ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

The idiot intellectuals

Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains why the world desperately needs to ignore the idiot intellectuals who presently rule it:
What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligenzia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke, who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They cant tell science from scientism — in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they call “rational” or “irrational” comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.
I could not agree more. One thing I have noticed, regularly and reliably, is that the professional class of the so-called cognitive elite are simply not that smart. I mean, they're not exactly stupid, but most of them are 2SD midwits who are considerably less intelligent than Taleb, me, or most of the genuinely smart people that I know.

Remember the lesson of the Excluded: "The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time or who are responsible for assuring the efficient operation of social, scientific, political and economic institutions."

Or as Taleb puts it: "Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry. The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited."

Labels:

185 Comments:

Blogger HonorLiving September 17, 2016 11:15 AM  

Taleb and Murray are sort of proto alt-right.

Blogger Krul September 17, 2016 11:17 AM  

"In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time or who are responsible for assuring the efficient operation of social, scientific, political and economic institutions."

I'm pretty sure they're "excluding" themselves. I mean, if they wanted to be in, they'd be in, right? Probably just don't give a damn about the normies. Personally, I don't give a damn about the "biggest problems" faced by most animals. Same thing.

Anonymous JI September 17, 2016 11:24 AM  

If the smartest people are being excluded from certain professions by those less intelligent, then I suggest that the smartest people really don't want to enter those professions. On the other hand, sometimes smart loses out to cunning.

Blogger Bard September 17, 2016 11:27 AM  

Reading here is what led me to realize how different IQ groups process info. I had always assumed everyone could think critically if they tried, and that they were simply lazy or uneducated. Once you pointed it out, I felt pretty silly for not seeing it before.

Anonymous krymneth September 17, 2016 11:29 AM  

Having read some criticisms of Taleb, often quite scathing in tone, I have definitely come to the conclusion that the vast majority of them come from people who literally do not understand what they are criticizing.

Of course one can validly criticize the ideas, nobody (human) has the One True Grasp of Truth, but it's hard to find valid criticism of his ideas.

Anonymous gxg September 17, 2016 11:29 AM  

Only slightly off-topic: Speaking of idiot intellectuals & Never-Trumpers...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Twilight-of-American-Jewry-467862

Rather than...accept the will of their fellow Republicans, this year the most prominent members of the Jewish Republican elite have opted to attack Trump and his voters.

That is, they have decided to commit political suicide.

Anonymous Roundtine September 17, 2016 11:33 AM  

With respect to government policy, they are wrong for the reasons Socrates and Hayek laid out. The IYI lack wisdom. Dumber people who know their limits are preferable to religious zealots who take science and progressivism as gospel.

Most governments, democracy or not, want to use power if they have it. Advisers who tell you to do nothing, wait, study this problem more, are passed over for the people with all the answers, regardless of whether those answers are right or wrong.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti September 17, 2016 11:34 AM  

I'm pretty sure they're "excluding" themselves. I mean, if they wanted to be in, they'd be in, right? Probably just don't give a damn about the normies.

Speaking as a 4SD+, I will say in my case at least that it's both. Intellectually I came to a religious conversion that has altered the entire shape of my life, and led me away from "elite" professions. At the same time, seeing how chock full those professions are of smug midwits who mistake their impeccable credentials for genuine intelligence and deep learning makes me want to run screaming in any other direction.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 11:35 AM  

4. Bard September 17, 2016 11:27 AM
I had always assumed everyone could think critically if they tried,



if you were thinking critically, you wouldn't have made that dumbass RoE comment.



3. JI September 17, 2016 11:24 AM
then I suggest that the smartest people really don't want to enter those professions.



yes, they really don't want to enter those professions.

now, think it through:
WHY have these professions, the most difficult ones on the planet, made themselves unpleasant for the truly highly intelligent to participate in?

if you want an example of what i'm talking about, just look at the behavior of Michael Mann over in climate science.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy September 17, 2016 11:36 AM  

JI wrote:If the smartest people are being excluded from certain professions by those less intelligent, then I suggest that the smartest people really don't want to enter those professions.
The smartest people could pop into a profession in a month or two, maybe less if they were properly motivated, if it were merely a matter of competence. The licensing boards conspire with the universities to make the process of entering the profession too time-consuming, expensive, and painful for truly smart people to bother.
On the other hand, sometimes smart loses out to cunning.
It's not cunning, it's outright corruption and (((tribalism))).

Blogger Dave September 17, 2016 11:38 AM  

macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology

Astrologers if by accident get things right now and then; economists are tainted.

Blogger Bard September 17, 2016 11:42 AM  

Morning Bob. Is that snark or a genuine attempt to sharpen iron? One is appreciated, the other gamma hurt feelings and thread jumping.

Anonymous Qadgop the Mercotan September 17, 2016 11:48 AM  

It's not the Oxbridge degrees (I have a few myself), so much as the social class of the graduates. As a grammar school boy from a working class background I was acutely aware of the gulf between oiks like myself who were there to learn before going into trade, and those of the managerial classes who were there to network before going on to run the country through one avenue or another.

The latter were the sort we plebs used to refer to as "the cream of the country", meaning the rich and the thick. And that is what the system selects for.

Blogger Dave September 17, 2016 11:49 AM  

desperately needs to ignore the idiot intellectuals who presently rule it:

I've been rigorously ignoring Obama since he was elected.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 17, 2016 11:50 AM  

The Mandarin says: "There is no such thing as intelligence. That said, I'm smarter than other people because of my higher amount of X."

X = dominant moral paradigm, possible values include "hard work", "willpower", "positive attitude", "good breeding", "use of correct science/dogma", etc.

Blogger Derek Kite September 17, 2016 11:53 AM  

What is commonly called 'intelligence' is simply suckuptitude. Smart enough to know what answer the questioner is looking for. Not to demean that skill, it is important. But it isn't intelligence.

The smartest people I know and have run across never come across as 'intelligent' or 'important'. They are incredibly curious, have no patience for idiots, have some quirks of personality that they nurture to make space for themselves. They are incredibly generous towards others, and within limits give extraordinary amounts, being self aware enough to know that they were granted a gift. And they do well at whatever they put their minds to.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 11:53 AM  

12. Bard September 17, 2016 11:42 AM
Is that snark or a genuine attempt to sharpen iron?



you can't effectively sharpen iron against that which is softer than iron. this doesn't hone the edge, it's merely whittling.


but i'm sure your attempts at 'disqualify' rather than addressing the point made will continue.

and you will continue to characterize this 'disqualify' tactic as 'critical thought'.


another example is the estimable Mr. John C. Wright, Esq.

one has only to read his books to see that he's got an intelligent ( whether he's +140 or not i haven't any idea ) and well read mind. but he was unsuccessful in both Law and Journalism. he was not merely unsuccessful, it was grossly painful for him to be in those fields.

why. is. that?

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 17, 2016 11:54 AM  

Dave wrote:macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology

Astrologers if by accident get things right now and then; economists are tainted.


The economist's only job is to justify government spending. If he doesn't, they'll hire somebody else who will.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 17, 2016 11:56 AM  

@17, because he's a romantic at heart, which is not conducive to practicing law in Washington DC.

Blogger Jeff September 17, 2016 11:58 AM  

Many professions have "gates" with either guardians or rituals that are used by those in power to their advantage in order to keep undesirables out, regardless of the IQ or abilities of the undesirables. As an example, my profession has yearly written evaluations, which is all prose and no measurable goals. This evaluation, along with your work reputation, is used by a panel of individuals (who are picked, God knows how, by the the gatekeepers) to decide whether you are promoted or not. You receive NO feedback if you aren't promoted. So this opaque systems allows the gatekeepers to advance those they wish, regardless of IQ or abilities.

Blogger praetorian September 17, 2016 11:59 AM  

I mean, they're not exactly stupid, but most of them are 2SD midwits who are considerably less intelligent than Taleb, me, or most of the genuinely smart people that I know.

+1 to +2SD intelligence mixed with zealotry is extremely dangerous. Especially if that intelligence is weighted heavily verbal/rhetorical rather than logical/dialectical.

Blogger Krul September 17, 2016 12:02 PM  

Re: bob.k.mando,

I think the answer is given in Ayn Rand's "The Establishing of an Establishment". Short answer: government spending.

Basically, government subsidizes intellectual fields, but since politicians don't understand intellectual issues, they grant funding based on whoever is most "prominent" and "respected" in his field. Thus, in intellectual fields success comes from PR and pull instead of merit. That's the gist.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 12:05 PM  

20. Jeff September 17, 2016 11:58 AM
So this opaque systems allows the gatekeepers to advance those they wish, regardless of IQ or abilities.




an effect which is purely accidental and incidental, i'm sure.

right.

this type of system, alone, is enough to annoy the truly intelligent. because, functionally, it selects for those who are most effective at kissing ass ( sociopathy ).

now, how interested is the TRULY TALENTED person going to be in submitting himself to those whom he views, rightly, as being halfwits?

can he decide to play the game? surely.

the question is whether you can convince him that the reward is sufficient compensation for the aggravation.

Anonymous Godfrey September 17, 2016 12:08 PM  

We are the dispossessed

We are the ignored and the banished

We are the oppressed

We are the ridiculed

We are the hated and the despised

We are the over-worked and the over-taxed

We are the victims of the fiat monetary scam

We are the hopeless with nothing to lose

WE ARE "LES DEPLORABLES"!

And we march under the banners of "La Revolution"

Blogger residentMoron September 17, 2016 12:10 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:

The economist's only job is to justify government spending. If he doesn't, they'll hire somebody else who will.

The economist is the modern hofjuden. Their role is to justify the expenditures of the crown (the hofjuden's function was to provide the funds themselves). As you say, if they don't, the crown will get someone who will.

They are intellectual prostitutes. Just as the most beautiful women don't typically become common whores, the most intelligent people don't typically become common bureaucratic functionaries: economists, policy wonks, think tankers, etc.

Those positions attract midwits because midwits crave the comfortable sinecure above all else; the opportunity to exercise power (however petty) with the impunity of doing so on behalf of the crown.

Smart enough to identify a niche and ingratiate themselves with power to occupy that niche, but lacking the character and intellect to carve out their own, to live by their own wit, without the comfort of powerful endorsement of their opinions.

Blogger Fatherless September 17, 2016 12:10 PM  

I suspect I am a SD midwit butat least my vocation allows me to recieve direct feedback.

Blogger Lee Katt September 17, 2016 12:14 PM  

My IQ was consistently measured at 133. That put me in the middle of the 98th percentile. (My IQ is not near that anymore -- I have suffered some kind of brain injury and am partially disabled.)

One thing to understand is there is some evidence (from Neil Clark Warren of eHarmony) that people are unable to have an intellectually satisfying conversation with anyone outside of 15 IQ points higher or lower than themselves. (And vice versa, they can't have one with you.)

If you have an IQ of 135, for example, you really can only talk to people down to IQ of 120, which is the 90th percentile. That means awkwardness and dissatisfaction with 90 percent of the human race. Now let's look at the poor bastard at IQ 150. He can talk to people near the top of the 98th percentile and above. Basically, three people in 200 are capable of happily conversing with him.

So, yes, once you start moving past 133, you are starting to get into more and more rarefied air and you end up not connecting as well with people, although you can compensate for it.

Nonetheless, you start to have trouble with "intellectual depth perception" -- you can't tell how much people are following, you just can't gauge whether they are just with you, or weigh the heck behind.

133 is painful enough. (And by the way, good luck finding women with IQ over 120. It's something like 2 to 1 at 120, and just gets worse from there.)

In some ways, anything IQ over 120 is a disability, at least a social disability. I think anyone with an IQ over 150 should be eligible for social security benefits.

Blogger Bard September 17, 2016 12:22 PM  

Bob, the ROE was another thread. And off topic, but nice try at redirect. ROE prevents the SF from opening up and they have to follow them. There was no suggestion in any comment I thought they should start shooting. You suggested that and projected on me to make yourself appear wise. Let it go gamma boy. You are not hard iron Bob, but soft clay.

Blogger Bard September 17, 2016 12:29 PM  

Let it go militiaman hard troll. This isn't a private feud blog. I am sure Vox could facility swapping of private contact info if you care to continue.

Anonymous Steve September 17, 2016 12:32 PM  

The rule of the liberal intellectual 'experts' since WW2 has given us:

Keynsianism
Multiculturalism
Feminism
The welfare state ponzi scheme
Abortion
Unprecedented levels of family breakdown, bastardy and sexual disease
A vast mosquito cloud of laws, rules, regulations and taxes - interfering with every aspect of our lives from what sort of lightbulbs one may buy to how you raise your own children - that would've been intolerable to our great grandfathers

Pol Pot had the right idea on how to deal with these people.

Blogger pdwalker September 17, 2016 12:34 PM  

Is there any kind of solution to this problem?

Blogger tublecane September 17, 2016 12:36 PM  

@25-"Just as the most beautiful women don't typically become common whores, the most intelligent people don't typically become common bureaucratic functionaries"

That's almost it, but not quite. Because beautiful women may or may not be interested in sex. They'll likely be as interested as normal human beings are, but not on the level that prostitutes are or pretend to be. Genuine intellectuals want to do intellectual work, and one of their major complaints about the intellectual professions and especially bureaucracy is that they are intellectual black holes. Bureaucratized intellectuals are like sluts trapped in sexless marriages.

