ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, August 03, 2017

What part of "cruelty artist" do they not get?

Do home run hitters ever stand there watching a nice fat pitch heading straight over the plate, and, as they start to swing, find themselves thinking, I cannot believe he thought THAT was a good idea?
Choy Li Fut Lady虎爪‏ @HungSingMA
Why does being a physicist make Brian Cox more intelligent? Btw, Liam Gallagher's IQ is Higher than Einstein's was.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
Because you have to be able to grasp the math involved. Most really smart people (150+) don't work in intellectually elite professions.

Choy Li Fut Lady虎爪‏ @HungSingMA
So? Doesn't mean people who are able to grasp the maths don't do history.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
True. But the highest measured IQ of 148 Cambridge faculty members was 139. Academics, on average, are third-rate intelligences.

Matthew L‏ @Blethigg
When asked what his IQ is: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
 - Steven Hawking

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
I bet he doesn't know his 100-meter time either.
The irony, of course, is that Steven Hawking himself is a wildly overrated academic who could not philosophize his way out of a box. Like most popularizers, he is considerably less intelligent than his fans believe him to be. Hawking wouldn't fare much better in a debate on religion or philosophy than he would in a footrace.

I discussed the concept of overrated intellectual elites in last night's Darkstream on Our Third-Rate Intellectual Elites. There is an Easter Egg in there if you listen to the whole thing. I suspect it will amuse most of you.

Meanwhile, the outraged response to this tweet should prove entertaining.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
For her next trick, "historian" @wmarybeard is going to defend Kevin Costner's American accent in Robin Hood.

The creepy thing is that Mary Beard was attempting to justify BBC diversity propaganda aimed at children while obviously being aware that mass rape is "a way of creating a mixed society". What are we supposed to conclude from this, that Rotherham is the modern equivalent of the Rape of the Sabine Women and therefore justified in the name of diversity?

The Romans’ sense of their society as a hybrid one, Beard finds, is folded into their founding legends. Virgil’s Aeneid celebrates the Trojan hero who founded the city—a foreigner who, though he kills some of the native inhabitants, also unites the warring tribes. And without downplaying the horrific violence in the tale of Romulus and Remus and the rape of the Sabine women, Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society.

UPDATE: Mary Beard is already trying to run away from her own positions. Not that it will do her any good. It just adds two steps to the same conclusion. She's also cried to The Times already.



UPDATE: Taleb pulls no punches, as usual.

NassimNicholasTaleb‏@nntaleb
More Evidence that Ms Beard is a bullshitter. She tried to degrade me to "pop risk" until I compated the "pop" to HERs. Her report. Bullshitter!

NassimNicholasTaleb‏@nntaleb
If that's how Mary Beard bullshits about her exchange with me, how can anyone trust her historical reports? No more use for her.

Labels: ,

161 Comments:

Blogger Matamoros August 03, 2017 8:11 AM  

Hawking is a hero for the "otherly abled" crowd. I've never thought much of his musings, particularly his anti-Christianity.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable August 03, 2017 8:14 AM  

Hawking wouldn't fare much better in a debate on religion or philosophy than he would in a footrace.

Should be an award for that line alone.

Blogger Chrom August 03, 2017 8:33 AM  

When asked what his 100-meter time is: "I have no idea. People who boast about their 100-meter are losers."

- Everyone in the race not named Usain Bolt

Blogger papabear August 03, 2017 8:45 AM  

Women can't keep their mouths shout (or in this instance their fingers from typing). "Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you should share it with the world."

More and more it seems that intellectual discussions should be a male-only space, thanks to academics like Beard and the hordes of female commentators on the internet.

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise August 03, 2017 9:01 AM  

It's ALL about Hawking's infirmity (and, by extension, his wheelchair). Contracting ALS was his ticket to fame.

("Of course he's brilliant! All he does is sit around and think!")

It's no secret that among the physics and cosmology communities his celebrity status is met with eye rolls ...

Anonymous kfg August 03, 2017 9:02 AM  

"Academics, on average, are third-rate intelligences."

Oh, dear God, so much this.

Anonymous Stickwick August 03, 2017 9:03 AM  

Like most popularizers, he is considerably less intelligent than his fans believe him to be. Hawking wouldn't fare much better in a debate on religion or philosophy than he would in a footrace.

Unlike Neil deGrasse Tyson, Hawking is a first-rate scientist and has earned his reputation as a great physicist. But he, like many other highly-specialized academics, has made the mistake of thinking that success and expertise in one particular topic somehow extends to cover anything he wishes to opine about.

OpenID paworldandtimes August 03, 2017 9:09 AM  

But he, like many other highly-specialized academics, has made the mistake of thinking that success and expertise in one particular topic somehow extends to cover anything he wishes to opine about.

Look up Albert Einstein's quotes on subjects unrelated to physics.

PA

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise August 03, 2017 9:09 AM  

@5

And don't even get me started on Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Blogger dh August 03, 2017 9:11 AM  

It's no secret that among the physics and cosmology communities his celebrity status is met with eye rolls ...

Also, look, like I don't personally care, but he's a well known perv. Well. Known.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking/11340494/Stephen-Hawking-pictured-on-Jeffrey-Epsteins-Island-of-Sin.html

http://geekologie.com/2012/02/stephen-hawking-regular-at-freedom-acres.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/stephen-hawking-said-to-frequent-sex-club_n_1307625.html

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 03, 2017 9:11 AM  

Stickwick wrote:Like most popularizers, he is considerably less intelligent than his fans believe him to be. Hawking wouldn't fare much better in a debate on religion or philosophy than he would in a footrace.

Unlike Neil deGrasse Tyson, Hawking is a first-rate scientist and has earned his reputation as a great physicist. But he, like many other highly-specialized academics, has made the mistake of thinking that success and expertise in one particular topic somehow extends to cover anything he wishes to opine about.


It's not that he can't talk about other topics. It's that he won't admit he could be wrong about those subjects or that he isn't as big an expert in them.

That's the key: these people lack humility when it comes to such matters.

Anonymous Überdeplorable Psychedelic Cat Grass August 03, 2017 9:12 AM  

*Hawking synthesizer voice*

But Stickwick, I am the all knowing all powerful Steven Hawking. I'm 10x intelligent as you on any sub....

*Hawking's ALS finally does his jaw in and he's unable to move*

Caretaker: it looks like Hawming died. He's not moving.

*inside Hawking's brain* No, you stupid SOB! Look at my eyes! I'M ALIIIIIVE!

Caretaker (on the phone): Yeah. No, his eyes aren't moving. Have him over for mummification? Sure, 5 pm.

Hawking: F***!

Blogger pyrrhus August 03, 2017 9:27 AM  

Steven Hawking is the most overrated physicist in history. But he is very very good at publicizing himself...

Blogger Aaron Swenson August 03, 2017 9:28 AM  

Abortions should be mandatory for rape-mutts.

Anonymous Stickwick August 03, 2017 9:30 AM  

swiftfoxmark2: That's the key: these people lack humility when it comes to such matters.

Yes, they often do. It's a peculiar phenomenon, because they wouldn't dare speak so authoritatively on something that's related but wasn't their sub-specialty.

I was acquainted with a Nobel laureate physicist, who would opine with great authority on religion (ineptly, I might add), but would humbly ask about things he didn't understand in astrophysics. He knew enough science to know what he didn't know in science. Besides humility, the other problem may be that no one gets a classical education anymore.

Anonymous Gardner August 03, 2017 9:33 AM  

An interesting theory I have read on the web is that Hawking died years ago and an imposter took his place so (((they))) could use him as a mouthpiece. Compare photos of him as a young man to him now and make up your own mind.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker August 03, 2017 9:35 AM  

Mary Beard just waded in to the social equivalent of a boxing match with chin out and guard down. Nice work, Vox.

Blogger Paul Sacramento August 03, 2017 9:38 AM  

People hate when their ill-thought up views are taken to their natural conclusion.

Blogger Cataline Sergius August 03, 2017 9:38 AM  



I looked at the article.

Where the f4ck did all these Black Romans come from in the past year?

Last year no where to be found. This year the Brits have them everywhere. There has been massive immigration but now it's through time as well.

The one episode of Doctor Who that I watched this year featured a Roman legionnaire who was not only Black but Gay as well.

It did my heart tremendous good when I overheard a kid at kid's school sneering about "diversity points," in the new Spiderman movie.

It appears Generation Z knows bullshit when it's being shoveled at them.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan August 03, 2017 9:41 AM  

Well when the diversity brags about screwing over whites even the Boomer Contard Cucks have to start realizing that diversity brings nothing but sorrows.

Has any conservative ever asked what diversity does for them? Nope

Blogger Robert Coble August 03, 2017 9:42 AM  

A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.

There are three kinds of [WO]men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

[Or, as my older brother has observed: "There are some lessons you can only learn growing up on a farm."]

When ignorance gets started it knows no bounds.

It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.

There is nothing so stupid as the educated man if you get him off the thing he was educated in.

Will Rogers
Poet Lariat

Blogger Russell August 03, 2017 9:43 AM  

Hawking's been dead for some time now. Whoever they have had filling in for him has been doing a bang-up job of distracting the low-IQ people.

Blogger Grandpa Lampshade August 03, 2017 9:48 AM  

Ah yes, the leftist demand that you remove your post. It's the tell tale signal of defeat on social media. It's little things like that which make me miss Twitter.

Blogger Elocutioner August 03, 2017 9:52 AM  

+1 for Stickwick.

Politics revolves around deception by professional liars and understanding how humans actually work. NONE of the input data can be trusted at face value. People from the hard sciences struggle with this.

Also note that they're given a microphone to advocate for action as credentialed mouthpieces, not to explain the science.

For example, we never had a public debate on whether global warming would be good or bad, all of the scientists simply declared it would be catastrophic and we had to do act. But we're not all rubes and now they've destroyed their own credibility. (How many deadlines have passed now? But they keep issuing new ones.)

Blogger James August 03, 2017 9:56 AM  

Did you notice how many of the articles in the Times Literary Supplement were homo themed? I realize that many of Britain's journalists, academicians, and elite are rump rangers and carpet munchers but, dear God! Its like going to Netflix and seeing all the gaystream movies. Given the amount of focus on what is still a small percentage of the population, do you think the elite realizes what a destructive force homosexuality is to society? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera August 03, 2017 9:58 AM  

Stickwick,

Calling Hawking a first-rate scientist is a strong claim, and is contradicted by his inept philosophical musings. A natural philosopher is a philosopher primarily and a naturalist secondarily. I'd argue the West has not a single first-rate scientist in the mainstream, and hasn't for at least as long as I've been alive, because they get the Richwine treatment. Hawking could however be reasonably described as a first-rate naturalist.

Blogger Lazarus August 03, 2017 9:59 AM  

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
- Richard P. Feynman

Blogger Student in Blue August 03, 2017 10:01 AM  

".this is offensive please remove"

That got a good laugh out of me. Sorry Mary, hatefacts are still facts.

Blogger B.J. August 03, 2017 10:04 AM  

I recall watching Theory of Everything and thinking, this is it? This is all this guy has ever done? Wrote some books about some nice ideas (now disproven), and cheated on his wives?

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 03, 2017 10:04 AM  

I doubt Maxwell, Heaviside, or Kelvin would think much of our modern physicists. Those were men who could think *and* do math.

Anonymous RCFlyer August 03, 2017 10:05 AM  

Earlier this year the BBC had a documentary miniseries about the events leading up the 1066 invasion of England. They portrayed William the Conqueror's chief adviser and diplomatic envoy as a black guy.

Blogger August August 03, 2017 10:06 AM  

This attitude is taught in schools, colleges, various training seminars. The credentials mean a lot, but so does attitude- must be charismatic, must appear to genuinely believe everyone should 'be heard'...
Beard ought to be able to catch on, but the training is likely to kick in.

Anonymous RCFlyer August 03, 2017 10:14 AM  

In reference to my above comment about the BBC documentary above, click on the link if you want a good laugh when you see the actor playing Robert de Beaumont, the Conqueror's comrade and the 1st Duke of Leicester.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04v9t8q/p04v9r3d

Anonymous Iron Spartan August 03, 2017 10:14 AM  

Every history academic in europe right now:

"We have to portray the Roman Empire as diverse on the flimsiest of evidence otherwise the foundation of the narrative crumbles."

That the narrative is worth more to them than their own credibility tells you all you need to know.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 03, 2017 10:15 AM  

Oftentimes anyone highly specialized and learned in ANY field completely loses their perception of any and every other field and non-field in the process.

This leads them to easily and glibly make absurd statements in their non-specialties. Well, this and pride/vainglory, but we're talking about humans so I take that for a given unless specified otherwise.

Blogger Kek's SS Guard August 03, 2017 10:15 AM  

I apologize if my comment seems like I am bragging, it's just a personal observation.
I have two MS degrees (Chemical Engineering and Meteorology), 3 BS degrees and have been tested with a supposed IQ of 170+.
Having said all of this, I fly an Air-Med evac rotor wing for a living. Why?
2 reasons.
First, I despise the "academic" attitudes, they bore me. If you need to talk for hours and still haven't made your point, go away. The problem I had with college was all of the bloviating and unrelated material before you get to the subject at hand. Like VD, I have no patience for dumb, ignorant people.
Second, helos don't talk back. If you do your job correctly, you have a successful flight. If not, well it's going to be a painful day!

Blogger exfarmkid August 03, 2017 10:18 AM  

How many of these so-called "intellectual elites" have ever gotten a production line off the ground? Or more generally, met a deliverable for a customer? Or sold a solution to a customer in the first place?

And who the hell is Mary Beard?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 03, 2017 10:18 AM  

@34. Iron, to be fair, it almost certainly WAS diverse, although not at all in the colors modern academia wishes.

It was an empire, what do you want? Empires seed their own destruction by burning the flesh and blood of those who originated them as fuel for the banksters. This process has only been repeating since the time of, I dunno, the ancient Persian empire?

Blogger James August 03, 2017 10:20 AM  

Iron Spartan wrote:Every history academic in europe right now:

"We have to portray the Roman Empire as diverse on the flimsiest of evidence otherwise the foundation of the narrative crumbles."

That the narrative is worth more to them than their own credibility tells you all you need to know.


Its what they're paid to do. The "narrative" is only important in that it keeps the shekels flowing.

Anonymous Faceless August 03, 2017 10:20 AM  

Beard shows herself to, at bottom, be a woman incapable of debate rather than a serious academic.

She finds a repetition of a statement from a fawning puff-piece to now be offensive, when it is repeated at a time she doesn't like?

She found the previous characterization - that she was pro-rape if it led to the ends of greater mixed-society social diversity - a positive thing. Now, she wants to run from what she once was OK with.

Funny how that works.

Blogger Metric August 03, 2017 10:21 AM  

Hawking is unfortunately infected with the physicist’s conceit that all non-physics subjects are trivial, and as a result he regularly puts his foot in his mouth. The attitude is more common that you might expect: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” – Ernest Rutherford

In his defense, though, the consequences of his discoveries will continue to be of high interest when humanity (as we know it) is ancient history.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 03, 2017 10:23 AM  

"We must pull down the high man."

Becomes: "We'll feed on the high man's blood for our sustenance."

Oh, you realized that zombie movies were about low IQ chumpkins and leftist-style thought?

Guess who the vampire movies are about.

Anonymous Eduardo August 03, 2017 10:26 AM  

Actually I do think that is education at it's finest. They were taught to be conceited... So they obviously have a conceited behavior, a conceited culture...

This is all part of how they were educated.

Anonymous Bagger Vance August 03, 2017 10:27 AM  

Beard's article is pretty typical stuff. I gave up after being lightly amused by characterizing Libyans and Algerians as "black Africans" tho.

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise August 03, 2017 10:32 AM  

@33

Yes. A good laugh. A black actor playing an 11th century Norman nobleman.

Multiply that by ten, throw in a few Hispanics, and you have Hamilton.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer August 03, 2017 10:34 AM  

Iron Spartan wrote:Every history academic in europe right now:

"We have to portray the Roman Empire as diverse on the flimsiest of evidence otherwise the foundation of the narrative crumbles."

That the narrative is worth more to them than their own credibility tells you all you need to know.


This is where you wish there was a red-pilled production company. A remake of Roots with all white slaves and black slave masters would be highly entertaining. #culturalappropriation would trend on twitter for a year.

Blogger Vlad August 03, 2017 10:38 AM  

I was considering about buying her history book on Rome. Once, I found out it was written by a woman, I hesitated. Glad I went with my instincts

Anonymous BBGKB August 03, 2017 10:39 AM  

Everyone in the race not named Usain Bolt

If you are a long time reader you will know Usain Bolt has not yet beaten my best 2 mile run time when I was in the army.

one episode of Doctor Who that I watched this year featured a Roman legionnaire who was not only Black but Gay as well.

Just wait until Gaynigger, Gaynigger Bond comes out!

Blogger Dexter August 03, 2017 10:40 AM  

Countdown to Vox's twitter ban 5... 4... 3... 2...

Blogger Dexter August 03, 2017 10:41 AM  

one episode of Doctor Who that I watched this year featured a Roman legionnaire who was not only Black but Gay as well.

Just wait until Gaynigger, Gaynigger Bond comes out!


He who would niggerize the future must first niggerize the past.

Anonymous Athor Pel August 03, 2017 10:44 AM  

" 38. Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 03, 2017 10:18 AM
...
Empires seed their own destruction by burning the flesh and blood of those who originated them as fuel for the banksters. This process has only been repeating since the time of, I dunno, the ancient Persian empire?"



Much longer. Since the very foundation of the first cities.

Historically, the bankers are also the arms merchants. They lend to both sides. They sell arms to both sides. Whoever wins the war still makes the bankers money. In fact the longer the war lasts the more wealth the bankers appropriate.

They promise kings more power, faster acquisition of power, the means to do as they wish when they wish, without boundaries. It's usually too much of a temptation and the drawbacks are always well hidden.

Bankers are a plague on mankind.

Blogger Harry Goldblatt MD August 03, 2017 10:44 AM  

@Metric
Thank you for that wonderful quote. I will most certainly use it.

Blogger Resident Moron™ August 03, 2017 10:45 AM  

"Those were men who could think *and* do math."

At the same time.

Blogger Gordon August 03, 2017 10:47 AM  

Well, see, there would be no blacks in historical pieces because they did not manage to write down what happened in their history. So the only way they can work in historical entertaintment is by doing token roles. Or movies like Zulu!

Tyson...the thing to remember about ol' Neil is that he ain't the chair, he ain't writing any Nobel-level papers or stuff like that. His job is to run the planetarium. And be their token. He's done well for himself, considering.

Blogger Grandpa Lampshade August 03, 2017 10:47 AM  

TBH I'm actually surprised / disappointed he hasn't joined the ranks of the banned yet. Start tweeting about the Jews Vox. It doesn't have to even be anything derogatory just tweet about them. Come to the banned side.......

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise August 03, 2017 10:50 AM  

Slightly OT, but ever notice how the preponderance of black male actors are tall, muscular, and bald?

Blogger Resident Moron™ August 03, 2017 10:52 AM  

I think you will find it's

Bond; Gaynigger Bond.

Blogger tuberman August 03, 2017 10:53 AM  

46. basement

"This is where you wish there was a red-pilled production company. A remake of Roots with all white slaves and black slave masters would be highly entertaining. #culturalappropriation would trend on twitter for a year."

Not too far from the truth, as tons of Whites were in the north indentured servants, and factory workers, child labor, and White farm labor had these people treated worse than southern slaves. If the lost their jobs they would starve before finding another. Their total lack of choices (except to starve) made them slaves. A blizzard happened (I believe in 1880's NYC) many hundreds froze to death trying to get to work or get home, because if they did not get to work under any conditions, they would be fired. To be fired meant death.

Poor Whites in the south were little better off, share croppers and such, were treated like dirt. The law would use them to hunt escape slaves, without pay, and again, no choice.

Anonymous collectsdust August 03, 2017 10:57 AM  

Next you're gonna tell me Neil deGrasse Tyson is overrated !

Anonymous BBGKB August 03, 2017 10:58 AM  

Slightly OT, but ever notice how the preponderance of black male actors are tall, muscular, and bald?

The only show with realistic white guys is American Ninja Warrior. Maybe the casting couch has been hanging out with MILO

Anonymous Stickwick August 03, 2017 11:00 AM  

Aeoli Pera: Calling Hawking a first-rate scientist is a strong claim, and is contradicted by his inept philosophical musings.

I’m not sure what the utility is in trying to draw a distinction between “scientist” and “naturalist.” Hawking, by any reasonable modern definition, is (or was) a scientist. It’s unfortunate that his later third-rate musings on non-scientific topics have tarnished his scientific reputation, because he made several important contributions to theoretical physics and cosmology.

Russell: Hawking's been dead for some time now. Whoever they have had filling in for him has been doing a bang-up job of distracting the low-IQ people.

Have you noticed over the years that the less Hawking has been able to communicate verbally or with facial expressions, the less sense he seems to make? I have a creeping suspicion that Hawking is either unable to communicate much and most of what is attributed to him is coming from someone else and/or that he is simply degenerating intellectually. The latter could be related to his ALS, to old age, or it could be the sort of intellectual decay that comes with finally facing down eternity after a lifetime of non-belief.

Many years ago, Hawking observed that no one can be content until he has complete answers to the big questions. “What is the nature of the universe?” “Where did we come from?” “What is our place in the universe?” He was more friendly to the concept of God in those days, and admitted in A Brief History of Time that the space-time theorems he helped develop were amenable to the idea of God. He’s apparently still trying to answer those questions, but his views on the implications for God seem to have ossified into the usual sort of pat atheism. In his recent book, The Grand Design, which he coauthored with Leonard Mlodinow, he now claims “The universe can create itself out of nothing” and “God is no longer necessary.” (O RLY?)

Given his extreme degenerative state, it’s reasonable to wonder how much of this book actually came from Hawking as opposed to Mlodinow (or someone else). There’s something about all this that reminds me of Lewis’ That Hideous Strength.

Blogger VD August 03, 2017 11:00 AM  

Countdown to Vox's twitter ban 5... 4... 3... 2...

Unlikely. Taleb is being WAY harder on her than I am. And I very politely removed the tweet at her request... which request was sufficiently damning in my book.

Blogger tuberman August 03, 2017 11:01 AM  

One of the current problems with smart people is too much specialization. This specialization keeps smart people from connecting dots, yet midwits fill in the gaps by using the globalist's narrative rather than intelligence to fake connections with lies to cover their tracks.

Blogger Lew Rand August 03, 2017 11:03 AM  

This strikes me as an argument I had yesterday about how too many people feel that the ends justify the means.

Sounds like Mary wants a more diverse society, so an illegal act here or there is justified.

But take it to its conclusion and suddenly she finds a way to say "well not ALL means". But once you start that path, who besides God can determine which means are okay occasionally as long as the ends are good?

Blogger August August 03, 2017 11:06 AM  

You know, I don't think they realize how nice you are to them. I mean, you do point out they are wrong, but inevitably, when I end up reading more, I end up finding out they are more idiotic than I thought they were based on your posts.

I can imagine struggling through a math problem trying to figure out what Taleb is talking about.
The DNA evidence however, is what it is. There isn't leeway. She should know better- not just know that Taleb is smarter, but know it's impossible to argue with DNA evidence like that.

Anonymous BluePony August 03, 2017 11:09 AM  

"And who the hell is Mary Beard?"

Based on the name I thought she was a carny working the freak show circuit.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 03, 2017 11:13 AM  

@61. Stickwick, last I read about Hawking, he had been on the hope train that man would cure his ALS and make us all immortal for a loooong time, possibly the entire time he's had ALS.

Sunken cost fallacy. He put his faith in humanism to cure him, and now it's the next best thing to impossible for him to shed all the veils of lies that go with humanism.

If that reminds you of "That Hideous Strength", well, it should. It's kind of what most of the book is about. Humanism.

Anonymous Faceless August 03, 2017 11:13 AM  

@66

Mary Beard is a hypocrite; she does the things that she tells us not to do. Mary asked Vox not to tweet such claims; she said it was beyond the pale of discourse. She made a fuss, he made it memory-holed, but everybody thought the tweet was funny.

Anonymous Saint Nick August 03, 2017 11:15 AM  

VD: I want to see you debate Taleb.

I know debating someone of his genius takes a lot of work, but I think he is the only person out there who can match you in aggression.

Make it a twitter debate. Let's have some fun.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 03, 2017 11:17 AM  

@64. Lew, in a very real sense, the ends do justify the means, however, before you go off on a tangent about that, I must add that humans are physically incapable of certainty about the result (ends) of any given means. Because of this, we do what God says, because he lacks that failure of perception.

While God dictates the ends, he also makes a perfect accounting for how to determine the correct means to reach them. No dilemma.

Blogger Metric August 03, 2017 11:17 AM  

>Given his extreme degenerative state, it’s reasonable to wonder how much of this book actually came from Hawking as opposed to Mlodinow (or someone else). There’s something about all this that reminds me of Lewis’ That Hideous Strength.

That's reasonable, and it's also reasonable to assume that his non-scientific works are little more than an attempt to cash in on public interest. I don't begrudge him that, and at the same time I don't take his pop science books (or public musings) seriously. The product of his genius simply lies elsewhere, and if you're working in any related field it is impossible to ignore.

Anonymous BluePony August 03, 2017 11:19 AM  

This is one of my bigger peeves. Ran into it last week at work when someone was talking about Elon Musk's scaremongering over AI. I asked how many lines of AI code Musk has even seen, much less written, or if he has any CS experience at all, and got nothing but blank stares. People see someone famous and successful , and they never even consider the specific credentials on a particular topic.

I've nothing against Musk- I'm glad he making interesting businesses, and he tried to stand up for Trump a few times, but the way geeks rush to get a whiff of Musk's every fart is really off-putting in a personality cult way.

It doesn't help that the term "AI" has lost all meaning. It used to mean an artificial construct that had attained some level of sentience and independent agency- HAL9000 or Colossus. Now it's used for any grotty old expert system or highly trained neural net. I heard people call Siri an AI.

Anonymous BBGKB August 03, 2017 11:23 AM  

OT: Just what the world needs a single shot 22 pistol for $400, Tiny Tim could use it to defend himself in the bathroom

http://www.guns.com/2017/08/02/trailblazer-firearms-introduces-folding-lifecard-22-single-shot-pistol-photos/

Anonymous Looking Glass August 03, 2017 11:24 AM  

On the topic of Hawking, he's like a lot of well-known scientists. He had a real good idea early in his career, but beyond that he's a middle of the road guy. He's a little like a band that had a #1 hit, then solid follow up and you'll recognize them when you hear them on the radio. He's just been something of a front for ghostwriters for a long time, but the ghostwriters let the +1 SD think they've learned something. (This, btw, is a big area that Castalia House could sell a lot of books. The +1 SD folks actually would like to know something, but presented in a way they can understand.)

If anyone remembers the whole "Chaos Mathematics" crazy for a few years, it's roughly the same thing.


As to the topic of scientists & academics in general, the truly brilliant get run out. It's not a new problem, it's actually been a problem back into the 60s. The huge boom in college attendance due to Vietnam changed college. It wasn't a place for scientists to "hide" and work, along with no longer training for corporate research work to happen. If you're a truly bright mind, you're going to either be crushed, driven out or simply leave for something better.

Or, put it this way, you've made it to a Masters/PhD program while being discriminated the entire time (as you're Male and either White or Asian), and you have an offer for 250k per year + 100k signing bonus to go work for a HFT group. "Brilliant" Mathematics work is basically dead as, unless you really like to teach, everyone has fled the field. It's been rolling through the rest of the fields.

And people wonder why we're several generations in Oil Field & Geology tech ahead of the rest of the world? Because that's where the money is! And that's where all of the smart guys are going.

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 03, 2017 11:27 AM  

Another day, another empty skull to add to the garden. Vox's garden probably has some fine pyramids by now.

Blogger VD August 03, 2017 11:30 AM  

You know, I don't think they realize how nice you are to them. I mean, you do point out they are wrong, but inevitably, when I end up reading more, I end up finding out they are more idiotic than I thought they were based on your posts.

It is often remarked how kind and gentle I am. I like to think of myself as a sensitive dark lord, not like those mean and nasty dark lords of yore.

Blogger GracieLou August 03, 2017 11:33 AM  

"I fly an air med for a living."

I'm not that smart though I guess I could be an academic since they set the bar so low, but my whole life I've preferred manual labor. I LIVE for mindless toil. I don't want to use my brain for a living. I want to be free to think my own thoughts and explore things. I want to IRON ALL THE THINGS! and listen to Nephilim and lizard people podcasts. I want to mow my lawn to Molyneux. I want to put up pints of jam and stare off into space listening for the ping of a well sealed Ball jar and imagine how in the dead of winter I'll open that jar of raspberry jam and this whole little summertime moment will spill out, perfectly preserved.

How can you do any of that stuff with your brain and body chained up to a desk somewhere? {{shiver}}

Blogger tuberman August 03, 2017 11:40 AM  

76. VD

Well, you are very measured and calm, the intensity only comes out when faced with beyond the pale absurdities.

Discovering Rotherham was my Rubicon, and Western Civilization became more important than personal concerns after that.

Blogger Metric August 03, 2017 11:42 AM  

>On the topic of Hawking, he's like a lot of well-known scientists. He had a real good idea early in his career, but beyond that he's a middle of the road guy. He's a little like a band that had a #1 hit, then solid follow up and you'll recognize them when you hear them on the radio.

The analogy doesn't quite work. There is simply no one who can sustain Hawking-level discoveries (e.g. Hawking radiation) in present-day theoretical physics over their entire career. This is just a result of working in a field whose development inevitably resembles a logistical curve -- early on, major discoveries come quickly and are transformative. At late times, major discoveries are few and far between, and increasingly conditional on unproven assumptions (i.e. they are bigger and bigger gambles that have to wait longer and longer for experimental feedback). You could argue Witten was transformative for a longer period of time, but his big stuff is highly conditional -- it could simply be that nature doesn't work that way.

Blogger Student in Blue August 03, 2017 11:43 AM  

@VD
I like to think of myself as a sensitive dark lord, not like those mean and nasty dark lords of yore.

Must've been all that sensitivity training. And the Noble Native American roots.

Anonymous Athor Pel August 03, 2017 11:45 AM  

" 74. Anonymous Looking Glass August 03, 2017 11:24 AM
...
If you're a truly bright mind, you're going to either be crushed, driven out or simply leave for something better.

Or, put it this way, you've made it to a Masters/PhD program while being discriminated the entire time (as you're Male and either White or Asian), and you have an offer for 250k per year + 100k signing bonus to go work for a HFT group.
...
And people wonder why we're several generations in Oil Field & Geology tech ahead of the rest of the world? Because that's where the money is! And that's where all of the smart guys are going."



I have seen the stupid and turned away before its medusan enstupidation rays lithified my brain. It can take a long time for experience to overcome programming. I spent more than ten years in college. I was most of the way through that before I was convinced it was all a fraud.

___


"77. Blogger GracieLou August 03, 2017 11:33 AM
...
I want to put up pints of jam and stare off into space listening for the ping of a well sealed Ball jar and imagine how in the dead of winter I'll open that jar of raspberry jam and this whole little summertime moment will spill out, perfectly preserved.

How can you do any of that stuff with your brain and body chained up to a desk somewhere? {{shiver}}
"



You got an unmarried sister?
; )

Blogger Solaire Of Astora August 03, 2017 11:48 AM  

Some idiot actually told Taleb he lacks Beard's 'status' as a Cambridge Professor and great communicator (he's an amazing communicator so clearly the fool knows nothing about Taleb). I think I figured out why so many idiots are obsessed with status and credentials. The IQ gap dictates these people literally can't recognize actual intelligence, rigor, and original thinking but what they can recognize are status and credentials. And since those are basically all those people can see they mistake it for being all there is to intelligence.

Blogger VFM #7634 August 03, 2017 11:51 AM  

"Academics, on average, are third-rate intelligences."

Oh, dear God, so much this.


I'd say that academics, on average, are idiot savants.

And that's not even getting into Marxoid fields, where having non-European DNA or ovaries is far more important than IQ.

Anonymous Orville August 03, 2017 11:51 AM  

@72 Colossus - The Forbin Project. Man that brings back some old memories.

I sense a wheelchair=credibility theme here. Charles Krypthammer, Hawking, Professor X, Ironsides and Dr. Strangelove for you old-timers.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora August 03, 2017 11:52 AM  

I should add that I'm not talking about Beard or other academics there, but their stupid fans. I suspect a lot of mediocrities in academia know credentialism is bs but they use it because they know it's effective on the herd.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 03, 2017 11:56 AM  

@82. Solaire, Bingo.

Blogger Metric August 03, 2017 12:08 PM  

>The IQ gap dictates these people literally can't recognize actual intelligence, rigor, and original thinking but what they can recognize are status and credentials. And since those are basically all those people can see they mistake it for being all there is to intelligence.

Pretty sure it's always been that way, by design and (to some extent) necessity, due to the level of specialization and technical detail in certain fields. What seems new to me (or at least at a new level of importance) is the kind of pure legitimacy-mining, whereby people are happy to trade an entire field's long-term credibility (and borrow from the credibility of other, superficially similar fields) for a small amount of present-day political influence.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit August 03, 2017 12:20 PM  

As I've said before, I worked alongside some of the stupidest people in my life when studying for my PhD. Academia is just school for adults - anyone with enough time and resources (i.e. rich parents) can spend their whole life collecting qualifications and never become one iota more intelligent.

Blogger dvdivx August 03, 2017 12:29 PM  

Most of the highest IQ people I've met are either borderline insane or antisocial misfits. Some make money by consulting. I don't think a high IQ is a meal ticket at all without motivation to do something. Plenty of high IQ people screw their life up by building an actual career.

Blogger dvdivx August 03, 2017 12:29 PM  

Not building a career to bad I can't edit

Blogger Were-Puppy August 03, 2017 12:34 PM  

@36 Kek's SS Guard

If you need to talk for hours and still haven't made your point, go away.
---

From my experience those who do this are bullshit artists. They figure they can overwhelm you with important sounding word salad until you get tired and agree with them so they will STFU :P

Blogger Were-Puppy August 03, 2017 12:37 PM  

@40 Faceless

Now, she wants to run from what she once was OK with.
---

When the SJWs shift their narrative, it's ok. When the SDL brings pre-shift hatefacts to their attention, it's violence! Misogyny! Sexist!

Blogger Metric August 03, 2017 12:40 PM  

>Most of the highest IQ people I've met are either borderline insane or antisocial misfits. Some make money by consulting. I don't think a high IQ is a meal ticket at all without motivation to do something. Plenty of high IQ people screw their life up by building an actual career.

Speculation: Extremely high IQ people tend to see through more of the near-universal BS people believe to get them out of the bed in the morning. As a result, they are effectively on their own and there is a lot more variation in outcome. Some find something that can become a driving motivation, and others simply don't -- there is very little pre-made for them, in the way of motivational philosophy.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 03, 2017 12:45 PM  

OT:  The pozzing of schools of engineering is called "Engineering Education".

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/08/engineering-education-social-engineering-rather-actual-engineering/

Via Gab.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr August 03, 2017 12:46 PM  

That's one advantage of engineering. The cold, cruel, hard world has a tendency to knock the politically correct ideological fantasies out of you. And that goes double for fields like flight testing.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr August 03, 2017 12:50 PM  

@94: I saw that on Insty. It's got the same relationship to honest slide-rule-slinging as "sanitation engineering". Another attempt to loot credit.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club August 03, 2017 1:03 PM  

Hawking, Beard, NdT are the kind of charlatans that average knuckleknobs hold to be "brilliant", but not in any way that they can ever explain, except maybe they know something the average knuckleknob doesn't (and in a candid moment, doesn't give a wet slap about).

Blogger Lew Rand August 03, 2017 1:17 PM  

I also defer to what I think of the logical fallacy that if X didn't postulate/discover something, no one would ever in the future discover it.

Yeah some accidents may never have happened (I'm thinking of Penicillin but who even knows on that) and that would be a shame but most people where were trying to discover something were in races with others trying to figure it out. They just did it faster.

And yes, that just means I don't hold them up as immortals like people do.

[My case comes from software and the many 'patents'. Give me the same problem but no clue on how they solved it and I would bet I would come up with a similar solution because honestly there aren't that many new ways to do things, just ways to engineer them together]

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 1:28 PM  

dvdivx wrote:Plenty of high IQ people screw their life up by building an actual career.
Or maybe they would consider building a career to be ruining their life. Being dumber than they, who are you to gainsay them?
I've built a career and it's screwed me over royally.

Blogger Metric August 03, 2017 1:40 PM  

>I also defer to what I think of the logical fallacy that if X didn't postulate/discover something, no one would ever in the future discover it.

Good point that a lot of people miss. Still, "we know it because it appeared in the mind of X" cannot be denied. In the end it may be just a trophy, but it's as meaningful a trophy as we're likely to get our grubby, imperfect hands on.

Blogger dvdivx August 03, 2017 1:57 PM  

I think the article is missing a much more heinous position than this IQ debate. That "refugees" are given a green light to rape white women. Really at that point talking about IQ needs to be replaced with shooting people in the head. Its like complaining about symbols on your shirt when heading to a gas oven. Time for debate is over.

Anonymous Grayman August 03, 2017 2:16 PM  

In tribute to the lovely Mrs Beard:

https://kek.gg/i/5PnsL7.png

All of the EU rape images are some serious DANK fodder for meme's featuring Mrs beard.

Blogger S. Misanthrope August 03, 2017 2:23 PM  

The 138 max IQ at Cambridge doesn't surprise me at all anymore. A close friend (IQ142 iirc) applied for a philosophy PhD at Columbia and was rejected by the panel. A month later, one of the professors who actually studied the area my friend's undergraduate research dealt with threw a fit. Apparently the panel were too moronic to even understand my friend's work, and the professor tried desperately to create an extra spot in the program for him. Alas, it didn't work out.

Anonymous Grayman August 03, 2017 2:24 PM  

In case anyone needs the original quote:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-secret-of-romes-success/413143/

And without downplaying the horrific violence in the tale of Romulus and Remus and the rape of the Sabine women, Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society.

Blogger S. Misanthrope August 03, 2017 2:32 PM  

IQ unequivocally correlates with success. I've not seen any evidence of reversal in the tail.

Anonymous DMV August 03, 2017 2:54 PM  

They have to die.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 2:58 PM  

S. Misanthrope wrote:IQ unequivocally correlates with success. I've not seen any evidence of reversal in the tail.
My career would beg to differ.
As would Bill Gates'.

Blogger SirHamster August 03, 2017 2:59 PM  

Student in Blue wrote:@VD

I like to think of myself as a sensitive dark lord, not like those mean and nasty dark lords of yore.

Must've been all that sensitivity training. And the Noble Native American roots.


Coming soon to the Vox Day channel ...

*shot of scientits gesticulating dramatically*

*cut to Scalzi posing in a little black dress*

*cut to midwits waving signs with SJW slogans*

*cut to Vox Day staring off into the distance*

*Vox Day turns to the camera, a lone tear streaking down his cheek*

*zoom out to see Vox enthroned on mountain of skulls, surrounded by snarling VFMs gnawing on bones*

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 03, 2017 3:12 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Calling Hawking a first-rate scientist is a strong claim
How many kinds of radiation are named after you?

and is contradicted by his inept philosophical musings.
Would you rather read Hawking, Derrida or Foucault?

Blogger S1AL August 03, 2017 3:18 PM  

"My career would beg to differ.
As would Bill Gates'."

I'm gonna a pedant. It's a highly predictive correlation, significantly stronger than the IQ/reflexes correlation that's commonly cited. And isn't Gates something like 170+?

Anonymous Stickwick August 03, 2017 3:23 PM  

How many kinds of radiation are named after you?

He never got his picture on bubblegum cards, did he? Have you ever seen his picture on a bubblegum card? Hmmm? How can you say someone is great who's never had his picture on bubblegum cards?

Anonymous fop August 03, 2017 3:26 PM  

I hear Hawking has a suite named after him at the Epstein Island compound.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd August 03, 2017 3:30 PM  

Mr. Rational wrote:Would you rather read Hawking, Derrida or Foucault?

No.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 3:30 PM  

Gates is something like 120
IQ is a predictor up to about 125. Then is goes completely haywire, because at that point you're dealing exclusively with exceptions. Smartest guy I know well, probably about 170, has been driving trucks most of his life, never working for one company more than about a year.

Anonymous I LOVE VOX August 03, 2017 3:38 PM  

Not wishing to take anything away from your millions of accomplishments as an elegantly coiffured alpha male, black belt, mega-super-duper high IQ colossus bestriding the musical, gaming and literary fields but is the study you're citing in that front-line tweet battle Gibson & Light from 1967? The one that used the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-I? The scale that goes up to 140 and puts the cut-off for 'very superior' (it's highest category) at 130? It predates the WAIS-R that came out in 1981 and provided new norms that extended the reportable ceiling of the Wechsler to 150.

Please don't use daddy's money to hire goons to kill me.

P.S. You're right about Mary Beard being shit though. Fun fact: her teenage daughter was a member of invite only Gothic bondage sex club Slimelight.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 3:39 PM  

"who could not philosophize his way out of a box" (Isn't the expression paper bag? Nevermind.)

I knew this from reading Hawking, but also from the amusingly titled book Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks. (I really just wanted to type the words Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks.)

Must be that "two cultures thing I keep hearing about. Physicists look down on philosophy, so they read it, so they don't know anything about it. They assume they can do because unique insight from physics? Pure brain power? Clear eyes full hearts can't lose? I don't know.

We get annoying books on physics-philosophy as a result. Most of which deny the existence of metaphysics, because, duh, why would physicist be interested in metaphysics? It's, like, totally "beyond" what he does.

One of the most annoying subgenres I've found is their attempts to answer "why is there something rather than nothing?" Ex nihilo nihil fit won't fly. Their answer is always along the lines of "Nothingness isn't as nothing-y as you thought." Empty space, for instance , actually has stuff floating in it sometimes, soooo..."

Oh, shut up. I'd say leave it to the philosophers, but they mostly suck too. At least the academic ones and the ones called such by the MSM. That field is almost as moribund as fundamental physics.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 3:40 PM  

@116-Sorry, I meant so they DON'T read it.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 03, 2017 3:42 PM  

Lew Rand wrote:Give me the same problem but no clue on how they solved it and I would bet I would come up with a similar solution because honestly there aren't that many new ways to do things, just ways to engineer them together
Were you following me around in '88?  I walked into a brand-new gig, got a rundown on the nature of the problem (ultimately geometric, as it turned out) and within 1 minute I'd come up with both the solution patented by the company I was working at as well as the one patented by the main competition.

My contributions to the company included a new patent for a method of removing distortions from the input data and improve the accuracy of the results.  Apparently nobody had ever considered certain effects before, but one of the things I did was quantify them.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 3:44 PM  

Is it necessary to point out that the Romans married the women they "raped," i.e. abducted? They didn't just do it to get their rocks off.

Plus, they were presumably culturally, ethnically, and genetically close to the Sabine, so that the peoples could get along in society together if forced.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 3:54 PM  

@48-You can't sprint two miles. Great sprinters are great at sprinting and nothing else. They're not even necessarily in the best shape overall. They just run fast for short bursts. That's it.

Blogger Geir Balderson August 03, 2017 3:58 PM  

@68
"Mary Beard is a hypocrite; she does the things that she tells us not to do. "

Hmm... Sounds like our other favorite 'scientist'. Al Herbert Gore, lives such a lavish lifestyle that the common folk might dream of, in a dream.
I suppose his next blockbuster of a movie will be hatched on his private jet at 10,000 feet as he diddles his green groupies.

Blogger S1AL August 03, 2017 4:02 PM  

"Gates is something like 120".

Huh. I've always seen in reported that he was a near-perfect on the SAT, and Vox has him listed at 167 on that ancient IQ post.

"IQ is a predictor up to about 125. Then is goes completely haywire, because at that point you're dealing exclusively with exceptions. Smartest guy I know well, probably about 170, has been driving trucks most of his life, never working for one company more than about a year."

Well, it's generally listed as one of three factors, there are always exceptions, and it's a circumstantial correlation. But the correlation for exist past 125, it's just that the people in that range have a much higher likelihood of the other factors being negatives.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 4:03 PM  

@98-There are countless historical examples of Big Ideas being independently thought up by different people. Newton and Leibniz on calculus or Darwin and Wallace on evolution by natural selection, for examples.

Blogger tuberman August 03, 2017 4:10 PM  

An amusing thing in chess, was to play a gambit or highly tactical lines against people with lots of credentials, as it usually paid off big time. This worked with multiple Ph.Ds, MDs with lots of letters, federal judges, and etc.








The best game players often have the highest IQs, VD obviously picked up a number of his super smart people (for publishing and so forth) through games, and the whole GamerGate times.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 4:12 PM  

@103-I was watching a movie about the mathematician Ramanujan recently, who was championed by G.H. Hardy and J.E. Littlewood at Cambridge. Much of the plot revolved around the other dons' resistance to giving Ramanujan a fellowship. This was presented as due to their racism, partly, but also because people thought he was a crackpot and he lacked formal training and therefore didn't appreciate the importance of proofs and presenting his ideas in academically acceptable ways.

The movie didn't go so far as to say the other professors didn't get him because they just weren't that smart.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents August 03, 2017 4:19 PM  

Mary Beard is a late Boomer feminist who did manage to get married at 30. One should not be surprised that a postmenopausal feminist would have no problem with other people's daughters being raped and pimped out by colonizers, because white privilege and smash white patriarchy and stuff.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Mary_Beard_(classicist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beard_(classicist)

Blogger Student in Blue August 03, 2017 5:01 PM  

@116. tublecane
"who could not philosophize his way out of a box" (Isn't the expression paper bag? Nevermind.)

Alright, we'll meet halfway. "[...]who could not philosophize his way out of a cave"

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 5:07 PM  

S1AL wrote:Huh. I've always seen in reported that he was a near-perfect on the SAT, and Vox has him listed at 167 on that ancient IQ post.
There are lots of people putting numbers like that out there, but without support. What do we know? He flunked out of harvard, stole Microsoft Basic from HP, hired the smartest guy he knew (Paul Allen) to do the intellectual heavy lifting, used his connection and family money to sell DOS to IBM and then buy the product from another company, and made tones of decisions that are just stupid from a technical standpoint, but that helped cement their lock-in and monopoly.
So, smart, well-connected, amoral and ruthless. Willing to do the wrong thing to gain advantage.
Gates was very successful, but there's no indication that he's super-smart. Paul Allen is super-smart, and that's why Gates and his partners had to force him out once the company started being a success.

Anonymous kfg August 03, 2017 5:27 PM  

@120:

Now I'm confused, because I know you've been a reader for a lot longer than that.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 5:28 PM  

@128-This is OT, but I feel the need to vent about it. A while back I visited a touring exhibition of some paintings called something like Seeing Nature: Landscape Masterpieces from the Paul Allen collection. A couple of observations: firstly,the must have *a lot* of money. Secondly, I hate museums. They ruin everything.

Every exhibit like this I see is automatically one long exercise in contradicting their expressed purpose. Because there were very few actual landscapes. Often there was land way in the background, more often they were city or seascape. Too often there was no nature to speak of.

Why even call them landscape masterpieces, then? I'd go and see the paintings if you titled it Here's a Bunch of Paul Allen's Stuff.

Then you read their little descriptions or listen to the documentary film they play...but I can't, because my mind can't penetrate their gibberish. No doubt it's about fresh perspectives on old things, and exploring your what-not through the lens of this-and-that. It's all advertising for the semi-cultured hipsters who attend these things.

The problem, really, is these blockhead "curators" fancy themselves artists in their own right. Artists of arranging pictures and writing impenetrable copy to put on the walls. And they only know one trick, which is to set something up then subvert it. If the exhibit is about landscape paintings, then the paintings on display must, MUST be mostly not about landscape.

That is a fundamental premise of contemporary museuming.

Blogger tublecane August 03, 2017 5:30 PM  

@129-I admit I don't know what you're talking about.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 03, 2017 5:34 PM  

Stickwick wrote:Aeoli Pera: Calling Hawking a first-rate scientist is a strong claim, and is contradicted by his inept philosophical musings.

I’m not sure what the utility is in trying to draw a distinction between “scientist” and “naturalist.” Hawking, by any reasonable modern definition, is (or was) a scientist.


We will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Mr. Rational wrote:Aeoli Pera wrote:Calling Hawking a first-rate scientist is a strong claim

How many kinds of radiation are named after you?


I'm not so insecure about my intellectual accomplishments as you seem to believe. If anything, I'm hilariously overconfident about my third-rate works of genius.

Mr. Rational wrote:Aeoli Pera wrote:and is contradicted by his inept philosophical musings.

Would you rather read Hawking, Derrida or Foucault?


Derrida, but that's due to a combination of interests that run a bit psychoanalytical and macabre.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 03, 2017 5:36 PM  

Saint Nick wrote:VD: I want to see you debate Taleb.

I know debating someone of his genius takes a lot of work, but I think he is the only person out there who can match you in aggression.

Make it a twitter debate. Let's have some fun.


Ditto this. Or have him on Brainstorm.

Anonymous kfg August 03, 2017 5:38 PM  

@131 Tublecane:

@48 BBGKB: "If you are a long time reader you will know Usain Bolt has not yet beaten my best 2 mile run time when I was in the army."

@120 Tublecane: "You can't sprint two miles. Great sprinters are great at sprinting and nothing else . . ."

If you are a long time reader you are expected to know that Usain Bolt has never run a mile and that the above by BBGKB is a joke.

Blogger Thucydides August 03, 2017 5:49 PM  

And without downplaying the horrific violence in the tale of Romulus and Remus and the rape of the Sabine women, Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society.

Hilarious that it can be true in ancient Rome, but offensive when pointed out in the modern era...

I never realized facts have some sort of best before date.

Blogger Resident Moron™ August 03, 2017 6:02 PM  

"Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society."

What is this, some sort of Mendelian revival shit?

You don't get dark and light kids from mixing races; you get mid-brown kids.

Yes, minor variations, less often major variations, but mostly you get the average.

So mass rape DOES NOT create a mixed society, (i.e. a society composed of different colours mixing freely) it creates a dilute society, (i.e. a society of one colour which is the result of mixing the inputs).

Blogger tuberman August 03, 2017 6:07 PM  

122. S1AL

"Huh. I've always seen in reported that he was a near-perfect on the SAT, and Vox has him listed at 167 on that ancient IQ post."

You're correct, and if VD said 167 he's most likely on point. I've been within a few feet of Gates twice (lectures), and he is very smart. And, yes, you can tell the difference between people above 125 IQ. I've been around many, many high IQ people, and although Bill Gates is spergy to almost the Autistic level, and not very lovable, he IS the real deal. I personally do not like Gates, but I don't judge by my negative feelz.

IQ, of course, is not the all to be all anyway, as I appreciate smart people with genuine curiosity that has depth and density in wide areas.

Anonymous AT August 03, 2017 6:30 PM  


There are lots of people putting numbers like that out there, but without support. What do we know? He flunked out of harvard, stole Microsoft Basic from HP, hired the smartest guy he knew (Paul Allen) to do the intellectual heavy lifting, used his connection and family money to sell DOS to IBM and then buy the product from another company, and made tones of decisions that are just stupid from a technical standpoint, but that helped cement their lock-in and monopoly.

So, smart, well-connected, amoral and ruthless. Willing to do the wrong thing to gain advantage.

Gates was very successful, but there's no indication that he's super-smart. Paul Allen is super-smart, and that's why Gates and his partners had to force him out once the company started being a success.


This is a great example of someone opining outside their area of expertise and sounding like a complete idiot.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 6:41 PM  

On what basis? That I don't think much of Bill Gates? I don't.
I think he is radically overrated, especially in terms of intelligence. I scored an "almost perfect" SAT. So what?
What has he done that makes you say he is super-smart? We already know that making money is the domain of marginally-better-than-midwits.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 03, 2017 6:49 PM  

Beard notes that the mass rape is portrayed not just as evidence of Roman aggression but as a way of creating a mixed society.

"Noting" something doesn't make it true; it just makes her look stupid.

The Roman men went and stole women from another tribe because they needed wives. They weren't trying to create any "mixed" society; they would have stuck with their own women if they'd had them. I don't see Muslims or Mexicans coming to Europe or the US, grabbing women, and taking them home as brides. We'd object to that too, but at least she'd have an analogy.

Also, I suspect Ms. Beard would not approve if white Western men began to go to foreign lands to seize brides and bring them home. In fact, that's the one kind of immigration that the globalist USgov was strict about even pre-Trump: so-called mail-order brides. Some kinds of cultural enrichment are not okay, even when everyone consents.

Blogger S. Misanthrope August 03, 2017 7:45 PM  

@Snidely

You point out the "haywire" results over 130 IQ, but still insist that the trajectory is downward. If we don't have reliable data, we don't know the trajectory.

You're also smuggling in a different definition of success from what I've seen used in intelligence studies. I bet your friend is a very excellent truck driver, ergo successful.

Anonymous Pennywise August 03, 2017 7:51 PM  

Ooh, an elitist pissing match.

"But the highest measured IQ of 148 Cambridge faculty members was 139. "

This study was from 1967. The authors found that 148 members of the Cambridge University faculty had a mean IQ of 126, with a standard deviation of 6.3. The highest score was 139.

Here is the breakdown.

Social scientists: 121.8
Agricultural scientists: 121.6
Mathematicians, biochemists, and chemists: 130.0
Biologists: 126.1
Medicine: 127.0
Physicists: 127.7


Let us look at the context--It was a small sample size, male only, with the age range between 25-34 years of age. The study did not state whether the subjects had Ph.D's, but it is possible they had higher IQs than average compared to Ph.D. holders. It is also likely that the average IQ of Cambridge academics has increased since 1967.

Regardless, most 150+ IQ types work in academic research, high finance, law--intellectually elitist positions to say the least.

Regarding philosophy, to the outside observer, philosophy has succumbed to a politically correct irrelevance with respect to the pursuit of knowledge. Not only does it not know, it does not even suspect. Championing identity politics, especially Alt Right or SJW, is other than philosophy; it is a battle royale for asses in the seats at their particular table.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 8:02 PM  

S. Misanthrope wrote:You point out the "haywire" results over 130 IQ, but still insist that the trajectory is downward. If we don't have reliable data, we don't know the trajectory.
Where did I claim or imply that the trajectory is downward?
You claimed that "IQ unequivocally correlates with success." That is false.
My truck driver friend can't even hold a job. In what way is that successful? Unless you redefine "successful" to mean "having a high IQ", calling him successful is nonsense.

Blogger VD August 03, 2017 8:18 PM  

Regardless, most 150+ IQ types work in academic research, high finance, law--intellectually elitist positions to say the least.

No, they don't.

It is also likely that the average IQ of Cambridge academics has increased since 1967.

No chance. The demographics - more women and minorities - indicate that they have fallen since then. Especially given that average college student IQ is down one full standard deviation since then.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 8:30 PM  

Pennywise wrote:

Regardless, most 150+ IQ types work in academic research, high finance, law--intellectually elitist positions to say the least.

I personally know 7 people who were tested above 150 IQ. One runs a company that designs lasers. One is a truck driver. One worked as a software tester and was just hounded to death by the IRS over theoretical tax owed for a house mortgage he walked away from. Two are coders, and I am currently unemployed, but work as a system administrator when I am working. One makes 7 figures as an economist for a financial firm.

Lawyers, college professors and academic researchers are overwhelmingly in the 120-135 IQ range. The finance industry does have a disproportionate number of extreme IQ types, because that's where the money is. Even there, they are usually kept in back rooms writing code or writing forecasts.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 03, 2017 9:30 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:S. Misanthrope wrote:You point out the "haywire" results over 130 IQ, but still insist that the trajectory is downward. If we don't have reliable data, we don't know the trajectory.

Where did I claim or imply that the trajectory is downward?

You claimed that "IQ unequivocally correlates with success." That is false.

My truck driver friend can't even hold a job. In what way is that successful? Unless you redefine "successful" to mean "having a high IQ", calling him successful is nonsense.


It is downward.

http://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/

Anonymous Clay August 03, 2017 10:12 PM  

IQ's.

Huh. Now we have Ancestry.com.

I figured all the blacks in the US would be claiming their "Nubian Ancestry"

I don't recall ANY blacks bragging about their genetics. Sure as hell don't see them on the commercial.



Genome made paste of them.

Yeah, IQ

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 10:24 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:It is downward.

Interesting article. Thanks, it gave me some things to think about.

Blogger S1AL August 03, 2017 11:24 PM  

"It is downward.

http://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/"

Maladjustment =/= lack of success. Every study done on the subject has concluded that average income* level and average IQ have a strong positive correlation. It only becomes stronger when the other two major factors (sociability and self-control/gratification-delay) are considered. The issue isn't having an extremely high IQ by itself (something the article does note). The issue is that the extremely intelligent are prone to other issues. But those issues also exist among the average and the stupid.



*I'm using income because it the most readily available in terms of data. Other measures of success tend towards the nebulous or significantly subjective.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 11:30 PM  

S1AL wrote:Maladjustment =/= lack of success. Every study done on the subject has concluded that average income* level and average IQ have a strong positive correlation. It only becomes stronger when the other two major factors (sociability and self-control/gratification-delay) are considered. The issue isn't having an extremely high IQ by itself (something the article does note). The issue is that the extremely intelligent are prone to other issues. But those issues also exist among the average and the stupid.
Yes they do also have issues, but at what rate? If you read the article that Aeoli posted, 45% of the extremely intelligent have serious social and mental issues, to the point of being unable to function in normal society.Another large portion are functional but seriously impaired.
That's 45% that are likely unable to achieve anything like success.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 03, 2017 11:32 PM  

BTW, averages include my acquaintance who makes 7 figures. How many truck drivers and janitors does it take to bring that down to median?

Blogger Miss Carnivorous August 04, 2017 1:00 AM  

Article

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pregnant-women-s-exposure-to-flame-retardants-11731559.php

in the San Francisco Gate today claiming that studies have shown that pregnant women's exposure to "Flame Retardents" can cause as much as a 3.7 point drop in IQ, which may lead to all kinds of problems!!!! The left is insane!! IQ doesn't matter!! IQ is fluid!! IQ only matters if it is the IQ of death row prisoners! Etc.. etc.. IQ matters if it is lowered by the chemical industry's desire to protect people from being burned alive or to death!

Blogger Shimshon August 04, 2017 2:39 AM  

Bill Gates may or may not be a genius as Vox defines it, but he is no midwit.

Anonymous Reader August 04, 2017 6:07 AM  

The abilities of highly intelligent people are already visible from when they are young: a more mature vocabulary than persons of his/her age group, enjoyment of activities that require some thinking. I do not think all highly intelligent people have poor social skills. Some actually have great sense of humour.

When they grow up, they are most of the time the youngest in everything they do. They are the youngest to finish school/university besting other older students. They would say they are the youngest to ask questions during a professional conference where mostly middle age people ask questions. They can hold their own in conversation with adults in areas where they are interested also. They learn many things at a young age, for example learning computer languages.

And if they have good attitude and discipline in life, they also could be doing work that normally is done by much older people.

They are capable at learning many things and be good at them. They can write well, be good in learning another language and at the same time be very good at mathematics and areas related to it. They can also at the same time have artistic ability. On the whole they can excel at specific areas that they really love to do. I don't think not holding a job is a sign of being very intelligent. Many dumb and lazy people can hold jobs for long too.

You don't need to take an IQ test to know you are seriously smart because the indications I wrote above are all you need to know. But if one's father is a mensa member then all the more one doesn't need to take an IQ test.

I think people with PhD's doen't necessarily mean they are highly intelligent. It only shows that they have some sort of discipline to finish something. Many very smart people would look at the cost benefit of going again to univ to do post grad , in terms of money and time, if they are working at a job they do and earning good income.

Anonymous Reader August 04, 2017 6:10 AM  

I mean to say: Many dumb and lazy people, too, can NOT hold jobs for long.

Anonymous Reader August 04, 2017 7:04 AM  

Making myself clear:
Many very smart people would look at the cost benefit of going again to univ to do post grad , in terms of money and time, if they are working at a job they love and earning good income.

btw, despite the metaphorical bashing I got recently, I'd say this blogsite is the best on the planet.

I especially like the blog about the word order of the Tibet text and the comments that followed as they brought about remembering stuff that I have read somewhere in the past.

Blogger S1AL August 04, 2017 7:58 AM  

@Snidely - 170+ IQ is about, what, 1 in a million? 350 total people in the United States? Given the world average, there are maybe a few thousand on the entire planet. So it depends on the degree of social maladjustment, and if those numbers are still accurate. But the fact remains that people at that level have *average* rates of success higher than let IQ's.

At this point we've kinda reached an esoteric zone, and we're talking past each other a bit. it's not determinism, just trends.

Anonymous Pennywise August 04, 2017 8:37 AM  

“No chance. The demographics - more women and minorities - indicate that they have fallen since then.”

An assumption on your part. Just because the overall IQ has dropped for the average college student does not mean that the professors are definitively part of that trend. Furthermore, if one takes into account the Flynn effect as well as a professor’s continued academic pursuits, it is likely, compared to “no chance”, that Cambridge professors now have at least a higher IQ than their predecessors. Hard data would be required to prove our assertions.

“Lawyers, college professors and academic researchers are overwhelmingly in the 120-135 IQ range.”

Considering the two dozen people I know who are 150+ IQ work in those fields, I would hazard a guess and say you are probably mistaken.

And regarding the accomplishments of William James Sidis (at eighteen months reading NYT, learning Latin at 2, learning Greek at 3), that has been repeatedly called into question.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 04, 2017 11:10 AM  

S1AL wrote:But the fact remains that people at that level have *average* rates of success higher than let IQ's.
That is simply, in my experience, false.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 05, 2017 1:13 PM  

Pennywise wrote:Hard data would be required to prove our assertions.

I'll sum up your argument to date: "I know nothing, refuse to be taught, and have great confidence in my opinions."

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 05, 2017 1:18 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Aeoli Pera wrote:It is downward.

Interesting article. Thanks, it gave me some things to think about.


It's my pleasure to propagandize neanderthal theory.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts