of objective meaning. All other things are by definition subjective."

No, not "all other things", but all things, period. All things are by definition subjective because all things are *subject to* the judgment of each individual. Including the existence of your so-called God. If I am an individual, and I can question God's existence, this proves that God's existence is subject to individual interpretation, and therefore subjective.

Tell me, how did YOU learn about this God? Was it through direct, first-person experience? I.e. did God himself appear to you? Or did you learn about him merely through second-hand experience, which is to say, by being told of his existence by other fallible, subjective humans?

It's the latter, isn't it?

Houston, we have a problem.

You claim to know something which is purely objective, and yet you derive your knowledge of this entity by purely subjective means. See the error? It's an untenable leap of faith, a logical fallacy which renders all hopes of "proving" God's existence futile. There IS no objective proof and there never can be. There is only "subjective proof," i.e. individual interpretation. Even if you did have first-person experience with God, that experience would necessarily be limited to you and would not serve as objective proof of God's existence for other people who lacked the same (myself, for instance).

There is absolutely nothing in the world which isn't subject to subjective interpretation, by definition. The notion is both logically and physically impossible according to quantum mechanics. Why?

Because every observation implies an observer.
And it goes without saying that every observer has the capacity to make his own observations independent from every other observer.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? The correct answer is that, without an observer, the question is unanswerable. One may form speculations based on prior assumptions, but that is not the same as providing an answer.

There go any and all notions of objectivity out the window. It simply doesn't exist and cannot exist because it implies a singular/collective conscious of sorts, the idea of which is totally confounded by the separation of minds.

"'That's because that's not the appropriate use for logic.'

I'm ambivalent about this viewpoint. Intuitively I agree with you, but I'm fond of Plato's Socrates. So, as much as the issue of 'meaning' in life seems separate from material discovery through logic, the entire point of Plato's Socrates was to go against this intuition."

Intuition has a logical/rational component.

My point is that pure logic won't get you anywhere.

Riddle me this, HalfSigma commenteers.

Why is the Russian Orthodox church in a recovery/expansion?

"Parasitic isn't the right term, it's more that white cognitive traits, cognitive abilities, and cognitive characteristics are, from the perspective of Darwinian selection, better adapted to working within Western political/social/cultural environment than Asians".

It's the right term when their behaviorial characteristics revolves around consumption and not reinvestment. Jews have proven their successful track record by becoming the elite and providing jobs and charity to the masses. A way to give back to society and help others move ahead. Asians have not demonstrated any of this, despite having a better environment to work with. Asians suffered less discrimination and were provided with more resources, which are actually the fruits of Western achievement. Jews suffered virulent anti-semitism and oppression, rising to the top and even setting trends that would shape American history till this day. Asians lacking this trendsetting ability shows that they are not well suited for the evolution of Western civilization, that is successful people reinvesting and inspiring others to move ahead. Ever wonder why our society is now seemingly stagnating, our business leaders have emulated the Asian elites, that is to hoard all the wealth at the expense of everyone else.

"This is 100% guaranteed NOT to work since the point of reproduction is to reproduce your own genes, not someone else's. That's Darwinism 101."

From a Darwinian perspective it's no worse than adoption or a woman with a family that has a history of breast cancer an egg donor.

"You should practice what you preach and use a pure "Aryan" sperm donor to produce pure "Aryan" children."

Why?

Half-Jewish half-gentile white is an excellent combination of traits in terms of both looks (Jennifer Connelly, Lauren Conrad, et al) and high intelligence (Niels Bohr, Alexander Grothendieck, Gary Kasparov, et al).

Half-white half-Asian is a less advantageous combination of traits and half-white half-NAM is flat out disastrous.

"However, that population and their descendants will have a higher mean than the original population.

If only, say, 120+ IQ blacks survived, then the mean black IQ will rise. Means aren't eternally fixed. Otherwise evolution would be impossible."

The fact "means aren't eternally fixed" was and is the reason miscegenation is unjustifiable on Darwinian grounds.

Race mixing CHANGES the white mean on all physical and neurological characteristics to reflect the non white mean.

So yes, means aren't fixed, and that's the problem: with enough non-white admixture, future Westerners will lose the psychological and physical traits of the ancestors because their characteristics will be driven further from the ancestral mean on traits such as intellgience, criminality, future time orientation, and all other evolved racial characteristics.

Race mixing might be justifiable if the change in the mean on a trait(s) leads to an improvement in the population's characteristics, but whites have nothing to gain by mixing with non-whites because whites pretty much got the best overall combination of racial traits which is why Western civilization is better than the others.

"I am suspicious of the extrovert thing.

First, men are more extroverted and smarter, so...

The dumbest men are also the most introverted.

Anyway, in a group of men who all have IQ >130, extroversion means more money, women and kids, oh, and status on average."

Extroversion is clearly an advantageous adaptive trait in highly social organisms such as humans.

"Riddle me this, HalfSigma commenteers.

Why is the Russian Orthodox church in a recovery/expansion?"

Russia hit bottom.

"Your statement that only low-status white guys date Asian women is objectively false. Perhaps you need to recheck your premises. Also, the idea of all Asians being grinds is belied by the number of Asian American entrepreneurs -- not just coders, but CEO/founders of startups".

You provided examples of White men who are way over their prime with Asian women who are remotely attractive. This is insignificant to say the least.

Asian startups tend to be the tech variety that are started by boring grinds. Most of them are never remarkable, because they focus on selling tech hardware.

According to the commerce department stats show that most Asian startups aren't of the fantasy variety. Only 32% had paid employees and only 2,100 (2.3%) had 100 or more employees. Maybe the most discouraging to prospective entrepreneurs: only 5% (45,300) of firms had gross receipts of $1 million or more. Far larger numbers (259,600 or 28%) had annual receipts of under $10,000.

Conquistador says: "Speaking of miscegenation I hope the mongrel offspring suffer a lifetime of bullying, insecurity, and self doubt. They'll never fit and that puts a smile on my face."

So in other words, you want them to live a life just like yours? That's cruel.

Re - The Undiscovered Jew's comments at 7:07pm and elsewhere:

I'm pretty sure George P. Bush will do just fine. Having a leadership position in a not very stressful business enterprise while looking for other political and business opportunities is a pretty common career path for members of the American elite. If you actually knew much about such people, you'd know that. Also, that path seemed to work out well for his uncle.

And while we are on the topic of elites, I've noticed you like to talk a lot about them, TUJ. In fact, you usually post the same comments over and over (with a few revisions here and there) about what it takes to be in the elite, the horrors of the liberal arts, etc. But what we don't know is why the rest of us should take your views seriously. Do we have any reason to believe you know what you are talking about?

So here's a chance, TUJ. Tell us all about yourself. Tell us about your great credentials and your adventures among the elite. Don't be shy, on the internet no one knows you're a dog and you can be completely honest. Personally, I'm guessing you're a guy with a master's degree in a STEM field from a good but not great university, with a middling to low-level job who has never done very well with women (particularly the cute art history majors or other liberal arts girls back when you were in college), and all of this has led to a lot of omega male frustration. But maybe you can surprise us.

"Honestly I've never met anyone prefer a non-white woman if he had a choice."

All the men I mentioned who are married to Asian women had/have a choice. So does Mark Zuckerberg. So does George Soros (who recently married a woman who appears to at least be half-Asian). Whether you've met them or not is irrelevant.

It's true that a man with a striking wife or girlfriend will turn heads, but that doesn't always raise social status. If Phil Gramm divorces his wife and marries some young, beautiful white woman, his social status would likely drop, because most would assume he's insecure, disloyal, and got roped in by some gold digger.

The comments to this entry are closed.