Blogger VD September 17, 2016 12:37 PM  

I'm pretty sure they're "excluding" themselves. I mean, if they wanted to be in, they'd be in, right?

Not at all. Don't you think I would have liked to have had that op/ed spot on the Pioneer Press editorial page? Instead, I had to get nationally syndicated TWICE before any of my political columns appeared in a newspaper.

Note that I was the SIXTH columnist ever syndicated in the 167-year history of the Pioneer Press. I was one of the absolute best contributors they EVER had, and they still wouldn't give me a slot. Now their total pageviews are only 5.3x that of my personal pageviews. That's why the term for the high-IQ rejects is "the Excluded".

you can't effectively sharpen iron against that which is softer than iron. this doesn't hone the edge, it's merely whittling.

Stow the Gamma sniping Bob. Please note that you're not fooling anyone when you slip in one of your little off-topic revenge shivs.

Blogger tublecane September 17, 2016 12:41 PM  

@31-Separation of science and state. As much as possible, separation of intellect and state.

Blogger tublecane September 17, 2016 12:44 PM  

@30-Pol Pot was mind prisoner to the most pernicious intellectual fad in human history, and perhaps the stupidest versions of it. He was merely wiping out the competition.

Blogger Nate September 17, 2016 12:46 PM  

the world of economics is a great place to demonstrate this. We love to turn to experts... but what happens when all the experts are wrong?

TARP being a primary example of this. You have a guy like Dubya who runs things by talking to smart people and doing what they say. So he asks all the experts and they all say the same thing. And it turns out what they all told him to do... was exactly the wrong thing.

So is that really his fault? He's president so he gets the blame... sure. But the fact is... the Expert Economists are idiots. Or as a wise man once said... They're problem is not that they don't know anything. Its that everything they know is incorrect.

Blogger tublecane September 17, 2016 12:46 PM  

@33-I think you would have liked to had the spot and kept your soul, rather than simply having the spot. Is that because of your intelligence, or something else?

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 12:46 PM  

29. Bard September 17, 2016 12:29 PM
I am sure Vox could facility swapping of private contact info if you care to continue.



because you beating the crap out of me ( if you can ) makes you less wrong?

that's some more of that there high quality "critical thought" to which you are so prone.

Blogger Teri September 17, 2016 12:47 PM  

And intellectuals churn out dreck like this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440055/open-borders-ideology-american-urban-elite-threaten-nationalism

Do they honestly think they can't be replaced? I find this unreadable.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 12:48 PM  

33. VD September 17, 2016 12:37 PM
Stow the Gamma sniping Bob.



yepper

Blogger tublecane September 17, 2016 12:50 PM  

@36-Mark Twain. "It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Which has always bothered me, because you don't know that it ain't so, so what's the difference? The problem is, really, that you don't know that you don't know it. But that doesn't sound as good.

Blogger Tom Kratman September 17, 2016 12:53 PM  

I invite the collective's attention to: http://www.tomkratman.com/Ranthhour.html

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 12:54 PM  

36. Nate September 17, 2016 12:46 PM
So is that really his fault?



as noted by others upthread, it's a circular system.

the government selects for economists who provide justification for unlimited .gov spending.

so the advice which the government receives from the economists is to spend more money. and that advice is a consensus.

both are culpable.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) September 17, 2016 12:54 PM  

The best line from the piece:

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t deadlift.

Blogger Dave September 17, 2016 12:55 PM  

So is that really his fault? He's president so he gets the blame... sure.

A wise man would have done nothing and let the free markets work it out but the pressure is enormous on politicians to do something, anything, even if it's wrong.

Blogger residentMoron September 17, 2016 12:56 PM  

Chatting with a friend, and ex-Catholic about the Jesuits (and all those famously "ex" Jesuits who write the most interesting books), it stimulated me to do a little googling.

This is what I found.

If there's a more explicitly, emphatically, and retardedly SJW website out there, I'd like to see it.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother September 17, 2016 1:07 PM  

I read this first as "Intellectual Yeti Idiot".

Blogger Franz Lionheart September 17, 2016 1:14 PM  

IYI?

Anonymous Onlooker September 17, 2016 1:17 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote: The economist's only job is to justify government spending. If he doesn't, they'll hire somebody else who will.

Yep, therefore: Keynesian Econ

It's amusing to watch some otherwise smart people still try to figure out why this tripe remains dominant despite all the debunking that history has provided. Same goes for so many other govt policies, of course.

And I'm supposed to believe the climate models that say that we're all doomed someday. Yeah, right.

Speaking of that, is Taleb still a global warming alarmist (precautionary principle, and all that)? I gotta say, that's when he went on my irrelevant list and I stopped paying attention to him.

Blogger Bard September 17, 2016 1:18 PM  

Um, no Bob. Just to talk without derailing the thread. I am not your enemy. You appealed to Kratman's military credentials and now the esteemed Mr. Wright's. The answer to "Why is that?" is "I don't care". I am pleased that he did as I find his writing to be brilliant. But, he WAS a lawyer and WAS a journalist. He did those things before leaving them and now his opinion on those fields has merit based on experience. Same for Kratman. He is a COL (RET). I did believe the military was more honorable than other professions. Right or wrong, I drank that cool aid. That has been and continues to be a difficult thing for me personally. Before driving a truck, did you go to law school, do journalism, or serve in the military? Nothing wrong with driving a truck or selling insurance or anything else as long as you do it honorably. But, we all bring different experiences to the table and dismissing them because "you don't do what I do so what you do is not important" is childish. You are obviously intelligent, you frame nice arguments, but if you want to judge those that choose to serve in the military, like Chris, at least do it first. Maybe you have. I don't know. If you did, I think you would appeal to your own experience and not Tom's. Alright. Enough already.

Blogger praetorian September 17, 2016 1:22 PM  

Is there any kind of solution to this problem?

smug_pepe_in_front_of_auschwitz.jpeg

Anonymous Jack Ragnar September 17, 2016 1:23 PM  

Talab is an INTJ. One of the few types capable of independent thought. Whenever I find someone worth reading, they usually type as an INTJ.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 1:25 PM  

42. Tom Kratman September 17, 2016 12:53 PM
Again, glib and eloquent I readily concede, but intelligence is more than these.



not really. well, yes, intelligence is more than just the sum of glibness and eloquence but what you want ( and what you find lacking in Nussbaum ) is Wisdom coupled with goodwill.

verbal Intelligence surely is all that is needed in order to spin effective lies.

and Wisdom alone can still be put to Evil purposes.


the Marxist aphorism is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". sounds all warm and fuzzy if you don't think about it much, doesn't it?

Marketism is "From each according to their need, to each according to their ability". what are the odds that Marx perfectly inverted reality ... on accident?

Blogger residentMoron September 17, 2016 1:25 PM  

"if you want to judge those that choose to serve in the military, like Chris, at least do it first."

I got no skin in your argument, but this is nonsense.

Anonymous fop September 17, 2016 1:26 PM  

They're problem is not that they don't know anything. Its that everything they know is incorrect.

They saved the banks, which indicates that they were absolutely correct.

Anonymous Gordian September 17, 2016 1:29 PM  

This is absolutely how it works in academia. A handful of brilliant scholars begin working on something innovative and usually transgressive against the Narrative. It attracts a number of borderline-intelligent scholars who can almost understand but not quite, who become entryists. One of them "interprets" the original scholars for the mass of grad students and normal scholars, making sure to remove any parts incompatible with the Narrative. The original scholars get bored of the mindless grad students and leave, surrendering the field to the entryists who get book deals and tenure at ivy leagues.

Compare the work of the 1950's Right with their modern followers. Whether it's Weaver, Voegelin, Nock, Oakeshott, or Tonsor, their successors are mid-wits bastardizing the original work. That's why Weaver wrote that his successors have to be class-traitors to academia. That's why Voegelinism went from "The [classical] liberal seeks to tear down half of the House [of Western Civ] and thinks the other half won't fall in on him" to the current cuckist liberal apologetics.

Anonymous Deplorable Jack Amok September 17, 2016 1:30 PM  

All the areas intelligenzia dominate are group-confirmation focused. AGW, Keynesianism, low-fat diets, those things aren't accepted because they work (they don't), they're accepted because a group of insiders reach consensus on them. Same thing with politics, law, corporate bureaucracy. A consensus of midwits makes the call.

So folks like Krul and Jl naturally ask, if you're so smart, why can't you outwit the midwits?

Because you can't change the consensus. The defining characteristic of midwits is they think they're smarter than they really are. So when Mr. 155 IQ tells the warren of 125's that they're wrong, they don't believe him. They still think they're smarter than him, plus, he threatens their positions. They got into the club by joining the consensus. If they abandon the consensus, they'll probably be kicked out of the club.

Smart people realize they either need to find a field with definitive, external validation, or they need to join the Consensus and try to play a long, long game of gradually moving things in a better direction. But that 2nd path takes a hell of a lot of patience, and there's no guarantee of success.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 17, 2016 1:30 PM  

OT: Generally speaking, if you aren't sure of how to pronounce a foreign language or specific accent, pick the way that uses the least time and energy of your jaw and tongue muscles. This is an intuition of mine that has held up reliably under practice, since any given group of people will trend toward what is easiest, due to not being able to talk as fast as they can think.

So it just occurred to me, what if they think slowly? Does this rule of thumb not apply to e.g. sub-Saharan African languages? Or perhaps people only discuss things that they can easily think about, so it would automatically apply to all languages. Or maybe the trend gets driven by simple concepts, so this works for travel in foreign countries because it happens to the common words (which are small for the same reason), but you can't assume it for jargon.

(I acknowledge that it's an odd question, but this is the kind of place where there might actually be someone who knows the answer off the top of his head, and it's also an interesting question, so I figured I'd just throw it out there.)

Blogger Salt September 17, 2016 1:31 PM  

fop wrote:They saved the banks, which indicates that they were absolutely correct.

They saved nothing. All they did was extend and pretend.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 1:31 PM  

50. Bard September 17, 2016 1:18 PM
and dismissing them because "you don't do what I do so what you do is not important"



i have never made that argument, ever, anywhere and to accuse me of such demonstrates deep comprehension failure. and that's giving you the benefit of the doubt.

now, Vox told me to drop it, so i'm done. do as you will.

Blogger Tanyaec September 17, 2016 1:32 PM  

I think the problem is that the current social system punishes 'free thought'. You must conform, must follow, the current mindset. Science is only true science if it follows current guidelines and beliefs. Anything that is based on different, never before considered perimeters is ridiculed. The society will never progress, if we let close minded elite run the game.
To Lee's point, he is correct. Smart minds with higher IQ's simply cannot fit in the box and become suffocated by the lack of common sense and freedom. Only those that believe the information and belief system that currently exist can progress and build the social contacts required for success.

Anonymous Godfrey September 17, 2016 1:36 PM  

No... no... the crony wealth Globalists are geniuses. Their plan to destroy the countries of the Middle-East and Africa and import the survivors to destroy the middle-classes and countries of West is pure genius. What could possibly go wrong?

Anonymous RedJack September 17, 2016 1:37 PM  

A few months ago, I switched jobs into a field of which I had no experience, little training, and few contacts in. I went from food engineering to hard manufacturing.

According to my managers, I have been excelling. I have also made several people very nervous. For if I , with the assistance of others and the guys on the floor, can work to double the yield in two months, why couldn't they do the same with the same resources in two years? I sat down, did my job, learned the field, and have had success. That performance scares people. When my current manager (who transfered in after I started) stated that "Jack, you much have worked decades in the industry!" heard me reply that I had only been there for two months, he was floored.

That is why high performers at many disciplines are feared. We walk in, do what everyone thought wasn't possible, and do it with minimal apparent effort. If you were the top sprinter in your D1 school, and a guy with Usan Bolt's speed walked in without the prior credentials, how would you feel? Bolt can't run slower. He could try to hide it but it will come through. I have seen athletes try to hide their ability for many reasons, and they seem to often break through. That makes some people very nervous. It is the same with IQ. If you are plodding along with a 115 IQ (not bad) and a new guy comes in and just leap frogs all your problems to solution, how will that make you feel? Many will do what ever they can to destroy that person.

It isn't all about social skills, it is about threats to the pecking order.

Anonymous Godfrey September 17, 2016 1:38 PM  

@31
No... man doesn't ultimately have a solution to the problem.

Blogger valiance. September 17, 2016 1:38 PM  

Dominic Cummings, who you should all know from the role he played in orchestrating Brexit, wrote a good (but long) essay on the inadequacy of current elites for the tasks of the modern era: (h/t steve hsu)
https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/the-hollow-men-ii-some-reflections-on-westminster-and-whitehall-dysfunction/

His thesis is not (only) that they aren't smart enough; rather, they're neither being trained in the right subjects, nor selected for the right qualities. Verbal fluency and good looks are prized over facility with statistics, technology, or complex systems. Narcissists and bureaucrats are promoted over those who actually have the goals of the organization in mind and the ability to implement them.

Blogger Bard September 17, 2016 1:41 PM  

54) Resident Moron,
Redacted. That was poorly expressed. Obviously anyone can have an opinion, but it was aimed at appealing to another's authority based on experience.

Anonymous Godfrey September 17, 2016 1:41 PM  

@55
They "saved" the banks and impoverished the world.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 1:42 PM  

57. Deplorable Jack Amok September 17, 2016 1:30 PM
So when Mr. 155 IQ tells the warren of 125's that they're wrong, they don't believe him.



no, it's worse than that.

Michael Mann knows better than ANYONE that the data is cherry picked, he's the one who made the decision on which tree samples *to exclude*.

therefore, Michael Mann knows better than anyone that he's lying.

therefore, the purpose of "consensus" is explicitly to drive from the field all of those with either the integrity or intelligence to see ( and point out ) that Mann is spewing bullshit.

Michael Mann believes that what Mark Steyn says is true because Michael Mann knew it was true before Mark Steyn ever started talking about Climate 'Science'.

this does not stop Michael Mann from suing Mark Steyn over purported libel in order to shut Steyn up and preserve the consensus.

Blogger Krul September 17, 2016 1:42 PM  

VD wrote:Don't you think I would have liked to have had that op/ed spot on the Pioneer Press editorial page?

Why didn't you? Not doubting, I get that you're excluded, but why? No kneepads?

Anonymous fish September 17, 2016 1:42 PM  

The economist's only job is to justify government spending. If he doesn't, they'll hire somebody else who will.


At least ObamaCare is validating the the professional judgement of intellectual luminaries like Paul Krugman by improving health care costs!

"Medical costs jump in August by largest amount in 32 years, CPI shows"


A true intellectual if there ever was one!

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/inflation-jumps-02-in-august-cpi-shows-2016-09-16

Anonymous RedJack September 17, 2016 1:43 PM  

That is why in most organizations, the ones who get promoted are not the one most capable, but the least. That, and if you are a mid wit manager, you want your smart guys on the bottom level to work out the problems you make between golf and blow. Not at your level, where they may must destroy your reason for being.

Anonymous TS September 17, 2016 1:43 PM  

"Verbal fluency and good looks are prized over facility with statistics"

Geesh they didn't even get that right.

Anonymous andon September 17, 2016 1:54 PM  

62. Anonymous Godfrey September 17, 2016 1:36 PM
No... no... the crony wealth Globalists are geniuses. Their plan to destroy the countries of the Middle-East and Africa and import the survivors to destroy the middle-classes and countries of West is pure genius. What could possibly go wrong?


they don't care about you. what else do you need to know?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 17, 2016 2:01 PM  

Lee Katt wrote:If you have an IQ of 135, for example, you really can only talk to people down to IQ of 120, which is the 90th percentile. That means awkwardness and dissatisfaction with 90 percent of the human race.

Not true. It is painful dealing with the self-satisfied midwits who view every interesting idea as a challenge to their own intelligence. Get below that, though, and most of the world is fine. I've worked as a cook, a janitor, pulling green chain, stacking hay, never have any problem talking with ordinary people, except I don't follow football. Lots of very interesting discussions, and different perspectives. They know you're smart and accept it, it's not a threat to them.

It's the midwits who are the problem.

And I'm sure there a plenty of +4 and +5 men married to +0 and +1 women. Not likely to work the other way, though. Not for long anyway.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 2:05 PM  

71. RedJack September 17, 2016 1:43 PM
Not at your level, where they may must destroy your reason for being.



or worse, get promoted past you.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2016 2:06 PM  

The objections of comments 2 and 3 were already addressed. Why don't you stop guessing why people are excluded and do a little reading?

http://polymatharchives.blogspot.ca/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

Blogger Harold September 17, 2016 2:08 PM  

Agree totally with Snidely Whiplash. Speaking from experience. Left a part time retail job and got my final eval where I was told, once again, I needed to learn how to talk to other associates without talking down to them. Right after that one of the associates who was a little slow told me he was sorry to see me go. Said I was the only person he could ask questions to who didn't try to make him feel stupid when I answered them. Only the people who think they're smart get upset when you know something they don't.

Blogger The Kurgan September 17, 2016 2:08 PM  

Indeed. I come across this issue daily in my work. It's only after I realised the truth of the Excluded that suddenly I could see why I had run into resistence at work

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 17, 2016 2:14 PM  

JI wrote:If the smartest people are being excluded from certain professions by those less intelligent, then I suggest that the smartest people really don't want to enter those professions. On the other hand, sometimes smart loses out to cunning.

The latter is true. The former is false. You really don't understand something at all.

Is it that you don't understand business? You have to deal with people, at a minimum as customers and suppliers; most likely as co-workers, supervisors, and managers; commonly as trainees; and fairly often as subordinates. If they literally can't understand what you said because it was obvious to you and opaque to them, then you will fail. But maybe you can learn how to impersonate normal, and do okay.

Or is it that you don't understand epistemology and phenomenology? In order to communicate a concept to someone, they have to be capable of understanding it. They also have to be able to go from your words to the concept; which if it's a new concept to them, they might not be able to do, no matter how well phrased your description is -- because brains are neural networks, so conceptology is muchly hardwired. And while rhetoric is a learnable skill, the teaching of it (or even the wanting to learn it) contradicts the Equals cult, so only Deplorables will do it.

(I don't expect you to understand the distinction between being able to understand a concept and being able to go from someone else's words to a concept, but it isn't really important here. You can ignore that.)

Blogger tublecane September 17, 2016 2:20 PM  

@45-Yes, I call it DO Something. Do Something is anti-civilizational.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 17, 2016 2:25 PM  

SciVo de Plorable wrote:(I don't expect you to understand the distinction between being able to understand a concept and being able to go from someone else's words to a concept, but it isn't really important here. You can ignore that.)

I'm sorry, that was both condescending and false. I take it back. It's a significant distinction because there is a huge problem with the IQ communication gap, even where the concept itself is theoretically understandable. That's the core of the problem.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 17, 2016 2:27 PM  

therefore, Michael Mann knows better than anyone that he's lying.

Very likely true, but Michael Mann isn't the problem, or rather wouldn't be a problem, except for the Consensus of Midwits who believe him and exclude Stein.

Or even better, excluding Roger Revelle, the genuinely smart guy who originally came up with the CO2 sequestration theory behind AGW, but later was written off as senile by the people who took over the consensus when he realized the data didn't support his theory. A whole bunch of midwits who used to think Revelle was a genius had to come up with some way to convince themselves they were smarter than he was, so they decided he's gone senile.

Anonymous BGKB September 17, 2016 2:33 PM  

I suggest that the smartest people really don't want to enter those professions.

Everything I have seen with prisoners getting medical clearance makes me realize I would never want to be a judge and have to listen to those people.

20 Jeff This evaluation, along with your work reputation, is used by a panel of individuals (who are picked, God knows how, by the the gatekeepers) to decide whether you are promoted or not. You receive NO feedback

Might I suggest changing your last name to Cohen-Goldhiemstien

They saved the banks, which indicates that they were absolutely correct.

They gave out enough money to the banks to pay off every residential mortgage in the US. (((Banks))) will need "saving" again.

So it just occurred to me, what if they think slowly? Does this rule of thumb not apply to e.g. sub-Saharan African languages

Scivo The answer might be found in http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-re-colonization-future-orientation.html#more

Why didn't you? Not doubting, I get that you're excluded, but why? No kneepads?

Ben Shapiro must have been cuter, or at least looking more boylike.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 17, 2016 2:35 PM  

I find that malicious people view nice people as stupid, and they are approximately correct because "nice" is a particularly disabling type of stupid. It is tempting for "woke" domesticated folks to draw the conclusion that the farmhands are all geniuses, because they are operating a well-engineered system, but this is generally incorrect.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 17, 2016 2:38 PM  

Darth Dharmakīrti wrote:Speaking as a 4SD+

You have my sympathies. It's hard enough in the high threes. Glad to see you're thinking for yourself -- not like you really have a choice -- and wish you the best.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 2:41 PM  

81. Jack Amok September 17, 2016 2:27 PM
or rather wouldn't be a problem, except for the Consensus of Midwits who believe him and exclude Stein.



you fail to extrapolate the totality of my point.

the Consensus of Midwits ALSO KNOWS that Mann is lying. any cursory examination of the evidence destroys the Hockeystick Hypothesis.

hell, the very failure of the Hockeystick projections demonstrates that the hypothesis is a lie ( useless as a predictive tool ), before you even start digging into the quality of the data set.

they ALL know it.

and they all DENY it.

and they all use this denial to drive climatologists of integrity from the field.

Anonymous EH September 17, 2016 2:46 PM  

Though I agree that there is quite a bit of exclusion of the smartest people from top positions -- I think it's the biggest waste in our whole wasteful society -- the specific numbers you cite on percentages of high-IQ people excluded have quite shaky calculations behind them and the actual stats may be higher or lower.

The odds of getting patents and research publications go up monotonically with higher scores, according to the Study of Mathematically Precocious youth (see recent Nature article: How to raise a genius: lessons from a 45-year study of super-smart children. At no point does more intelligence statistically become a net drag on careers.

But the amount of advantage is literally orders of magnitude less than we should expect when looking at how the market values small variations in athletic skill among top athletes. People whose IQs are as rare as being 6'10" tall and who aren't otherwise bad at the thinking game ought to be valued far more than basketball players, but we don't see that. Intelligence is the sole reason we aren't living in grass huts, or maybe even swinging from the trees. It is the source of all innovation and technical progress. The academic-bureaucratic-managerial establishment is wasting literally trillions, no, worse -- running the whole world into the gutter by excluding the very people who would make the best decisions from power.

Because that's what intelligence is: the ability to make hard decisions correctly. A measure of intelligence is a measure of the difficulty of questions one can reliably answer correctly. Successful power-seekers can't allow smart people in precisely because they would make better decisions than those who now have power, and the people in power don't want to give up their power. Even sadder, their power is mostly illusion anyway -- the powerful are no more able to change the system than anyone else -- less, because they very much don't even want to change the system.

Rule of the best. Aristocracy. It's coming. I expect there'll need to be some fighting first, though.

Anonymous Joe Smith September 17, 2016 2:49 PM  

I've worked in an academic environment under Phd's. For people so educated, some are incredibly stupid in some ways. It was amazing how many even with engineering degrees were lefty Obama c__cksuckers.

The custodial people and maintenance crews were always a delight. No need to pull airs with them. Respect them and you will be respected. They are also proud people who have kids and want them to do well in life to.

Anonymous Deplorable Jack Amok September 17, 2016 2:51 PM  

No bob, the consensus believes Mann. They believe their theory, and they believe all the bullshit fabricated to explain the failures in prediction. There's a core of sociopathic fakes who know they're lying, there's another circle of people who know the theories don't work but still believe them and try like hell to find ways to fix them, and then there's the rest of the mob who believe it all and fabricate reasons to disbelieve anyone who disagrees.

Without that last group, the two inner circles would be powerless.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 17, 2016 3:00 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:I invite the collective's attention to: http://www.tomkratman.com/Ranthhour.html

tl;dr- 1) It is not smart to believe you are rational. 2) Pacifists eventually become slaves or food for non-pacifists.

Anonymous fop September 17, 2016 3:02 PM  

They saved nothing. All they did was extend and pretend.

Banks are still around, which was their goal. The rest of your comment is just emotional.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 17, 2016 3:05 PM  

BGKB wrote:They gave out enough money to the banks to pay off every residential mortgage in the US. (((Banks))) will need "saving" again.

Wait. Really? I remember being furious, but I don't remember that specific detail. If you happen to have a link at hand, that would be awesome.

Anonymous Frank1961 September 17, 2016 3:06 PM  

Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I think that it explains exactly what is wrong with the "leadership" of our society. People confuse confidence with competence...

Anonymous kfg September 17, 2016 3:07 PM  

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Anonymous Deplorable Jack Amok September 17, 2016 3:12 PM  

To put it another way bob, there aren't enough sociopathic liars with 125 IQs to cause large problems without the cooperation of non-sociopaths who believe them. A liar isn't a problem if no one believes him.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 17, 2016 3:12 PM  

bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) wrote:if you want an example of what i'm talking about, just look at the behavior of Michael Mann over in climate science.
Your definition of "unintelligent" is "disagrees with me".  It doesn't matter how smart you are, if the climate community was wrong they would have proven it by now.  Yes, even if it was made up of thousands of mid-wits.  Bolometry don't lie.

Lee Katt wrote:Now let's look at the poor bastard at IQ 150. He can talk to people near the top of the 98th percentile and above. Basically, three people in 200 are capable of happily conversing with him.
My curse.  The odds are better if he grows up in a university town as I did, but they're still depressingly low.

I think anyone with an IQ over 150 should be eligible for social security benefits.
Who was it who opined that this group should just be given pensions and allowed to create?  Imagine camps like Los Alamos, where most of the brain-workers had to be in that stratum.  Now imagine doing it for the country as a whole as a matter of policy.

Being who I am, I immediately think of pols who would demand that this group "look like America".

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 17, 2016 3:18 PM  

fop wrote:They saved nothing. All they did was extend and pretend.

Banks are still around, which was their goal. The rest of your comment is just emotional.


The first statement is true, and the second statement is odd. Do you not have an objective opinion on the actual, realistic, long-term (year 2200) fortitude of the banks' balance sheets? You think that is an emotional question?

Blogger Noah B September 17, 2016 3:23 PM  

@33 Don't you think I would have liked to have had that op/ed spot on the Pioneer Press editorial page?

I imagine that this sort of experience is a common one here. In your case, do you believe you were excluded primarily because:

1) Your colleagues were threatened by your ability to succeed as a relative newcomer without journalism credentials;
2) Colleagues saw you as extreme, strange, or anti-social;
3) Something else

Blogger dc.sunsets September 17, 2016 3:24 PM  

From the MSM's managers willfully squandering what little trust they still had, to increased recognition that the self-appointed "best & brightest" aren't, we watch the predicted trend move from pathological trust to (coming soon) pathological distrust.

1999 witnessed "We Are The World" when everyone across the globe was "our brother." Stupid, mindless, but with 16 years of downstream consequences.

Trust in all institutions is evaporating. Trust in pension promises, the utility of the US medical system, trust in the bond market, the banking system, the press & the government are on their way to utter distrust, and as astonishing as it is to see, the people who depend on these are willing participants who play their assigned roles as the systems are driven into destruction.

Buckle up. This will turn ugly sooner or later.

Blogger Gapeseed September 17, 2016 3:30 PM  

I'm not sure Vox ever linked the original article. Via Duck Duck Go, here it is: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-16/nassim-taleb-exposes-worlds-intellectual-yet-idiot-class

Anonymous BGKB September 17, 2016 3:31 PM  

Wait. Really? I remember being furious, but I don't remember that specific detail. If you happen to have a link at hand, that would be awesome.

It might have just been those mortgages that were in arrears, of which it looks like there was only ~5million. That's a long way to look back on the internet.

Here is one link that pulls numbers from a 404 CNN link http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread642258/pg1

Blogger Tom Kratman September 17, 2016 3:32 PM  

It's actually rather good, Aeoli; you should read it.

Blogger bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) September 17, 2016 3:32 PM  

88. Deplorable Jack Amok September 17, 2016 2:51 PM
No bob, the consensus believes Mann.


the only way the consensus "believes" Mann is if you expand the definition of "consensus" to include all of the J-school shills on tv, government bureaucrats and those who aren't actually in the field.

ie - ignorant and not interested in alleviating that ignorance


95. Mr. Deplorabional September 17, 2016 3:12 PM
Your definition of "unintelligent" is "disagrees with me". It doesn't matter how smart you are, if the climate community was wrong they would have proven it by now.



the "Climate Community" has proven the Hockeystick Hypothesis false to facts, already, just as i said.

http://www.steynstore.com/Climate-Change-The-Facts_moreinfo.html

that is a different question from whether or not the Earth is warming ( likely yes, or at least it was until recently ) which is also a different question from whether or not that warming/climate change is Anthropogenic.



95. Mr. Deplorabional September 17, 2016 3:12 PM
Bolometry don't lie.



bolometers have only existed since the 19th century.

ie - you have NO bolometric data predating the 19th century and pretending otherwise demonstrates that you're a liar

kind of hard to create Mann's Hockeystick if you can't go back ~15,000 years to the last Ice Age.

OpenID fidelioesp September 17, 2016 3:34 PM  

I read the Taleb article. I hadn't realized how smart and witty the guy was. I had assumed that the Black Swan was another fad book that would be soon forgotten. Now I need to read it.

Anonymous fop September 17, 2016 3:34 PM  

Do you not have an objective opinion on the actual, realistic, long-term (year 2200) fortitude of the banks' balance sheets? You think that is an emotional question?

Irrelevant. The goal was to mitigate the crisis and save the TBTF banks from ruin, not to ensure tranquility 200 years later.

They did what they set out to do. Explain how this is a sign of ignorance.

Blogger Sheila4g September 17, 2016 3:39 PM  

@23 bob k. mando: "now, how interested is the TRULY TALENTED person going to be in submitting himself to those whom he views, rightly, as being halfwits?

can he decide to play the game? surely.

the question is whether you can convince him that the reward is sufficient compensation for the aggravation."

@63 RedJack: "It isn't all about social skills, it is about threats to the pecking order."

This so hits home regarding my older son. With his IQ somewhere north of 150(depending on test/year/ceiling), plus his personality (limited patience for idiots, no respect for credentialism), he's had a number of setbacks. He cannot bring himself to play the game as far as college/higher ed goes, because of the ridiculous SJW culture and the makework hoops one must jump through to get a degree - so although he is absolutely smarter and more capable than more than 95% of today's recent college grads, he merely has a high school diploma which shuts him out of a number of fields. He admits it's hurt him, but just cannot bring himself to pretend to take the midwits seriously. As he put it a moment ago, some of them have sufficient horsepower but redline at a much lower rpm level - they just hit a wall and cannot comprehend what he's trying to say or do.

He has no resentment of those smarter - he sincerely believes his friend is significantly smarter - and attributes some of this friend's problems (alcohol, among others) to his IQ level. Back when my kid was in elementary school, the other kids evinced no anger or resentment that he was two years younger than they or almost always had the highest scores on things. The resentment was demonstrated by their parents, however, who requested their special snowflakes not be put in a class with him so that they could shine as their parents believed they ought. That got him put in a class with none of his friends from the prior two years, and with a teacher who believed all children are equally gifted, and that my son needed to be cut down to size. He was 8 years old.

I'm not as smart as my kid, and had my own social issues growing up. He's always made friends fairly easily, and has certainly learned to "fit in" enough as an enlisted guy in the National Guard, but I don't know that he'll ever learn (or be willing) to play the game to get ahead.

Anonymous BGKB September 17, 2016 3:43 PM  

Related: Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc4Mi4ocyDw

Irrelevant. The goal was to mitigate the crisis and save the TBTF banks from ruin,

The goal was to socialize the debt of those who hand out bribes in the (((crony))) system. The (((Elites))) have been socializing their failures for all of recorded history. Destroy economies and looting hard assets.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 17, 2016 3:51 PM  

Sheila4g wrote:he merely has a high school diploma which shuts him out of a number of fields. He admits it's hurt him, but just cannot bring himself to pretend to take the midwits seriously. As he put it a moment ago, some of them have sufficient horsepower but redline at a much lower rpm level - they just hit a wall and cannot comprehend what he's trying to say or do.
Once he finds what he enjoys doing, he'll be fine. The key is confidence, which can be severely beaten down by continual exclusion from decent jobs.
The key for me has been to concentrate on earning money, not having a job.

He has no resentment of those smarter - he sincerely believes his friend is significantly smarter - and attributes some of this friend's problems (alcohol, among others) to his IQ level.
In my experience, drug problems are the endemic among high IQ people. Sometimes it seems like the only way to be dumb enough to play along.

Anonymous fop September 17, 2016 3:51 PM  

The goal was to socialize the debt of those who hand out bribes in the (((crony))) system. The (((Elites))) have been socializing their failures for all of recorded history. Destroy economies and looting hard assets.

If so this would still speak to them being rather skillful and deliberate, rather than simply a bunch of ignoramuses.

Blogger clk September 17, 2016 3:54 PM  

@92 "Dunning-Kruger Effect" --- absolutely.. there is a lot of this going around. And then there's the yet to be defined effect where someone blames the lack of success on those with a lower IQ.

There are two principles you should hold close to your heart (1) the chances of you being smarter than the people that came before you is unlikely and (2) the chances of the people who came before you were much smarter than you is also unlikely.

I find this theory of exclusion due to IQ interesting .. I dont see how I missed the original post but I have some experience here -- I work with some of the smartest people on the planet and normally I am not the dumbest person in the room either (infact sometimes I might be am the smartest if the group is small enough -- < 2 ) but high IQ is not an predictor of success -- and it not due to the fact that people with lower IQ are stopping the sucess of the higher IQ (if were only that easy it could be fixed easily) but success is a combination of traits of which intelligence is only a part (and lets argue some other time exactly what IQ measures because its a limited indicator especially at the high ends of the spectrum of intelligence where the error is humongous).. High IQ doesn't drive leadership, courage, creativity, insight in human thoughts and actions, compassion... infact, some the highest IQ people I have meant seem to be be deficient in one or more of these characteristics... high IQ without the other traits can actually be a hindrance.. To my experience, there is a IQ level that allows you sit at the table, but there are other traits that allow you to sit at the head of the table... and I have met quite a few high IQ people who have intentionally removed themselves from situations because it doesn't allow them to do what they want.

I do not want my leaders chosen only on basis of IQ -- there is a minimum that I want to see, but also what them to have courage, empathy, high morals, belief in right and wrong, strengthen of character .. etc...



Anonymous kfg September 17, 2016 4:09 PM  

@103.fidelioesp:

You need to read Antifragile as well, perhaps first. Taleb himself considers it the mature work.

Blogger Aeoli Pera September 17, 2016 4:18 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:It's actually rather good, Aeoli; you should read it.

I did. "tl;dr" is also slang for saying, "here's the short version if you're lazy".

Blogger justaguy September 17, 2016 4:26 PM  

Any data on engineering field exclusion? Having spent a career in the US Naval Nuclear Power Program-- Junior Officer through Commanding Officer, I found that often engineering has the feedback that rewards being right and doesn't allow much obfuscation. Although because of Rickover's philosophies, the small cadre is full of top notch engineers combined with a competitive and energetic work ethic.

Most of the smart people I know are also engineers or MDs, and while not at the top of their firms (leadership/management) , are happily solving problems. Some decline leadership to keep working on actual engineering issues/medical problems (not research which is a cesspit of intrigue) instead of people issues (I know that this shows the isolation principle mentioned in the base article).

Blogger szopen September 17, 2016 4:58 PM  

bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) wrote:
the "Climate Community" has proven the Hockeystick Hypothesis false to facts, already, just as i said.

You are wrong. But nevertheless: the theory was created to explain why temperatures during ice ages varied more than expected; the theory postulated that if CO2 levels would go up, temperature woudl go up; theory was finally accepted in 1960-1970, when temperatures were not that particularly high. Then CO2 levels went up, temperature went up, but you are saying that instead we should search for some other theory. Interesting. This suggests me that your scepticism is driven by ideological opposition.

As for on-topic:
Just a thought: no one wants to be not just called, but even thought to be an idiot, and intelligent people may be also better to detect some snarky remarks or symptoms; ie 100IQ X person may not detect that 130IQ Y person is thinking X is idiot, but 130IQ Y person may detect that 160IQ Z person is thinking Y is idiot.

Blogger Unknown September 17, 2016 5:05 PM  

szopen wrote:100IQ X person may not detect that 130IQ Y person is thinking X is idiot, but 130IQ Y person may detect that 160IQ Z person is thinking Y is idiot.

No, 160IQ Z doesn't think in those terms. To him, almost everybody is down the scale. X and Y are just different points on the scale.

He thinks in terms of whether they're sneaky, shifty bastards, liars, thieves, manipulators, aggressive, vindictive, etc.

He is much more concerned with their character than their intelligence. It's the 120IQ Y who is fixated on intelligence.

Blogger ace September 17, 2016 5:15 PM  

I've had a few fallings out with Leader types when in the Advisor role.

If you are too smart for them there will eventually be an idea you are trying to relate to them that is too complex for them to accept. Call it the Apple of Discord. You'll know when this happens because they won't even attempt to discuss it or think about it, but will just spit it out whole.

It makes sense to be Excluded at that point. It's much better from the Leader's perspective to have access to ideas he can understand, even if they aren't optimal. It's in the Follower's interest to follow someone whose actions he in turn understands.

Flowers For Algernon nails it.

You'd expect this pattern to hold everywhere. The average IQ of the populace ultimately dictates the maximum IQ one can have and still be considered part of society. So it's quite a disaster if the national IQ goes down a point, because it moves bright people into the ranks of the Excluded.

So if you had a population of 50 million whites and added a population of 50 million browns, even though the same smart people still exist in that society, many are now Excluded and society has little access to their intelligence or resources.

Blogger vosvos September 17, 2016 5:31 PM  

Feel like a lot of people are missing the point here.True intellectuals (very high IQ) ARE being excluded BECAUSE they are performing at a level so far above the norm in their various fields that their achievements might only be recognized by other intellects of the same caliber which admittedly are few and far between. I can not stand the overuse of chess analogies because most of them are just bad but in this case I will be talking about the chess rating system vs IQ. A novice chess player may have a rating around 700-800 a relatively good cafe player may be anywhere from 1200-1600 after this level people start winning tournaments but compared to chess masters they are still relative novices. A chess master class A is anywhere from 1800-1999 an expert rating beginning at 2000 then up through the ranks by 200 points. To give a sense of what 200 points means, from the top 100 chess players on the planet earth with ratings that the average chess player can not even comprehend, we have a 205 point difference with the strongest number 1 rating being an incredible 2857 and the weakest ranked 100 being a whopping 2652, for further perspective the average chess rating of a player in USCF competition is roughly 1800 that means the world's top 5 are roughly a full 1000 points above the average competitive player. Now, if someone with an 1800 rating were to sit down at a chessboard with someone of a 2800 rating he could not even begin to comprehend how he was being simply demolished. I have seen this lack of comprehension with a 200 point split imagine 1000. If we expand the astounding insight into the mastery of a board-game into other disciplines of course there will be exclusion, you see the chess master will always want to play but who will give him a good game? In the case of Magnus Carlsen in a world of 7.5 billion only 99 have even a chance at beating him over a wooden checkered board. I can not stress enough that some people are so good at whatever it is they do that they truly stand in a league of their own that their very mastery is what excludes them. Good grief Lord knows I'm trying.

Blogger szopen September 17, 2016 5:32 PM  

So it's quite a disaster if the national IQ goes down a point, because it moves bright people into the ranks of the Excluded.
Damn, that's great insight and quite a novel to that - it effectively counters the ones "so what if we bring more dumb people, the old intelligent ones will be still there". They will be there, but they will become the Excluded!

He is much more concerned with their character than their intelligence. It's the 120IQ Y who is fixated on intelligence.
You may be right. I estimate my iq to be somewhere in 125-135 range (never formally tested, estimation based on my achievements and internet quizzes, so you can see how good it may be), so I might be just projecting here :-)
To think about it, I have never experienced really intelligent person treating me as dumb :D while I experienced dumb persons thinking I am dumber than them :)

Anonymous kfg September 17, 2016 5:55 PM  

As one who has said, "But we still have the smart people," that is an argument that I score as a point.

Blogger Tom Kratman September 17, 2016 5:55 PM  

"One thing to understand is there is some evidence (from Neil Clark Warren of eHarmony) that people are unable to have an intellectually satisfying conversation with anyone outside of 15 IQ points higher or lower than themselves. (And vice versa, they can't have one with you.)"

You can, actually, Lee, but one or more of four things has to be true, it must either be on a subject that basically overwhelms one's life, like in the military preparing for war, or it must be something where the emotional content is sufficiently high that IQ (or intelligence, because I am skeptical of IQ) hardly enters into it, or it must be on a subject where wisdom, which is different from intelligence, is of more impact, or it must be in an area where the less intelligent party simply has more subject specific expertise than the more intelligent does.

Blogger Robert Foster September 17, 2016 5:58 PM  

Nassim is an idiot. WHich explains why he doesn't like the intelligent.

Anonymous Professor September 17, 2016 6:01 PM  

Being a Prof I see it a bit differently. Somebody like Taleb is somebody I can't understand a lot of the time, despite doing graduate work in a similar area of probability. My students, at a good college, have to really work to understand basic mathematical probability, which Taleb likely learned without thinking about it.
Not many people at VD or Taleb's intellectual class put together the cadre of people to explain their ideas down the chain.

Ex, VDs ideas on trade could likely be put into an advanced trade model and made understandable to a lot more people. It would not be published because of exclusion, but it would be out there in economics language. I am sure its really hard for him to explain it to a lower IQ person, but its neccesary for his work.

The smarter and more creative you are the harder you have to work to explain your insights.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 17, 2016 6:13 PM  

bob k. mando ( the hardest troll here ) wrote:the "Climate Community" has proven the Hockeystick Hypothesis false to facts, already, just as i said.
You cite a popular book by a non-scientist who cherry-picks his authorities.  Fail.  Say, haven't you sneered at "The Population Bomb" for the very same reasons?

The blurb on the page repeats a false-to-fact meme (that there has been no climate warming in X years) which is itself cherry-picked by selecting as the reference the previous record El Nino year, 1998 (the current one may be bigger), as the baseline.  Epic fail.  (If you cherry-pick events you can "prove" that police are the biggest deadly threat to Black people, not their own violent tendencies, sexual incontinence or eating habits.)

bolometers have only existed since the 19th century.

ie - you have NO bolometric data predating the 19th century and pretending otherwise demonstrates that you're a liar

Bolometric and spectrographic data prove that both downwelling IR and IR radiation to space are changing in accordance with the physics models on which the climate models are based.  This not only shows the net change in radiative balance, but which gases are causing how much of it.

kind of hard to create Mann's Hockeystick if you can't go back ~15,000 years to the last Ice Age.
The vast bulk of the anthropogenic GHG emissions have come since the second half of the 20th century; Langley started his work in the mid-late 19th.  The historical bolometric data leaves quite a bit to be desired, but it is still firm enough to constitute proof.

All this denial has the flavor of the 1965 immigration act about it.  Before:  "It won't change anything."  After:  "It's changed, and there's nothing you can do about it."  When the WAIS goes and half of Florida is under water, the tune will switch from Before to After.

@113 Exactly.

szopen wrote:I experienced dumb persons thinking I am dumber than them :)
I get this all the time trolling a certain group of dim-bulbs.  It's hilarious... there.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 17, 2016 6:16 PM  

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:All this denial has the flavor of the 1965 immigration act about it.  Before:  "It won't change anything."  After:  "It's changed, and there's nothing you can do about it."  When the WAIS goes and half of Florida is under water, the tune will switch from Before to After.

I swear, Mr."Rational", you sure do like the taste of your own bullshit.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 17, 2016 6:37 PM  

I've asked some of these before, and I'll try again, but I still don't expect you to answer these questions;

The actual Greenhouse effect of CO2 is quite small, marginal at best. The hypothesis that it will create egregious warming is due to posited mediation via H2O. What evidence is there that H2O levels in the atmosphere have increased?

All climate models that are used to forecast warming show part of the process being an elevation of the temperature of the middle-atmosphere in the tropics. Where is there any evidence of warming on the scale required for the models to be correct?

The climate has been warming since the "little ice age" from 1300-1880. As such it is merely the resumption of the previous pattern, the Mediaeval Warm Period, which itself was a return to the climatic conditions of the Roman period. Why exactly should we be afraid of a climate similar to the Viking Age?

Sea levels have been rising at a steady rate since the collapse of ice dams released the impounded meltwater at the end of the last ice age. The rate of sea level rise has not changed throughout the "unprecedented warming" of the modern age. Why again are we supposed to be worried?

Blogger VD September 17, 2016 6:44 PM  

So it's quite a disaster if the national IQ goes down a point, because it moves bright people into the ranks of the Excluded.

That's a brilliant insight, Ace. It explains why average IQ is so important.

Blogger Harold September 17, 2016 6:52 PM  

Ah, leadership and IQ. I suspect many really high IQ individuals never get a chance to get into leadership positions in any type of bureaucracy. Because as they attempt to go through the ranks, they run against people who do everything in their power to undermine them. Because most "leaders" aren't confident enough to have someone smarter then them working for them. Like him or not, the 2nd President Bush was a notable exception. One of the things taught at business schools is that the most successful leaders with the most confidence hire the absolute best they can. He paid attention to that lesson. Most people in charge want workers less intelligent then they are so they look like they're needed. In a business bureaucracy, hiring the stupid leads to business failure, and is eventually self-correcting. In a state bureaucracy, with no profit measurement, success is often defined as getting a bigger budget. Showing that you can do things more efficiently and cheaper makes you a danger to those above- their budget might get cut.

In small self-selected groups of any kind, I always end up eventually assuming the leadership position. In any bureaucracy I've worked in, I'm always been told I'm lacking in leadership ability. Often because I'm not a good follower, and as everyone knows, in order to be a good leader you must be a good follower, and never question those above you.

Blogger Unknown September 17, 2016 7:47 PM  

most of them are 2SD midwits who are considerably less intelligent than Taleb, me, or most of the genuinely smart people that I know.

...

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite.

I wonder if it stings more to know there are tens of millions of people smarter than you, or that your ideas are beneath their daily purview?

There's a semi-erudite 2SD midwit clannishness about the Alt-Right and it's subordinate groups. In these here parts the +3SD is king. Yet the Alt-Right is without leaders, so regression to the mean is inevitable.

Part of Huxley's thesis was that every class could be bred to prefer his own intellectual class, or the one immediately below, while despising the lot of any classes above. Part of Orwell's thesis was that every class naturally seeks more power for its own, yet consumes the necessary power brokers in its midst. The Alt-Right and its subordinate groups is somewhere in-between, rebellion and pretension in an unholy alliance. Sounds about right.

In Trump's America, intellectual regression to the mean will speed up. Ironically, his presidency may be the greatest socialist vector of the idiocracy, while using selective reforms to co-opt the radicalism of the popular classes and preserve and mask the power of a narrower ruling class. In that sense he may be far more effective at Bush-Clinton elitism than either Bush or Clinton. He may succeed in America where Napoleon's Bonapartism failed in France. Perhaps war is coming, but not in the way you think.

Anonymous BGKB September 17, 2016 7:55 PM  

Where is there any evidence of warming on the scale required for the models to be correct?

They said NYC would be underwater by 2015, and Hurricane Sandy hit.

If so this would still speak to them being rather skillful and deliberate

Takes lots of brains to come up with "Here is a bribe for me to get a contract instead of smarter people"

I experienced dumb persons thinking I am dumber than them :)

When I explained to a Mexican boyfriend's friends that I didn't know anyone who stole cars they had a good laugh at the stupid gringo because my boyfriend had stole a car before I knew him. It was after cops shot a Mexican (for no reason) who stole a car, they said everyone steal cars.

Anonymous kfg September 17, 2016 7:56 PM  

"When the WAIS goes and half of Florida is under water . . ."

Half of Florida is underwater. If the rest of it goes, the residents can go back to Levittown and Havana where they came from.

Blogger ace September 17, 2016 8:35 PM  

Unknown wrote:I wonder if it stings more to know there are tens of millions of people smarter than you, or that your ideas are beneath their daily purview?

'beneath their daily purview'?

Shit man. I guess you didn't want to come off like a moron in a post about IQ and the best you could do was to talk like a fag.

That is, by the by, what an idiot will do if you tell them to act smart and sophisticated.

Blogger Giovanni Dannato September 17, 2016 9:08 PM  

Isn't it good cause for hope a discussion like this can exist? The internet makes outliers viable. It's a game changer.
Anyone who was different enough from others to be unable to relate to the 2-300 they're going to get to know face to face was non-viable.
I think part of the Euro formula for success was sending smart rejects to monasteries where they could study pea plants, make music, translate ancient works, and make great beer. However, society missed out on their genes.
Jews on the other hand, made sure that smart rabbi's son got laid and had progeny.
That's one of the things the "West" is going to have to change if it wants to sustain the high level of achievement that allowed it to colonize the world.

Anonymous zoltan September 17, 2016 10:14 PM  

"Intellectual Morons" by Daniel Flynn, I think his term is a little better

Anonymous Jack Amok September 17, 2016 10:38 PM  

the only way the consensus "believes" Mann is if you expand the definition of "consensus" to include all of the J-school shills on tv, government bureaucrats and those who aren't actually in the field...

Well, you have to expand it at least far enough to cover the people handing out grants, providing (or not) oversight, and reporting things to the public. Otherwise, Michael Mann would be irrelevant. The two midwits above arguing that AGW is real would never have heard of him and would never have gotten their talking points to argue with you about it.

The consensus has to be large enough to exclude people with better ideas or the better ideas win out. It has to be larger than the actual institution or else the institution won't be able to support the lie. A bunch of Keynesian economists don't matter unless the government buys into their mistake. The low-fat shills from the corn and wheat industries wouldn't have wreaked so much havoc on the waistlines of America if the FDA, USDA, AMA and jurnolistas didn't join their consensus.

Anonymous Deplorable Jack Amok September 17, 2016 10:49 PM  

Sea levels have been rising at a steady rate since the collapse of ice dams released the impounded meltwater at the end of the last ice age. The rate of sea level rise has not changed throughout the "unprecedented warming" of the modern age. Why again are we supposed to be worried?

AGW enthusiasts like to talk about sea level rise and mention all those coral atolls that will be under water soon.

Coral atolls. Huh. Coral grows... below water or above it? Yes, that's right, below water. So... how is it that these islands made of coral are above water? Yes, that's right, sea levels used to be higher than they are today.

Before anyone burned fossil fuels.

These are the sort of things midwits never think about. Their pattern matching skills and inquisitiveness are insufficient to make second order connections. They're smart enough to comprehend one level cause and effect (which raises them above most of the third world), but second order is beyond them.

Sea levels rise -> coral atolls flood. Oh, how terrible.

Sea levels rise -> coral atolls flood -> coral doesn't grow above sea level -> those atolls formed below sea level -> sea levels are simply returning to what they had been previously.

Blogger Unknown September 17, 2016 11:06 PM  

Shit man. I guess you didn't want to come off like a moron in a post about IQ and the best you could do was to talk like a fag.

As I said, "regression to the mean". The sub-intellectual Amerikaner is the mean. When enough of these creatures hatch, the Trumpian pit-bull will go bloody insane as it tries to scratch itself rid of them.

Blogger tublecane September 17, 2016 11:08 PM  

@132-Don't we have a term for that? "Sophomore" means "wise fool" in Greek, I think. We don't exactly use it that way, but we do in the adjective form: "sophomoric."

Anonymous bob just September 17, 2016 11:11 PM  

some good thoughts. I think another issue is folks believing data that is not complete or biased. They may have the intelligence (knowledge) to run every statistical test but they may lack the wisdom to question or actually apply the knowledge.

Aren't we limited on these tests by the intelligence of the test-maker?

For example: if you are asked where insulin is found - is it a) pancreas
b) brain
c) a + b


You know the question was created last year (standardized test) and not updated but research within the past month indicates B as well as A are true.

So how do you answer? You probably answer how you think the test-maker would answer. But then what are you actually being tested on?

for those interested in brain insulin and a possible connection with Alzheimer's

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/63/12/3992

Blogger Jim Horn September 17, 2016 11:50 PM  

I have to agree with the "Lesson of the Excluded". At a meeting of the Four Sigma Society (IQ > 160) in the late 1970s I was startled that all were totally non-famous non-influential folks who used their abilities to work quietly in all types of fields but usually on their own. As one said, "if we're so smart, why ain't we rich?" Meanwhile, the smartest folks I've had the pleasure of working with would probably not be the highest IQ scorers but had insight and drive that more than made up for it. Me? I scored the highest value in one section of the LAIT and did pretty well in the rest. Still muddling by in engineering (and enjoying it).

Thanks for a very thought provoking blog!

Blogger Groot September 18, 2016 12:24 AM  

Lee Katt wrote:
people are unable to have an intellectually satisfying conversation with anyone outside of 15 IQ points higher or lower than themselves. (And vice versa, they can't have one with you.)... Now let's look at the poor bastard at IQ 150. He can talk to people near the top of the 98th percentile and above. Basically, three people in 200 are capable of happily conversing with him...
Nonetheless, you start to have trouble with "intellectual depth perception" -- you can't tell how much people are following, you just can't gauge whether they are just with you, or weigh the heck behind...
In some ways, anything IQ over 120 is a disability, at least a social disability.


Preposterous blarney. You are conflating intelligence with sperging. Social skills can be learned, and the better your learning ability, the easier it is to learn... anything. I can talk with anyone, anywhere, anytime, and have them eating out of the palm of my hand within seconds. This goes down to the dumbest and down to animals. I can turn two dogs into puddles, one with each hand, while holding a conversation at a party (it always elicits comments). (I learned by reading books: see Catwatching: & Cat Lore (1986) and Dogwatching (1986) by Desmond Morris.) And I've read many books about humans, and never stop. Putting it into action is just fun.

A combination of humor, warmth, inducing fear, and knowing exactly what's going on their little brains works wonders. Think of your favorite comedian for humor, Stefan Molyneaux for warmth, Groot for fear, and decades of your own brain people-watching and -interacting.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:They know you're smart and accept it, it's not a threat to them.

Yes. The deltas are OK. The betas are always coming up and trying out, auditioning for allegiance. I never pay attention to the other ones.

SciVo de Plorable wrote:JI wrote:If they literally can't understand what you said because it was obvious to you and opaque to them, then you will fail. But maybe you can learn how to impersonate normal, and do okay.

I never impersonate normal, ever. I am very clear when I speak or write, because I know what I'm talking about and I have verbal skills, part of IQ. They always understand what I say, and I am always smarter than they are. Because these are inseparable.

Professor wrote:
The smarter and more creative you are the harder you have to work to explain your insights.


Bullshit. Like I already explained.

Blogger Groot September 18, 2016 12:24 AM  

SciVo de Plorable wrote:OT: Generally speaking, if you aren't sure of how to pronounce a foreign language or specific accent, pick the way that uses the least time and energy of your jaw and tongue muscles...

No, different languages teach people what is natural and "easiest." Spanish or Greek speakers place their tongues way back, so have few vowel differentiations and almost no diphthongs; Russian speakers almost always touch their teeth with consonants, so almost can't help the diphthongs. For a kick-ass perusal of linguistics, one of the best The Teaching Company series ever, see John McWhorter's Understanding Linguistics - The Science of Language.

Blogger ace September 18, 2016 12:52 AM  

Groot wrote:Lee Katt wrote:

people are unable to have an intellectually satisfying conversation with anyone outside of 15 IQ points higher or lower than themselves. (And vice versa, they can't have one with you.)... Now let's look at the poor bastard at IQ 150. He can talk to people near the top of the 98th percentile and above. Basically, three people in 200 are capable of happily conversing with him...

Nonetheless, you start to have trouble with "intellectual depth perception" -- you can't tell how much people are following, you just can't gauge whether they are just with you, or weigh the heck behind...

In some ways, anything IQ over 120 is a disability, at least a social disability.


Preposterous blarney. You are conflating intelligence with sperging. Social skills can be learned, and the better your learning ability, the easier it is to learn... anything.


It's sort of amusing how your post number is 139.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 18, 2016 1:14 AM  

Any data on engineering field exclusion?

It depends. There are really two types of engineering these days - there's "problem solving" (which is what most non-engineers think we do, and which is also the best type of engineering), and there is "equation applying."

Problem solving is mostly protected against exclusion, because being right as judged by reality (did the bridge stand up, or did the bridge fall down?) is of the utmost importance. Equation applying - which constitutes professions such as, say, "traffic engineering" has a lot of exclusion, because in those fields, properly applying the established standards is all that matters.

So, basically, ask yourself if the majority of your job involves a) finding innovative solutions to problems, or b) looking up the correct standard to use. If it's a), smart people are probably not excluded (too much). If it's b), they almost certainly are.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 18, 2016 1:26 AM  

Widely Headgash wrote:I've asked some of these before, and I'll try again, but I still don't expect you to answer these questions;
Mostly because they're BS gotchas crafted as dezinformatzia by FF interests, but I'm stuck on my re-write of chapter 3 and the scope of the role of a character whose initials are coincidentally B.S. so I'm game for fisking tonight.

All climate models that are used to forecast warming show part of the process being an elevation of the temperature of the middle-atmosphere in the tropics. Where is there any evidence of warming on the scale required for the models to be correct?
I was honestly taken aback by this.  If you spent any time reading the actual writings of climate scientists (like RealClimate), you would know that the biggest effects are expected where water has the least influence, leaving the signal of the non-condensible GHGs to stand out.  These are the polar regions.  Who the hell would expect stuff to show up the most in the tropics?

I suspected that your specific phrase is either specific to or strongly influenced by dezinformatzia, so I threw this string into ixquick as the search term:

elevation of the temperature of the middle-atmosphere in the tropics

That didn't work too well, so I modified it slightly:

elevation of the temperature of the middle-atmosphere tropiCAL

It didn't turn up anything specific.  I modified it to be more particular:

"climate change" elevation of the temperature of the middle-atmosphere tropiCAL

The second hit for those terms, which was not prominent in the first two searches, turns out to be none other than Anthony Watts, infamous climate-change denier.  Busted.

The actual Greenhouse effect of CO2 is quite small, marginal at best. The hypothesis that it will create egregious warming is due to posited mediation via H2O. What evidence is there that H2O levels in the atmosphere have increased?
You mean, aside from the massive flood that hit one of our own in Louisiana barely weeks ago?

The climate has been warming since the "little ice age" from 1300-1880. As such it is merely the resumption of the previous pattern, the Mediaeval Warm Period, which itself was a return to the climatic conditions of the Roman period. Why exactly should we be afraid of a climate similar to the Viking Age?
Because the atmosphere is already way beyond any conditions in the last multi-million years, and the temperatures, rainfall and other effects are going to undergo far greater changes too.

Sea levels have been rising at a steady rate since the collapse of ice dams released the impounded meltwater at the end of the last ice age. The rate of sea level rise has not changed throughout the "unprecedented warming" of the modern age. Why again are we supposed to be worried?
How much coastal real estate are you ready to cede to the ocean?  How much river delta farmland, ditto?  We've already lost enormous amounts of Gulf coast to stupidity like cutting canals and destroying mangroves which protected land; do you really want to make it worse?!

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 18, 2016 1:30 AM  

kfg wrote:Half of Florida is underwater. If the rest of it goes, the residents can go back to Levittown and Havana where they came from.
Havana is far higher above sea level than most of Florida, so maybe Castro was smarter than Pizarro.

Deplorable Jack Amok wrote:Coral atolls. Huh. Coral grows... below water or above it? Yes, that's right, below water. So... how is it that these islands made of coral are above water? Yes, that's right, sea levels used to be higher than they are today.

Before anyone burned fossil fuels.

The earth's crust is not at a uniform height and continues to move, so reefs on seamounts pushing above the current sea level in the past are not inconsistent with global sea level rise today.

These are the sort of things midwits never think about.
That's right, you didn't.

Blogger Billy Ray September 18, 2016 2:06 AM  

sound like he is describing a bunch of alt right assholes as well

Anonymous Jack Amok September 18, 2016 2:32 AM  

Because the atmosphere is already way beyond any conditions in the last multi-million years

That's just complete and utter bullshit. Look, asshole, we can look up ice core data, and nobody marks us down on our dissertation for failing to parrot the party line. The earth has been significantly warmer in the past than it is now. It's also been significantly cooler too. There is nothing unusual about how the interglacial period we are in is ending compared to any of the previous four we have ice core data for. The only thing remarkable about this time through the cycle is we have charlatans around trying to make money off of it and mush-brained midwits who've rejected Christianity and are looking for some other mechanism to seek absolution for their sins.



Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 18, 2016 2:36 AM  

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:turns out to be none other than Anthony Watts, infamous climate-change denier.  Busted.


Are you kidding me? That's a classic, chemically pure ad hominem. It could be used in logic classes to teach exactly what a stupid approach ad hominem is. It is both logically invalid, and perfect example of the dishonest argumentation used by climate panickers.

And the question still stands. The increase in water content of the middle atmosphere is a key part of the proposed CO2 warming model. It is this increased water in the tropics that is the supposed amplifier of CO2's very weak warming. Without the increased presence of water in these latitudes, and concomitant increase temperature, the model is irredeemably broken. There is literally no other mechanism in the model that can produce the increased temperatures predicted.
It's no wonder that the dishonest climate panicker blogs you read wouldn't mention it, it's a primary problem in their models.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 18, 2016 2:37 AM  

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:You mean, aside from the massive flood that hit one of our own in Louisiana barely weeks ago?
Literally irrelevant, climate, as we are reminded every time a climate conference is cancelled due to unusually cold weather, is not weather. A specific weather event means literally nothing about the amount of H2O in the atmosphere generally.
The question stands.

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:Because the atmosphere is already way beyond any conditions in the last multi-million years, and the temperatures, rainfall and other effects are going to undergo far greater changes too.
Extrapolation from models that are already falsified by virtue of the fact that the effects they predict DO NOT HAPPEN.
You really seem to have a hard time with the concept that the best test of a model, particularly a model used to make predictions, is its ability to actually make accurate predictions.

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:How much coastal real estate are you ready to cede to the ocean?  How much river delta farmland, ditto?  We've already lost enormous amounts of Gulf coast to stupidity like cutting canals and destroying mangroves which protected land; do you really want to make it worse?!

How much of Canada, Russia, inland China, the Baltics and Scandinavia should be turned into productive farmland from the wastelands they are now?

Since the rate of sea level rise over the last couple of hundred years has not changed, was not slowed by the "little Ice Age" etc, what makes you think anything we are doing can change it?

For better or for worse, the rise in sea level is already baked into the cake and cannot be altered, even if we immediately halt all fossil fuel use, it will continue to rise at the same rate it did in the era before 1850, when the temperatures were colder and fossil fuel use was negligible.

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:The earth's crust is not at a uniform height and continues to move, so reefs on seamounts pushing above the current sea level in the past are not inconsistent with global sea level rise today.
Coral atolls are dynamic living systems that are perfectly capable of keeping up with the standard rate of sea level rise. Contrary to the above poster, the mechanism that moves the coral sand up onto the surface of the atoll is well understood. And contrary to Global warming panickers, the biggest challenge coral atolls face is not sea level rise, but the overfishing of parrotfish, which are critical to the process of generating new coral sand of the right particle size to be carried up out of the water.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 18, 2016 2:47 AM  

fop wrote:They did what they set out to do. Explain how this is a sign of ignorance.

Because their intent was foolish in the larger context, properly understood. If the combination of their goal and the way that they satisfied it does not indicate ignorance, then it indicates evil. They chose to advantage the already wealthy by adding an additional debt burden to the already struggling, to no other long-term benefit to us, as if they're either stupid or hate us.

Blogger szopen September 18, 2016 3:05 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:
Extrapolation from models that are already falsified by virtue of the fact that the effects they predict DO NOT HAPPEN.

Actually...
The models predict based on input data, which includes solar activity, vulcan activity, CO2 emissions and so on. That input data of course is not known, but have to be estimated. So if those "input estimations" are wrong, well, then you get wrong prediction.

But if you get a model, and post-factum feed it with actual input data, then those models appear to be quite accurate.

The earth has been significantly warmer in the past than it is now. It's also been significantly cooler too.
Yes. And climate scientist are trying to get reasons for those periods of warmings and coolings. Sometimes they are explained by the same theory which is used right now.
If you think that modern global warming is not caused by increased CO2 emissions, you are faced with the following:

(1) we have a theory which predicts a warming, warming happens, yet you are claiming the theory is wrong
(2) the same theory is used to explain some of the warmings in the past, yet you are claiming the theory is wrong
(3) none of the reasons (except CO2 level changes) which are thought to explain previous climate changes can explain current warming.

Seems strange to me.

Anonymous Deplorable Jack Amok September 18, 2016 3:18 AM  

the mechanism that moves the coral sand up onto the surface of the atoll is well understood...

No, that's not correct. Most coral atolls have their reef flats 2 to 3 feet above the high tide line. Coincidentally, modern mean sea levels are 2 to 3 feel lower than the Holocene maximum. Coral atolls are exactly the distance above current sea level that corresponds with the previous high sea level during the most recent 10,000 years.

Even better, the point in time at which mean High Tide through most of the South Pacific dropped below the highest previous mean Low Tide in the area was 500 to 1000 AD, which is also the time frame of human habitation of these islands.

They formed below sea level as reefs, then sea levels dropped turning the reefs into islands.

What is fairly well understood is the cycle of coral reefs (e.g. underwater) "drowning" when the sea levels rise faster than the coral can grow towards the sunlight, then recovering again when the ocean levels sink. But when the ocean levels sink far enough to leave the coral out of the water, they are exposed to weathering and form different shapes. The flattest atolls are thought to have been formed before the current Ice Age and were subjected to much less sea level fluctuation, leading to larger bases. More recent atolls are more complicated in shape as they've been repeatedly "drowned" and exposed.


Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 18, 2016 3:21 AM  

1) there are many theories for what causes warming. For instance, the solar variability theory, or the theory that cosmic radiation influences cloud cover, and hence albedo of the Earth. Even if there weren't other theories, however, the lack of other theories would not in any way support the one presented.

2) Previous warming periods are prior to, not post, increases in atmospheric CO2.
Full stop.
The panickers always leave this bit out. They use vague words like "associated" when the physical evidence, for example, ice cores, show clearly that the warming happens, and then the CO2 goes up. There's even a known mechanism for this, the melting of permafrost containing methyl clathrates.

3) well, of course, when the entirety of what you read is people who support a particular theory, it explains everything, and nothing else can. Try expanding your reading. As I said, there are several competing theories, but only one is getting literally billions of dollars from governmental, international, non-profit and environmental organizations for its propagation. Since that one theory preaches that we must do all the things that the Marxists and Environmentalists want to do in order to avoid incipient disaster, there may be a wee conflict of interest.

You've been propagandized and you're happy to death about it. After all, you get to unjustifiably feel superior to all us skeptical knuckle-draggers.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 18, 2016 3:23 AM  

And I want us to be really clear with each other, fop. In the context of this fact that our leaders are demonstrably either economically ignorant or flat-out evil, would you like for me to concede your assertion that they know what they're doing? Because I can do that. I can concede that they're evil mofos just begging for ropes and lampposts.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 18, 2016 3:24 AM  

Deplorable Jack Amok wrote:Coral atolls are exactly the distance above current sea level that corresponds with the previous high sea level during the most recent 10,000 years.



Coral atolls are continuously replenished by wind and wave action bringing coral sand up from the reef. They are not fossils of previous sea levels.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 18, 2016 3:31 AM  

If you think that modern global warming is not caused by increased CO2 emissions, you are faced with the following:

So you're saying car crashes cause inattentive driving then? Because the two of very often found together...

CO2 levels rise in response to warming. You have cause and effect backwards. And the ice core data backs that up. Temperature goes up first, then CO2 rises. Not the other way around. So unless your model somehow has the non-sequestered CO2 sending tachyons back in time to raise the temperature, your model really doesn't work.

none of the reasons (except CO2 level changes) which are thought to explain previous climate changes can explain current warming

There's nothing different about current warming. It's the same as every other blowout of an interglacial the planet has had. Temperatures drop to about 10 F cooler than they are now, gradually sink another 5 F over the next 100k years or so, then over the course of 5 - 10k years they leap up to current temperatures, then fluctuate plus or minus 3 F for the next 10k years, then plummet again.

it looks like a freaking heartbeat trace, it's so regular. And CO2 concentrations lag behind temperature very reliably, like a well trained dog out for a walk.

Anonymous Deplorable Jack Amok September 18, 2016 3:40 AM  

Coral atolls are continuously replenished by wind and wave action bringing coral sand up from the reef. They are not fossils of previous sea levels.

I'm' not talking about the sand, I'm talking about the reef flats - the coral structures the sand rests on. Those are the things that are 2 to 3 feet above high tide and represent the previous height of the coral growth. Without the reef flats, the coral sand would be highly unlikely to accumulate, especially after the inner volcanic island subsided.

Blogger szopen September 18, 2016 3:44 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:What evidence is there that H2O levels in the atmosphere have increased?

Water vapour have huge variability, also it's much harder to estimate global concentration because it may vary wildly from place to place. So yeah, you are right that we have not much definitive evidence for water vapour concentration levels rising, but only because we have close to no idea what water vapour levels were in the past and now, mainly because that is extremely hard task.

"while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php


All climate models that are used to forecast warming show part of the process being an elevation of the temperature of the middle-atmosphere in the tropics. Where is there any evidence of warming on the scale required for the models to be correct?


"This hotspot in the tropical troposphere is not specific to the increased greenhouse effect resulting from industrial carbon dioxide emissions. It would, for example, also be expected in a hypothetical scenario where warming was due to increased solar output."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Warming-of-the-Tropical-Troposphere-Hotspot.html


Sea levels have been rising at a steady rate since the collapse of ice dams released the impounded meltwater at the end of the last ice age. The rate of sea level rise has not changed throughout the "unprecedented warming" of the modern age. Why again are we supposed to be worried?

That's false. Sea level rise have accelerated during modern era. Follow the links:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html
The climate has been warming since the "little ice age" from 1300-1880. As such it is merely the resumption of the previous pattern, the Mediaeval Warm Period, which itself was a return to the climatic conditions of the Roman period. Why exactly should we be afraid of a climate similar to the Viking Age?


Re MWP:
"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Blogger Shimshon September 18, 2016 4:51 AM  

I know someone who fits Taleb's description fairly well. Classic midwit. Fairly articulate and well-spoken. Supremely confident in his intelligence and elitism, despite having no formal education in anything even remotely related to science (went to art school). Hard core SJW. Atheist. Buys into every single item of the agenda. Worships peer review, but goes even further and openly declares that expertise in any field should be restricted to those who pass his ideological litmus test (no Bible believers need apply), regardless of discipline. Meaning even if a believer happens to get past the gatekeepers, their contribution is disqualified. Sorry Stickwick! Had never heard of the Genetic Fallacy, which practically defines his style of debate.

Recently, he thought he had me trapped by asking a question I assume he asks Christians in an attempt to disqualify and mock them (when the subject had nothing to do with spirituality at all). How old do you think the earth is (ie do you think the universe is literally a few thousand years old)? I imagine MPAI applies to the Christians he regularly encounters, and gets plenty of unsophisticated responses. My response, the Jewish view, had him concluding that I considered the Bible nice literature. Idiot.

Anonymous Moonbear September 18, 2016 6:18 AM  

To me it seems like schools are designed to create dumb workers.
It is not an educational institution that recognizes and values the brightest, they get bored and fall out of the system (probably by design) before they can become "dangerous" to these people who reject reality in order to substitute it with their own.

Anonymous Discard September 18, 2016 7:06 AM  

IIRC, the phenomenon of the wrongly excluded was only observed in certain fields. STEM was generally open to the 150+ IQ. If you can prove Fermat's last theorem or design a better laser, mathematicians and engineers will let you play.

Anonymous RedJack September 18, 2016 8:20 AM  

Discard wrote:IIRC, the phenomenon of the wrongly excluded was only observed in certain fields. STEM was generally open to the 150+ IQ. If you can prove Fermat's last theorem or design a better laser, mathematicians and engineers will let you play. Not anymore. If you are not of the correct protected class, getting into Engineering school will be hard. There is massive pressure to hire protected groups as engineers. Which is one of the reasons I am against massive infrastructure improvements. The "new" engineers couldn't build a bridge that I would feel comfortable on.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 18, 2016 9:15 AM  

Groot wrote:No, different languages teach people what is natural and "easiest." Spanish or Greek speakers place their tongues way back, so have few vowel differentiations and almost no diphthongs; Russian speakers almost always touch their teeth with consonants, so almost can't help the diphthongs. For a kick-ass perusal of linguistics, one of the best The Teaching Company series ever, see John McWhorter's Understanding Linguistics - The Science of Language.

Thanks! I'll check it out.

Groot wrote:I never impersonate normal, ever. I am very clear when I speak or write, because I know what I'm talking about and I have verbal skills, part of IQ. They always understand what I say, and I am always smarter than they are. Because these are inseparable.

Awesome! But probably not in the way you think. I now likely understand you better than you understand yourself, because I can see from your self-description that your own IQ is entirely verbal. You're literally unable to perceive the rest of excellent thinking as anything but sperging.

Oddly enough, I actually respect you more now that I understand your handicap -- because now I understand why think so highly of yourself, when before that didn't make sense to me. I now believe it's possible that you're very personable in person, and you might even be telling the truth about people naturally deferring to you.

Blogger Mountain Man September 18, 2016 11:34 AM  

Snidely
You wrote : " pulling green chain". Was that at a sawmill?

" never have any problem talking with ordinary people, except I don't follow football. Lots of very interesting discussions, and different perspectives. They know you're smart and accept it, it's not a threat to them.

It's the midwits who are the problem."

This is exactly what I have found over the years. The simple hard working blue collar guys are very easy to get along with. You just meet them where they are at and show respect and they will never be threatened by your intelligence. An added benefit is that I hunt which has given me a bridge of connection to their hobbies.
The mid wits - forget them . My profession and the branches of government that I have to deal with in my job - is full of them. The men are such gammas . In another era the right would have been given to me to physically kick their ass when they're suffocating me with their smugness. But as of now, that option isn't there without great risk of freedom and opportunity.


Blogger HardReturn¶ September 18, 2016 1:39 PM  

George Steinbrenner was a commencement speaker at my high school. His talk infuriated the faculty when he said something like "All you straight-A students take a look around you at the C students, because that's who your boss will be." He was right.

Blogger LurkingPuppy September 18, 2016 2:00 PM  

SciVo de Plorable wrote:OT: Generally speaking, if you aren't sure of how to pronounce a foreign language or specific accent, pick the way that uses the least time and energy of your jaw and tongue muscles. This is an intuition of mine that has held up reliably under practice, since any given group of people will trend toward what is easiest, due to not being able to talk as fast as they can think.

So it just occurred to me, what if they think slowly? Does this rule of thumb not apply to e.g. sub-Saharan African languages?

(a) We have the Neanderthal language gene; they don't. Homo sap sap has a different gene for language.

(b) Now that you've made me think about it, (some?) Hss languages use sounds closer to those which animals produce. (Specifically, I'm thinking of the ‘click languages’.) Perhaps Hss hunter-gatherer societies use animal-like sounds for language because that allows their language-processing circuitry to differentiate prey animals' sounds more effectively. Or perhaps Hss uses animal-like sounds for language because they already had the circuitry to differentiate those sounds, and their earlier revision of the hominid language system doesn't have the dedicated phoneme-recognition circuit that ours does.

(c) Evolution didn't stop at the brain. Their vocal-tract muscles may not be the same as ours either.

You might be interested in The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker for general knowledge about linguistics in book form, although I don't think any of the above was in that book.

Blogger LurkingPuppy September 18, 2016 2:36 PM  

pdwalker wrote:Is there any kind of solution to this problem?
It's like the n-Body Problem for large n—in general it's computationally difficult to even approximate a solution. But there are a few special cases where we have very good approximate solutions, e.g. if you want to let smart people become lawyers, GAS THE KIKES is a good approximation.

(Yes, NAJALT, IKAGO, ha ha only serious, and I sure hope we care enough to go for a more accurate solution when the time comes.)

Harold wrote:Left a part time retail job and got my final eval where I was told, once again, I needed to learn how to talk to other associates without talking down to them. Right after that one of the associates who was a little slow told me he was sorry to see me go. Said I was the only person he could ask questions to who didn't try to make him feel stupid when I answered them. Only the people who think they're smart get upset when you know something they don't.
Interesting! I've seen that effect too, but didn't diagnose it properly at the time.

Blogger Groot September 18, 2016 2:54 PM  

@162. SciVo de Plorable:
"your own IQ is entirely verbal. You're literally unable to perceive the rest of excellent thinking as anything but sperging."

No, while I do score highly in verbal ability, my tests always reflect a general aptitude across abstract reasoning. Although I do a lot of speaking, presenting, lead meetings, etc., I work in tech, and consider coding as my principal vocation as an entrepreneur. I read math books for fun (just finishing up Derbyshire's Riemann Hypothesis).

"why think so highly of yourself, when before that didn't make sense to me. I now believe it's possible that you're very personable in person, and you might even be telling the truth about people naturally deferring to you."

It's partly genetic: Compared to some in my extended family, I'm downright modest and unassuming. But they are pretty damn cool, and I see others deferring to them, too. And they're usually the boss, come to think of it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 18, 2016 3:16 PM  

Mountain Man wrote:You wrote : " pulling green chain". Was that at a sawmill?


You bet. New pair of gloves every day, new jeans every week. Don't bother washing 'em because you're gonna rip 'em to shreds by Friday anyway.

BTW, Send me an email,I have a link for you per your previous request.

Blogger GeuxBacon September 18, 2016 6:05 PM  

Does that mean that with an IQ of about 133 I would have been among the smartest doctor/scientist/judge around? Damn! Missed that boat....

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 18, 2016 10:10 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:That's just complete and utter bullshit.
No, WUWT is complete and utter bullshit.  Treating it like gospel is how your mind got so badly warped.  The same people promoted WUWT to you as sold you free trade and open borders.  You are now enlightened as to how you've been cucked by the latter.  You could make a profitable study of how the former, from the same tree, is also a poisonous fruit.

Look, asshole, we can look up ice core data
You could, but you never didHighest atmospheric CO2 levels in the ice-core data barely touch 300 ppm.  We are now at 402.24 ppm and going up more than 2 ppm every year, rising hundreds of times faster than natural variations occur.  This is terra incognita.

The real irony is that we (you) could call the bluff of the Greens and embark the USA on a program of carbon-free energy.  Sweden, France and Ontario are way ahead of us and doing rather well at it.  You'd have the pleasure of watching Greens scream and tear their hair out as US workers went on a program of building nuclear plants, and when it was done we'd have a nation-full of hard capital assets good for 80-year lifespans and costing just pennies per kWh to run.  This would be GREAT for everything the right is supposed to care about, yet there is no enthusiasm for it.  You'd rather burn coal at about 10 deaths per TWh of generation, so West Virginia can turn its mountains into toxic heaps of rubble as automation eliminates the jobs anyway.

The earth has been significantly warmer in the past than it is now. It's also been significantly cooler too. There is nothing unusual about how the interglacial period we are in is ending compared to any of the previous four we have ice core data for.
There is everything unusual about temperatures rising rapidly near the end of an interglacial.  Meanwhile, the climactic zone in which all the temperate flora adapted to my area lives is moving rapidly northward, and the Aedes mosquito which carries the Zika virus is expanding its range toward me at frightening speed.  I just had another mature tree (roughly 80 feet tall, a black walnut I think) up and die this year, and wild grape is trying to strangle everything it can climb.

If you care about America's children, you should care about this.  A polluted gene pool is not the only thing that can destroy their future.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 18, 2016 11:23 PM  

Widely Headgash wrote:That's a classic, chemically pure ad hominem. It could be used in logic classes to teach exactly what a stupid approach ad hominem is. It is both logically invalid, and perfect example of the dishonest argumentation used by climate panickers.
You are so enamored of Watts that you completely ignored where I told you, WITH REFERENCE, that your starting premise is plain wrong.  The rest was forensic work tracking down the original lie.  Anything from Watts must be considered a lie until proven otherwise.  It's what he's paid to do.

And the question still stands. The increase in water content of the middle atmosphere is a key part of the proposed CO2 warming model. It is this increased water in the tropics that is the supposed amplifier of CO2's very weak warming.
How many times do I have to tell you that THAT IS FLAT WRONG, A CONSTRUCTION OF PROPAGANDISTS PAID TO TRY TO DISCREDIT CLIMATE SCIENCE TO PROTECT THEIR MASTERS' REVENUES AND ASSETS?  (The world market in petroleum alone, at 80+ million bbl/d and WTI at $43.85 spot price, is over $3.5 billion/day, well over $1 TRILLION/yr.  The people who fed you the meme of climate scientists pushing lies to get rich are laughing themselves silly at your gullibility.  Like SJWs, they accuse others of exactly what they're doing.)

Whenever someone cites Watts I always go back to RealClimate to see what the climate scientists are saying, not what lying Watts says they're saying.  The piece where I found the likely source phrases refers to "GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research".  The only RealClimate post I can find which includes this string is about a strange hole in Siberia.  In short, arctic, not tropical.

You haven't even cited Watts.  You've hand-waved about "middle atmosphere", not being clear whether you're talking about altitudes or latitudes.  It's obvious that you don't even understand what you're talking about (as usual).  Now cite an actual source or shut up.

Without the increased presence of water in these latitudes, and concomitant increase temperature, the model is irredeemably broken.
We just saw record levels of atmospheric water dump on Louisiana.  We've seen multiple super-typhoons around the Phillipines, where heaps of hot ocean surface water piled up by accelerated trade winds feeds the cyclonic heat engines.  The tropical water is certainly there.

But you keep repeating the lie you've been fed.  The biggest signal is seen where water is NOT much of a factor (the poles), and the arctic is warming rapidly.  The shrinking season for ice roads in the north is an absolutely incontrovertible truth and is perhaps THE most direct prediction of climate-change models.  Now either put up references to real scientists (not propagandists) or admit that you're wrong and drop the matter.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 19, 2016 12:12 AM  

Widely Headgash wrote:2) Previous warming periods are prior to, not post, increases in atmospheric CO2.

Full stop.

The panickers always leave this bit out. They use vague words like "associated" when the physical evidence, for example, ice cores, show clearly that the warming happens, and then the CO2 goes up.

No, you idiot.  Orbital changes nudge the feedback loop in one direction or another, and then it goes on by itself.  Absent other changes (like massive vulcanism, or human mining of fossil carbon to the tune of billions of tons per year) these things progress only by feedbacks.

Today we have humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere fast enough to change depth-of-ice-age levels to peak-of-interglacial in less than half a century.  You would have to be an absolute fool not to recognize the threat that this poses.  Oops... forgot who I was talking to.
There's even a known mechanism for this, the melting of permafrost containing methyl clathrates.
You prove just how superficial your understanding is by mis-spelling "methane clathrates", and the "clathrate gun" is one of the most worrisome weapons in nature's arsenal.  Methane is well over 100x as potent as CO2.  It oxidizes to CO2 in a decade or so, but the rate is limited by the level of hydroxyl in the atmosphere.  If there was enough methane to overwhelm the production of hydroxyl, it could last much longer and accumulate to much higher levels than the current balance between production and destruction would indicate.  2°C of warming could become 15°C.

The difference in January temperatures between Toronto and Miami is only 25°C.  A 15°C temperature increase would give the Canadian border the climate of roughly Georgia.  None of the tree species that currently live in Canada would survive that; everything would die.

@157 szopen tells you the truth.  Can you endure to hear it?

RedJack wrote:The "new" engineers couldn't build a bridge that I would feel comfortable on.
There is still the barrier of Professional Engineer certification between the incompetents and putting their mistakes into service.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 19, 2016 12:23 AM  

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:The real irony is that we (you) could call the bluff of the Greens and embark the USA on a program of carbon-free energy.  Sweden, France and Ontario are way ahead of us and doing rather well at it.  You'd have the pleasure of watching Greens scream and tear their hair out as US workers went on a program of building nuclear plants, and when it was done we'd have a nation-full of hard capital assets good for 80-year lifespans and costing just pennies per kWh to run.  This would be GREAT for everything the right is supposed to care about, yet there is no enthusiasm for it.  You'd rather burn coal at about 10 deaths per TWh of generation, so West Virginia can turn its mountains into toxic heaps of rubble as automation eliminates the jobs anyway.

I 100% support building new nuclear plants, as long as we eliminate "affirmative action" first. Otherwise, I 100% oppose it. But I hear good things about pebble beds!

LurkingPuppy wrote:You might be interested in The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker for general knowledge about linguistics in book form, although I don't think any of the above was in that book.

Thanks! This is both something that I'm inherently interested in, and something that may have some remote applicability to my current work.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 19, 2016 1:26 AM  

@173  I hate to burst your bubble, but pebble-bed reactors using TRISO (tri-structured isotropic) fuel have major issues with (a) the size of the core [which drives costs], (b) the cost of the fuel [it is much more expensive than oxide or metal fuel], and (c) closing the fuel cycle [metal fuel is easily processed electrolytically, oxide fuel dissolves in acid, carbides are damn near indestructible].

The EBR-II had "dangerous" sodium coolant and metal fuel, but demonstrated walk-away passive safety in tests the month before Chernobyl went kablooie.  I think that unlearned lesson is one of the saddest facts in existence... because 99% of the population doesn't know it, and 90% of them can't quite grasp what it implies.

Anonymous Deplorable Because He's Right Jack Amok September 19, 2016 1:29 AM  

There is everything unusual about temperatures rising rapidly near the end of an interglacial.

At the end of an interglacial, temperatures fluctuate wildly. Then they crash.

If you care about America's children, you should care about this

Okay, you fucking retarded moron. Let's assume everything you say about CO2 and carbon sequestration is real and AGW is real and the earth is getting warmer. What should we do?

Throw a fucking party, that's what.

Yeah, it'll suck for folks on Kwajalein, but a warmer Earth would be a huge benefit to most of mankind. More fertile farmland, more rainfall, more humidity. Jesus, Redwood trees would recolonize most of the Northern Hemisphere. If you're going to care about the environment, you should look at that, possibility as something akin to Nirvana.

You know what we should really fear if we care about America's children? The end of the interglacial. That will really suck. You dumbfucks has it right back in the 70's when you panic-mongered about another Ice Age. Those are really hard on the human population. It would be particularly unpleasant for me, since I live in a valley that was under several hundred feet of ice 11,000 years ago.

Oh, but you have that covered too, don't you? You have a theory in your pocket that says Global Warming might cause another Ice Age, just like you have a theory that dismisses every failure you're come across. That's why you don't call it "Global Warming" any more but have switched to "Climate Change" instead.

You're wrong on the facts and you're even wrong on the fear-mongering. The catastrophe you claim will happen unfortunately won't happen, because we'd be a hell of a lot better off if it did.

Anonymous Deplorable Jack Amok September 19, 2016 1:37 AM  

SciVo, I second the recommendation of John McWhorter's audiobook if you're interested in linguistics. If you're a member of Audible, you can get it with your free monthly credit.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 19, 2016 2:56 AM  

Deplorable Because He's Right Jack Amok wrote:Okay, you fucking retarded moron.
Truth By Insult?  FFS, grow the fuck up.

Let's assume everything you say about CO2 and carbon sequestration is real and AGW is real and the earth is getting warmer. What should we do?

Throw a fucking party, that's what.

Yeah, it'll suck for folks on Kwajalein, but a warmer Earth would be a huge benefit to most of mankind. More fertile farmland, more rainfall, more humidity.

What do you mean, "more farmland"?  The Mercrator projection of the Earth is grossly misleading.  Canada looks huge on typical maps, but it's only about 10 million km².  The USA is barely smaller at 9.8 million km²; Africa is a whopping 30.3 million km².

There's also the little detail that recently-thawed zones have thin and poor topsoils.  This is not what you want if you are trying to feed billions.
You know what we should really fear if we care about America's children? The end of the interglacial. That will really suck.
You sound like the guy who knows that an aspirin a day is good, so a hundred a day must be better.  Then he bleeds to death from stomach lesions.

We could hold off glaciation indefinitely by controlling insolation with orbital mirrors.  That is the kind of engineering control that would let us reverse mistakes instantly and with ease.  Adding ground-level IR feedbacks with thousand-year (or 50-thousand-year) lifetimes is insane; screw up and you (and a whole lot else) are dead.
You dumbfucks has it right back in the 70's when you panic-mongered about another Ice Age. Those are really hard on the human population. It would be particularly unpleasant for me, since I live in a valley that was under several hundred feet of ice 11,000 years ago.
The part of humanity that is WEIRDO (Westernized, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic & Outbred) could not have arisen absent the glaciers and the harsh conditions at their margins.  Today's short-time preferenced Africans and others would be selected out of existence if the glaciers pushed toward the equator, while we would triumph.

I guess I'm a cold son of a bitch for a reason.  Cold created me, cold is my destiny.  Deal.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 19, 2016 4:08 AM  

Mr. Deplorabional wrote:I think that unlearned lesson is one of the saddest facts in existence... because 99% of the population doesn't know it, and 90% of them can't quite grasp what it implies.

If I have to understand a single word of that, then something has gone very wrong in the world. You should only have to focus on your strengths. Distribution of labor.

Blogger szopen September 19, 2016 6:12 AM  

Deplorable Because He's Right Jack Amok wrote: That's why you don't call it "Global Warming" any more but have switched to "Climate Change" instead.

You are wrong. You are repeating the propaganda. Theories which are base for AGW can be, are and were used to explain changes in climate. After all, they are used to explain why Ice Age temperature changes were larger than expected from changes of orbit and solar activity alone. The fact that journalists are uneducated fools, and that websites and newspapers use heavily simplified stories does not mean scientists are fools too.

I am of impression that if right-wingers would be first to notice potential for AGW and would start to advocate to switching to nuclear power, and against mass immigration into first world (ebcause carbon footprint of inhabitants of colder and better developed areas is far larger than in the third world), then left would scream that AGW is a nuclear-power lobby conspiracy theory, which is used by racists to stop immigration, while you would boast how only idiot cannot believe in AGW.

Anonymous Mr. Deplorabional September 19, 2016 10:31 AM  

@179  If you advocate for closing borders to keep the carbon emissions of the third-world masses down while we address the problems of our energy systems and roll out the changes, you'll be called a racist.

These people do not think logically.  I suspect they CANNOT think logically.

Blogger Lee Katt September 19, 2016 11:18 PM  

@139You are conflating intelligence with sperging. Social skills can be learned, and the better your learning ability, the easier it is to learn... anything. I can talk with anyone, anywhere, anytime, and have them eating out of the palm of my hand within seconds. This goes down to the dumbest and down to animals. I can turn two dogs into puddles, one with each hand, while holding a conversation at a party (it always elicits comments). (I learned by reading books: see Catwatching: & Cat Lore (1986) and Dogwatching (1986) by Desmond Morris.) And I've read many books about humans, and never stop. Putting it into action is just fun.

A combination of humor, warmth, inducing fear, and knowing exactly what's going on their little brains works wonders. Think of your favorite comedian for humor, Stefan Molyneaux for warmth, Groot for fear, and decades of your own brain people-watching and -interacting.


Perhaps you come across better in person. But I suspect not. But it's nice to hear that dogs like you.

Blogger Bernard Brandt September 20, 2016 4:29 PM  

Having a 4+ sigma intellect, and having experienced exclusion through boredom at school, I appreciate both Taleb's essay on the IYI, and Vox's insights concerning that essay. I'm now reading through Mencius Moldbug's little blog, and while I value most of Moldbug's insights, I think he's a bit off the mark when he characterizes the intellectuals in charge of this country as 'Brahmans'. I think 'Mandarins' would be a bit more accurate. They all go to the same schools, read the same books, have the same classical references (formerly Marx and Freud, now Derrida and 'Foreign Affairs'), and think the same thoughts. God help us.

Blogger Groot September 20, 2016 10:57 PM  

@181. Lee Katt:

And cats, but not Katts, I guess. Internet gamma courage is so cute. But stop licking your privates. It's disgusting.

Blogger Lee Katt September 23, 2016 9:42 PM  

@183. That's nasty, Groot.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts