Are white people sub-human?

New research is suggesting that Europeans are white because a few interbred with Neanderthals based in Northern Europe pushed south towards the middle east by the last ice age. European whites have 2-5% uniquely Neanderthal DNA. Red hair, Green eyes, all came from Neanderthals as did 0 negative blood. Neanderthals were different species at the limit of biological compatibility with modern humans from Africa. From analysis of surviving neanderthal DNA in humans which is completely lacking large areas of the neanderthal DNA, it has been suggested that humans and neanderthals were able to produce offspring, but that the male hybrids were infertile and female hybrids had very low fertility. This is exactly the same as we see in hybrids between species like lions and tigers or horses and donkeys. It would also explain the very low percentage of neanderthal genomes in humans and why it is unevenly spread. But that does mean white people are sub-human. No, EVERY HUMAN is 0.1% or less different from EVERY HUMAN in ANY population. The genes that account for racial differences (skin, hair, eye color, etc.) number only a few. That’s less than a dozen out of the thousands of genes that can vary between one human and the next. That means that, while two people can both have the same color of skin, hair, and eyes, and look very similar, that similarity is only superficial. They may actually be more genetically different from each other than they are from a person of a different race. This is especially true in Africa, where human populations sport a much higher genetic diversity than anywhere else in the world. This means, for example, an Italian and an Eskimo can be more genetically similar than two people in Africa living only a few hundred miles away. And, for example, a person from the Bantu ethnic group is actually more closely related to and more genetically similar to Eurasians than to someone from the Khoisan or Hadza ethnic groups, even though the Bantu, Khoisan, and Hadzabe are all sub-Saharan Africans. The lack of Neanderthal genes in African populations don’t make enough of a difference to change any of this.

The Origins of Civilization – 4000 Years Of World History

Why don’t blacks get credit for starting civilization?


Their legacy seems to have been removed by Europeans who then plundered them and their land, to introduce their own philosophers who, all of a sudden, knew all about the Sciences, Arts, Mathematics, Astronomy, Poetry, Music, Philosophy in short. In Planet of the Apes, Ape slaves, who outnumbered their masters, plotted the overthrow of their oppressors, and killed their masters or evicted them to the wild. Speechless, animalistic humans are then hunted and enslaved by an advanced society of apes. Eventually we discover that humans had once dominated the planet until their complacency allowed the more industrious apes to overthrow them. Blacks were once the dominant race on earth starting human civilization. Chinese civilization was started by a group of Europeans called the TOCHARIANS. These people introduced BRONZE to the Chinese (who had no large civilization at this time) The weapons that the Tocharians used were the same weapons used by the Aryans who got all their technology from Africa.

Cancer likely caused by virus and lack of exercise

The studies say 50% of breast cancer mutations/inflammation damage occur on the virus immune system pathways before the cancer shows up after multiple mutations start replicating endlessly, suggesting that those are being manipulated by viruses and the immune system is attempting to defeat the causal agent with serious attacks, inflammation. The other half are probably bacteria, fungi, toxic chemicals, and genetic anomalies. The skin is constantly mutating, cancers can form from the solar radiation. Mostly, before cancer can form, the ATP energy cycle has to malfunction before you get cancerous cells … ATP through the mitochondria drives the functional aspects of the cell that normally limits the replication by monitoring the cell function and looking for errors and damage, once detected it will usually mark itself for apoptosis and the immune macrophages will tear the cell apart, leaving behind the DNA fragments that you see in lots of viral and bacteria infections. The regenerative capacity of cells and organs deteriorates with age. The “powerhouses” of cell function — called mitochondria — lose energy over time and prevent cells from regenerating as they once did. To boost the mitochondrial counts, literally the energy engines in the cell, requires exercise for the most part. There are a few boosters that are NAD+ and active co-q10. Some very good results for reversing the course of cancer are tied to the re-enabling the mitochondrial function, in cancerous cells. But to prevent it, exercise seems to be the best way to keep the mitochondrial counts high. Also, you should be doing a green tea EGCG cleanse every year to wipe out the bad bacteria biofilms and take the full set of beneficial probiotics.

For most of your life, your immune system successfully fought cancerous cells, killing them as they developed. That’s its job. In fact, the only job Natural Killer cells have is to kill cancer cells and viruses.

For cancer to develop, your immune system must either be worn out, ineffective, unable to kill cancer cells as fast as they normally develop, or you must be exposed to a mass of cancer causing toxins, radiation or some such thing, that increase the rate of development of cancer cells to such an abnormally high level that your immune system can’t handle it.

Extreme intelligence is a mental disorder

Extreme intelligence is the result of immune system issues related to viruses embedded in our genome that express themselves if the immune system gets weak. The definition of life excludes viruses as being a form of life but they induced our form of life more than anything else.

The viruses induce hyperactive brain disorders (extreme intelligence) due to how they have to manipulate the immune system to replicate. This leads to the OCD and anxiety traits as the immune system upregulates. As far as I can tell, bacteria is responsible for the autistic spectrum disorder traits of wanting to avoid stress and being overly anxious, again the immune system being upregulated causes the anxiety… with hyper awareness of danger and anti-social tendencies due to how little energy is available. The autism “immune system response” to bacteria results in a bacteria *tagging* function being hyperactive and this results in the brain getting synaptic pruning at such a high level that any underused connections will disappear over time. Any part of the brain that isn’t used a lot is pruned over time.

In other words, you have the activation of “genome” code that is normally suppressed but is more than likely being blocked by an active virus that is attempting to block how the immune system is attacking it but it is helping out one of the most ancient viruses that effected our human ancestors. Again, the genome mutations can alter how the immune system suppresses parts of the genome from generation to generation resulting in this embedded virus being more active in some people as soon as their immune system is slightly compromised vs others require multiple compromising viruses/health issues. Mostly it is the severity of the brain alterations that cause the “disorder” to be diagnosed. The long term impact of how the viruses alter the brain can be huge, i.e. sensory level delusional activation due to regional overactivation and none coherent patterns across the cerebral cortex, which show up when too many different regions of the brain activation simultaneously.

A virus is the likely causal connection for the OCD because the viruses specifically target the PKR pathway to increase their replication rates and the byproduct of this dysregulation of the protein replication rates that effect the neural transmitters and synapse formation rates (why memories encode too many details and trigger too easily, creating repeating behaviors). Same thing shows up in PTSD patients….

The truth is that if you get a particularly nasty virus when you are young, then you are a prime suspect for developing the overactive brain that is edging towards the schizophrenia brain patterns depending on which proteins are over or under produced once the virus starts operating it’s control functions. When the virus switches the brain to become OCD/autistic, there’s no way to disengage the resulting “will to reproduce” and the brain becomes a slave to go after wealth and power and is pushed into wanting more and more power, whatever that is to the person (learning ever more, getting famous, political power, becoming rich, having power over other people. Business men/bosses who like to boss people around, policemen, domination of people for sexual pleasure, and numerous other sources of a feeling of power). The higher you go in the ranks or the hyper intelligent people, those are the ones you see it in most often.

The worst bit is none of this is new… before “psychology” was invented, doctors who knew how to cure people would treat anyone with mania/anxiety/depression for digestion health, parasites, and colon dysfunction and cure them of their “mental” disorders. But it is more profitable to “treat” crazy people than it is to cure them.

If they are wealthy enough to eat super healthy/nutrient rich foods, the body is happy to handle the virus… It’ll eventually lead to a cancer (Steve Jobs) or increase the risk for cancer. I don’t think humans were meant to ponder the whole universe their entire lives, aka philosophize and grandiosize their own take on what it means to be alive… they are meant to learn new things and how to survive but the brain isn’t supposed to be on all the time.

The intelligence extremely intelligent people express, the way they behave, the sick look in their eyes (compared to some similarly aged normal) is beyond any genetic difference. Some know how to hide the sickness look but most have it in their eyes or their personality is too unstable to be anything but sick on some level. Watch some drink and you’ll see how easily the alcohol tears them down, any healthy person doesn’t get that easily drunk or those red shoot eyes… but I’ve seen numerous people who have viruses get that or avoid alcohol because of what it does to them.

I’ve long suspected the “gay” flipped sex-designation attraction region of brain (flipped being descriptive in that males and female brains regions that form the basic response the opposite sex, resemble the opposite sex’s brain region) was due to a virus, since the numbers of affected individuals is almost the damn same as the numbers for genetic predisposition to a virus type conditions. Aka, it takes a virus-open-doorway to allow them to invade and alter the brain during pregnancy.

If I had time, I would do the DNA analysis and pin down the genetic/chemical pathways that develop the parts of the brain — showing that a minor alteration in the genes being expressed along the regulatory pathways during the critical development periods of the male and female brain.

This would show that the brain, depending on the genes and environmental impact of toxins and viruses and bacteria and fungi toxins and genetic shifts, fails to develop the region of the brain according to the male or female control genes depending on when the obscuring/obstruction process occurred during fetal or childhood development. Depending on the type of “gay/bisexual” attraction and asexual patterns the person ascribes to in their life, I’d argue the various factors would suggest environmental toxins like estrogen mimickers for turning male brains more into female brains… full on gay attraction would suggest much earlier shifts in the development stage that would suggest natal infection or a neonatal infection with viruses that are known to alter the hormones too, not only that but the more virus and other immune load that a male has during development the more the immune system will down regulate testosterone to allow the immune system to be stronger, since testosterone inhibits and blocks some of the immune system’s full functionality. An solidly research example of this is aging in men, lower their health is the lower their testosterone is but take anyone with poor health and put them through a solid healing process and exercise routine and they get back their testosterone but it does lower their immune system function too.

It’s funny to read the research that basically shows how different parasites induce more sexual behavior in humans, they increase the population of infected humans and increase the population of infectable hosts by doing that. One study showed an almost doubling of the number sexual partners for infected human, with an average of two more kid. Look for a small quarter sized irregular shaped spot of darker skin and the girl will really be sexually promiscuous who literally can’t feel alive without kinky stuff going on and wants sex all the time compared to the normal girls who only like sex with one guy after they enter a relationship.

Now that we understand extreme intelligence is a byproduct of immune system issues. Everything becomes clear: Nerds are almost always ugly, sickly, weak people.

Why are so many scientists STUPID?

Historically, physics and mathematics have often overlapped with philosophy, and many great scientists engaged with philosophers to advance their own thinking. (Einstein’s work can be studied alongside that of Kant, for example.) The physicist behind the theory of relativity was also a philosopher of science and, as Hall points out, Einstein reconfigured our concepts of space and time—itself a philosophical undertaking. What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation. Science is not the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It’s a form of engineering — of trial by error. Scientific knowledge is not “true” knowledge, since it is knowledge about only specific empirical propositions — which is always, at least in theory, subject to further disproof by further experiment. Many people are surprised to hear this, but the founder of modern science says it. Bacon, who had a career in politics and was an experienced manager, actually wrote that scientists would have to be misled into thinking science is a pursuit of the truth, so that they will be dedicated to their work, even though it is not.

Why is all this ancient history important? Because science is important, and if we don’t know what science actually is, we are going to make mistakes.

The vast majority of people, including a great many very educated ones, don’t actually know what science is.

Since most people think math and lab coats equal science, people call economics a science, even though almost nothing in economics is actually derived from controlled experiments. Then people get angry at economists when they don’t predict impending financial crises, as if having tenure at a university endowed you with magical powers. Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors’ urges to look “more scientific” by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge.

Because people don’t understand that science is built on experimentation, they don’t understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment. This is how you get articles with headlines saying “Study Proves X” one day and “Study Proves the Opposite of X” the next day, each illustrated with stock photography of someone in a lab coat. That gets a lot of people to think that “science” isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, since so many studies seem to contradict each other.

This is how you get people asserting that “science” commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is “scientific” because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is “science” even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114.

It’s very profitable for those who grab some of the social prestige that accrues to science, but it means we live in a state of confusion. It also means that for all our bleating about “science” we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our “pro-science” people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science). we also have a very anti-scientific mindset in many areas.

For example, our approach to education is positively obscurantist. Nobody uses rigorous experimentation to determine better methods of education, and someone who would dare to do so would be laughed out of the room. The first and most momentous scientist of education, Maria Montessori, produced an experimentally based, scientific education method that has been largely ignored by our supposedly science-enamored society. We have departments of education at very prestigious universities, and absolutely no science happens at any of them.

Our approach to public policy is also astonishingly pre-scientific. There have been almost no large-scale truly scientific experiments on public policy since the welfare randomized field trials of the 1990s, and nobody seems to realize how barbaric this is. We have people at Brookings who can run spreadsheets, and Ezra Klein can write about it and say it proves things, we have all the science we need, thank you very much. But that is not science.

Modern science is one of the most important inventions of human civilization. But the reason it took us so long to invent it and the reason we still haven’t quite understood what it is 500 years later is it is very hard to be scientific. Not because science is “expensive” but because it requires a fundamental epistemic humility, and humility is the hardest thing to wring out of the bombastic animals we are.

Philosophy is not for everyone, and many are perfectly happy to live their lives without trying to figure out what, exactly, Heidegger is saying. Philosophy does not give us the certainty that math or experimental science can (but even then — as many philosophers would point out — these fields do not give us as much certainty as is sometimes claimed). But that doesn’t mean that philosophy is worthless, or that it doesn’t have rigor. Indeed, in a sense, philosophy is inescapable. To argue that philosophy is useless is to do philosophy.

Seemingly every day, you can find examples of people displaying stunning cultural illiteracy — people in positions where that simply should not happen. The great philosophical tradition that our civilization is built on is left largely untaught. Even “liberal arts” curricula in many colleges do not teach the most influential thinkers. If our elites aren’t being taught this great tradition, then it should come as no surprise that some subset of that elite — experimental scientists and their hangers-on — don’t know it.

That’s part of the problem. But it’s just a part of it. After all, as a group, scientists have an obvious objective interest in experimental science being recognized as the only path to valuable knowledge, and therefore an interest in disdaining other paths to knowledge as less valid. People who listen to scientists opine about philosophy ought to keep that in mind.

And then there’s another factor at play. Many, though certainly not all, of the scientists who opine loudest about the uselessness of philosophy are public atheists. The form of atheism they promote is usually known as “eliminative materialism,” or the notion that matter is the only thing that exists. This theory is motivated by “scientism,” or the notion that the only knowable things are knowable by science. Somewhat paradoxically, these propositions are essentially religious — to dismiss entire swathes of human experience and human thought requires a venture of faith. They’re also not very smart religion, since they end up simply shouting away inconvenient propositions.

Fundamentalism is not a belief system or a religion, it’s a state of mind. There can be fundamentalist religion, fundamentalist atheism, fundamentalist socialism, fundamentalism libertarianism. What all of them have in common is, in David Bentley Hart’s words, “a stubborn refusal to think.” The fundamentalist is not the one whose ideas are too simple or too crude. He’s the one who stubbornly refuses to think through either other ideas, or those ideas themselves.

Sadly, many of our greatest minds give us an example of this state of mind.

To be a “free” person in our civilization requires an understanding of precisely those ideas. Yes, that means also understanding critiques of those ideas, but we’ve gone too far in the other direction. We’ve reached a point where our elites don’t even understand the basic concepts that make our civilization run. A civilization is nothing but institutions, and institutions are nothing but ideas in motion — in our case, institutions such as human rights, liberal democracy, free market capitalism, the scientific method, and so on.

Writers report on “studies” that they’re not numerate enough to understand. And the ability to understand data, to query it, to manipulate it, can be taught. A specific science (computers!) should not be a basic part of the liberal arts curriculum, but a strong foundation in mathematics and statistics should definitely be.

Economics and sociology are valuable, as long as you understand the processes by which they arrive at their findings, and the limits of those processes. This is the hard work of epistemology, which is the study of how we decide which things are true and which aren’t, and how we prove things, which might be the most important discipline today as well as the most understudied.


The WHOLE so called Health Food industry is a sad joke

The REAL issues with people is bad gut bacteria, fungi and parasites. Almost all the most advanced research is pointing towards the gut as the source of all the problems and health issues, it’s more than insane if you full keep up with all the research on just how much bacteria can alter humans. Once you get these types of immune problems, you have to selectively rebuild the intestine’s integrity and outside of rebuilding the lining and immune system with l-glutamine (found in all protein sources, stored in muscle and circulating it via exercising) there’s no way to reset the immune system except for a massive green tea EGCG cleanse to wipe out the bad bacteria biofilms and take the full set of beneficial probiotics. Parasites can be removed from the intestine using vinegar (5.5oz/175lbs) for a few days longer than the length of the gestation/life cycle. Vinegar seems like a safer bet for parasites due to it easily destroying the oocyte stage of the parasites (you just have to be able to drink it once a day for longer than their life cycle to eradicate them) and also enhancing the body’s ability to degrade virus envelopes and decrease the fungi replication in combination with various essential oils. In other words, the acidic environment deters them from propagation and creates an inhospitable living arrangement where they have little chance of survival. Everything else is maintenance and rarely does more than mediocre help.
Once you regain your full health and realize how much energy food has, no matter how “unhealthy” it is — when there are no bad bacteria present — you realize that the main stress on the body is bad bacteria producing toxins when they are given their favorite food. The whole health industry is made up of science illiterates and SCAMMERS.

Why the dating scene favors men in the USA

Apparently in the United States educated women outnumber educated men by 2 to 1. This has caused the dating scene to favor educated men.. at least on the east coast. Women are hypergamous; that is, they strongly prefer to date up. It is very rare for a woman to be attracted to a man who is less educated or has lower social status than herself.

Interesting article:

In 2012, 34 percent more women than men graduated from American colleges, and the U.S. Department of Education expects this gap to reach 47 percent by 2023. The imbalance has spilled over into the post-college dating scene. According to data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, there are now 5.5 million
college-educated women in the United States between the ages of 22 and 29 vs. 4.1 million such men. In other words, the dating pool for straight, millennial, college graduates has four women for every three men. No wonder some men are in no rush to settle down and more women are giving up on what used to be called “playing
hard to get.”

These demographics represent the true dating apocalypse, as stacks of social science show how dating and mating behavior is influenced by prevailing sex ratios. When there are plenty of marriageable men, dating culture emphasizes courtship and romance, and men generally must earn more to attract a wife. But when gender ratios skew toward women, as they do today among college grads, the dating culture becomes more sexualized. The good news, at least according to the work of psychologists and sex-ratio pioneers Marcia Guttentag and Paul Secord, is that people tend to have better sex when ratios skew female. The downside? Women
frequently wind up being treated as sex objects, and men are more inclined to exercise the option to delay marriage and play the field. As I note in my book, today’s uneven gender ratios “add up to sexual nirvana for heterosexual men, but for heterosexual women — especially those who put a high priority on getting married and having children in wedlock — they represent a demographic time bomb.”

Of course, these lopsided numbers might not matter if young, college-educated women become more willing to date — and, eventually, marry — across socioeconomic lines. But according to separate research by University of Pennsylvania economist Jeremy Greenwood and by UCLA sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare, educational intermarriage is less common today than at any
point over the past half century.

Because the pool of college-educated women is much larger, the unwillingness of college-educated men to consider working-class women as life partners has little statistical effect on their marriage prospects. But for college-educated women, excluding working-class guys makes their dating math much more challenging. If there is an undersupply of men in the college-educated dating pool, there is going to be an oversupply of men in the non-college-educated one. Indeed, there are 1.5 million more non-college-educated men than women among Americans age 22 to 29. Bottom line: New York City women looking for a match would be better off, statistically at least, at a fireman’s bar in Staten Island than a wine bar on the Upper East Side.

The dynamics, and numbers, shift when we expand the conversation from different-sex to same-sex dating. Obviously the lesbian dating market is unaffected by how many men there are, just as the dating market for gay men is unaffected by how many women there are. However, gender ratios within the LGBT community do affect different-sex dating, oddly enough. According to Gary Gates, a UCLA researcher and a leading expert on LGBT demographics, cities known for being LGBT-friendly (New York, Washington, Miami, etc.) have disproportionate numbers of gay men, but not of lesbians. Consequently, the different-sex dating markets in these cities are worse for women than the overall census numbers imply. DATE-ONOMICS illustrates that Manhattan’s hetero, college-grad, under-30 dating pool has three women for every two men — which, like it or not, is exactly the sort of sexual playground for men portrayed by Vanity Fair.

Regardless of orientation, not all women, of course, place a premium on marriage, or even monogamy. But for the straight, college-educated woman who is eager to get married and start a family, the question becomes how best to deal with a dating market in which men have too much leverage.

Dating and marrying across socioeconomic lines — “mixed-collar” marriages, if you will — is one possible remedy. I’d also urge marriage-minded women not to put off getting serious about dating because the math will only get worse over time. Call it the
musical chairs problem: Nearly everybody finds a chair in the first round. By the last round, however, there’s a 50 percent chance of not getting one. Similarly, in a dating pool that starts out with 140 women and 100 men, the gender ratio among those still
single soars from 1.4:1 to more than 2:1 once half the women get married.

Another solution (at least for the frustrated women interviewed by Vanity Fair) would be to quit Manhattan, which is one of the worst dating markets in the country for educated young women. Indeed, their new mantra should probably be “Go West, Young Woman.” The Western part of the country, in general, has more balanced gender ratios than those found east of the Mississippi River. California and Colorado, for example, each have 20 percent more college-grad women than men age 22 to 29 compared with 36 and 41 percent, respectively, in Illinois and North Carolina.

Unsurprisingly, men tend to be less — I’ll say it — promiscuous when women are more scarce. Consider Santa Clara County, Calif., home to Silicon Valley and the only well-populated area in the country where male college grads outnumber female ones by a significant margin. There, it’s women who have the dating leverage. “I think it’s pretty good for the girls,” one single woman told the San Jose Mercury News a few years back. “You can be more picky,” because guys “have to try harder.”

Perhaps as a result, 33 percent of college-educated women age 22 to 29 are married vs. 13 percent in Manhattan. Santa Clara County’s marriages happen to be more stable too: Among college-grad women in their 30s, 4 percent are separated or divorced vs. 7 percent in Manhattan.


That makes a lot of sense, there are armies of men who look average or below average, have lousy social skills and are very shy and reserved, but nevertheless expect women to throw themselves at them and are shocked to find this is not the case.

Similarly, you have a lot of men who have been brainwashed by today’s “Women can do everything men can do” bullshit, and now believe women could (and should!) be the ones making the first move. This does not happen because, once again, they aren’t as appealing as they think they are. These men come up with a million of theories on how society is corrupt and women are evil, conveniently ignoring their own part in their misfortune: their own inactivity, and unwillingness to change.

Successful men need not bother themselves with complicated theories on the state of womanhood, they don’t need lifestyle gurus or dating coaches. They’re just going through the motions, and allowing nature to take it’s course. And sometimes, when nature takes it’s course, certain men find themselves left out. Men who are too lazy, or too prideful, to look at alternatives.

How men get sex

The real natural environment of hominids was less the savanna than the social group. If you were a hominid male, and people paid attention to you, carved your approval, shut up and listened when you spoke, that meant you were a leader. Men who commanded attention commanded access to community support. That meant a good nest-maker. Humans compete less for territory than for rank. Territory and possessions are only symbols of rank. He who controls the attention is high status and sexually attractive. That’s why rock stars get more ass than CEOs. The bullet points on your resume don’t elicit the same visceral Pleistocene reaction as fame (that’s why it helps to be a braggart). I don’t care whether you are a primate or a pipefish, all social systems among animal are hierarchical. Our ancestral tribal societies were economically unequal. A whole lot of hominids were competing for a small number of high-status positions in the tribe. This means only a few ended up on top, a few on the bottom and the rest somewhere in the middle. The human race is a race. The real Pleistocene currency by which a hunter was ranked was not cash but attention.

The stupidity of complaining about affirmative action

Nice article I edited to fit here:

There’s really no great mystery about bureaucracies. Why is it so often that the best people are stuck in the middle and the people who are running things—the leaders—are the mediocrities? Because excellence isn’t what bureaucracies are about. Bureaucracies are about keeping the routine going. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. The head of Bureaucracies are commonplace, ordinary, usual and common. They have no genius for organizing or initiative or even order, no particular learning or intelligence, no distinguishing characteristics at all. Just the ability to keep the routine going. What gets you up in a bureaucracy is a talent for maneuvering. Kissing up to the people above you, kicking down to the people below you. Pleasing your teachers, pleasing your superiors, picking a powerful mentor and riding his coattails until it’s time to stab him in the back. Jumping through hoops. Getting along by going along. Being whatever other people want you to be, so that it finally comes to seem that, like the manager of the Central Station, you have nothing inside you at all. Not taking stupid risks like trying to change how things are done or question why they’re done. This is the perfect description of the kind of person who tends to prosper in the bureaucratic environment. Obviously becoming self employed or an entrepreneur is the normal reaction to this situation but most people can’t really think so they descend into rather silly and vindictive diatribes.

I tell you this to forewarn you, because I promise you that you will meet these people and you will find yourself in environments where what is rewarded above all is conformity. I tell you so you can decide to be a different kind of leader. And I tell you for one other reason. As I thought about these things and put all these pieces together—the kind of students I had, the kind of leadership they were being trained for, the kind of leaders I saw in my own institution—I realized that this is a national problem. We have a crisis of leadership in this country, in every institution. Not just in government. Look at what happened to American corporations in recent decades, as all the old dinosaurs like General Motors or TWA or U.S. Steel fell apart. Look at what happened to Wall Street in just the last couple of years.

Finally—and I know I’m on sensitive ground here—look at what happened during the first four years of the Iraq War. We were stuck. It wasn’t the fault of the enlisted ranks or the noncoms or the junior officers. It was the fault of the senior leadership, whether military or civilian or both. We weren’t just not winning, we weren’t even changing direction. What we have now are the greatest technocrats the world has ever seen, people who have been trained to be incredibly good at one specific thing, but who have no interest in anything beyond their area of exper­tise. What we don’t have are leaders

Anyone who’s been paying attention for the last few years understands that the changing nature of warfare means that officers, including junior officers, are required more than ever to be able to think independently, creatively, flexibly. To deploy a whole range of skills in a fluid and complex situation. Lieutenant colonels who are essentially functioning as provincial governors in Iraq, or captains who find themselves in charge of a remote town somewhere in Afghanistan. People who know how to do more than follow orders and execute routines.

We have a crisis of leadership in America because our overwhelming power and wealth, earned under earlier generations of leaders, made us complacent, and for too long we have been training leaders who are brain-dead. Being a good leader now means being a good follower. What we don’t have, in other words, are thinkers. People who can think for themselves. People who can formulate a new direction: for the country, for a corporation or a college, for the Army—a new way of doing things, a new way of looking at things. People, in other words, with vision.

The Hereditarian Theory of Intelligence Is Stupid

Can we really increase our intelligence? The answer is yes.

A renowned article published in the journal Nature by Price and her colleagues challenged this immutable view of intelligence. The study had 33 adolescents, who were 12 to 16-years-old when the study initiated. Price and her team gave them IQ tests, tracked them for four years, and then tested them again with the same measurement tools. The fluctuations in IQ were outstanding: not about a couple points, but 20-plus IQ points. These changes in IQ scores, according to the researchers, were not random — they tracked elegantly with structural and functional brain imaging. Thus, there is also an important group of scientists that maintain that many of the changes in IQ are correlated to changes in the environment, particularly schooling.

“It’s analogous to fitness. A teenager who is athletically fit at 14 could be less fit at 18 if they stopped exercising. Conversely, an unfit teenager can become much fitter with exercise.”

Furthermore, there is also a certain number of studies that have shown brain changes after several kinds of educational regimens. The study about Tokyo taxi drivers is a especially distinguished one. Scientists conducted memory, visual and spatial information tests and took brain scans using MRI of 79 male trainee Tokyo taxi drivers at the beginning of their training regimen. At the beginning of the study, no variance was found in their brain structure or memory. Three to four years later, however, scientists found a considerable increase in grey matter in the posterior hippocampi, among the 39 trains who performed as taxi drivers. Naturally, this change was not observed in the non-taxi drivers. Thus, this kind of studies suggest that the brain can change to accommodate new knowledge, so future programs for lifelong learning are possible.

What we immediately notice is a long list of enormous variations in the tested IQs of genetically indistinguishable European peoples across temporal, geographical, and political lines, variations so large as to raise severe doubts about the strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ favored by white spermicide and perhaps also quietly held by many others.

Consider, for example, the results from Germany obtained prior to its 1991 reunification. Lynn and Vanhanen present four separate IQ studies from the former West Germany, all quite sizable, which indicate mean IQs in the range 99–107, with the oldest 1970 sample providing the low end of that range. Meanwhile, a 1967 sample of East German children produced a score of just 90, while two later East German studies in 1978 and 1984 came in at 97–99, much closer to the West German numbers.

These results seem anomalous from the perspective of strong genetic determinism for IQ. To a very good approximation, East Germans and West Germans are genetically indistinguishable, and an IQ gap as wide as 17 points between the two groups seems inexplicable, while the recorded rise in East German scores of 7–9 points in just half a generation seems even more difficult to explain.

To sum up, it is not fully clear What intelligence is, and hence How to directly increase it. Nonetheless, we can consider intelligence, for practical purposes, as a starting point in life. Naturally, we are born with certain capacities and particular features, but it is later in life when we discover and develop them, regardless of our individual genetic background. Thus, instead of frustratingly trying to increase your “G” factor (since we do not have a general consensus and determinant scientific evidence yet), what you can do is focus in your multiple crystallized intelligences: the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. If you are a scientist, observe and analyze information; if you are a philosopher, organize it and turn it into knowledge; if you are an artist, interpret it. Different areas of intelligence have different weights of importance in each person’s occupational life, and you can definitely get better at specific activities through practice and discipline.