PUA/Game: Casting Spells on Women

Rep: But then I had a relationship at age 29-32. It destroyed me on an emotional level, and she left me. Now I’m 33. It’s been a year and a half since she left.

And it appears I have like a bad spell on me. Even my photos online don’t seem to work. The different is HUGE. I even tried using my old photos which worked back then and got the same result. It’s as if I have an aura that they don’t want, and it even telepathically gets to them or something behind their mobile screen!

Has this ever happened to you? Any tips to flush that bad spell away? It makes me crazy, like I feel like telling them: “No! No! This is mistaken identity! In actuality, I *am* a stud!” And I was. I didn’t gain weight or anything.

Sometimes I feel like I have that bad spell on me too, and they can read some sort of bad vibes even through the damned cellphone without ever seeing me or hearing my voice one time. I don’t know what to do about it, honestly.

On the other side of the wall, I’ve also been able to actually cast love spells on them somehow. No idea how I do it, but over and over again, women say it seems like a cast a spell on them.

What are you, a warlock?…What have you done to me?…I feel like I am under your spell.

They often say that they are horny all the time, from morning until night, and that they want to masturbate all the time. And they often say they have never felt this way before.

I laughed at one, an 18 year old girl. She was getting frustrated: “Take it off. Take off the spell.” She told me she was horny and wet from the time she got up in the morning til the time she went to bed at night, and she had never felt that way before.

I laughed and told her that that’s how it’s supposed to work. Then I laughed again and refused to take the spell off. She pouted. I laughed at her again, this time right in her face. She looked at me like she was going to slap me, but then her expression changed. It was as if she was thinking, “This guy’s so arrogant I want to slap his face. But then I think again, and I realize, ‘But I like that.'”

I haven’t the faintest idea if I am really casting spells on them. I do it in my mind like a magician. I concentrate all my mental energy into an intense spell, which feels like a pure wave of silver-bright energy. I have no idea if it is real or not.

For all I know this may be working off of  some known psychological mechanism. Or maybe magic itself works off of some psychological mechanism, known or unknown.

After all, the universe is ruled by the laws of physics. Everything that happens in the world, even magic, spells, ghosts, poltergeists, levitation, any of that stuff, whether it’s true or happens or not, I will tell you one thing for sure, if there is anything to any of those insane  “pseudoscience” phenomena, I assure you that they are working via the known laws of physics.

The universe operates on a couple of basic principles:

  • Inside the laws of physics, every actually existing thing in the universe.
  • Outside the laws of physics, nothing at all, anywhere, at any time, ever.

How Did the Polynesians Get So Huge?

Polar Bear: Polynesians fascinate me because they have Asian (SEA or Taiwan) roots and big builds. The Austronesian women they descend from must’ve been large and in charge.

Good theory but that’s not what happened. They went on long sea voyages to populate the Polynesian islands, but first, they came from Taiwan all the way to Papua New Guinea, which was also a very long voyage.

These were the Lapita people from Taiwan and later from coastal New Guinea and then on to Polynesia. The Lapitas were the greatest mariners who ever lived! And they were around a very long time ago. They are thought to have navigated by the stars.

I did a lot of work on another group of ancient Indo-European people speaking a now extinct language (Liburnian) on the Croatian islands. They were also thought to be amazing navigators. Some people think they even went to India! They also navigated by the stars. It’s pretty amazing that primitive people could figure something like that out so accurately.

Obviously the big problem at sea is fresh water. There are probably always plenty of fish to catch and eat and you can live off of those.

Scurvy was possibly not yet a problem for whatever reason and only turned up among British mariners later on. It’s amazing how they figured that one out too.

Sailors kept getting scurvy. It was Vitamin C deficiency because they were living off hard tack (a form of hard bread) and water, pretty much. Well, scurvy can make you pretty ill. I suppose some sailor at some point must have had some citrus with him on a ship, and when everyone else got scurvy, he avoided it.

And humans are intelligent enough to put two and two together when something like that happens. “Let’s see. What’s this guy doing that no one else is doing? How’s he not getting it? He’s eating citrus!”

Or they went back into port and those who ate citrus right away got better fastest. Who knows! All we know is back then people didn’t even understand about vitamins and minerals, much less deficiencies and yet somehow they figured out that you needed to bring citrus with you on ship voyages to keep from getting scurvy.

Incidentally this is where the word Limey for British person comes from. British were also the greatest mariners of their own time and at one time, the Union Jack ruled over all the High Seas. Spain was the previous power but the turning point came with the Defeat of the Spanish Armada by the British in the early 1500’s. British sailors had limes aboard their ship to eat to keep from getting scurvy, hence, the slang term.

Anyway somehow or other the Polynesians managed to have enough water with them for these long voyages.

How on Earth did they know that they would find islands out there somewhere? Many of those islands are a long way from anything else.  They could have kept sailing on and on and never found any island anywhere, at which point, they would all die.

Anyway they somehow had enough water and food to survive. But the theory is that things were very difficult on these long voyages, and only those who could best withstand famine and other harsh conditions survived. So by the end of the voyage, only the biggest and strongest were still alive – all the others were dead.

Well, it’s obviously a just-so story like so many evolutionary explanations, but at least it’s a theory. And I ask the detractors of this theory: Fine, do you have a better theory? Of course they never do.

 

Modern Science Has It All Backwards

This is what science is boiling down to nowadays – a School of Negativity where we spend most of our time shooting down theories and saying there’s not enough evidence for them, while offering no substitute theories or offering substitute theories that are pathetically bad.

I do not believe that scientific theory is like a court of law. Theories do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and they’re pretty much all up for grabs anyway and “only true for now” or “true until we can come up with a better explanation.” Instead, I believe that when you have competing theories, you simply choose the theory that best explains the evidence. It doesn’t have to be perfect.

It can have holes itself and believe me, most “proven” theories have all sorts of holes. Filling in the holes comes after you prove the theory.

We have gotten away from that in science and instead of being in the business of explicating what the truths and mechanisms behind the world are, what we are doing is explaining what the truths and mechanisms of the world are not, without offering any alternate explanation or offering an  alternate theory that is pathetically bad and much worse and less explanatory than the theory that is being shot down for “lack of evidence.”

 

How to Set Something on Fire with a Magnifying Glass

SHI: Snails, ants and bugs? I say holocaust them.

Well, all boys kill insects. Or most of them do. Did you ever kill insects with a magnifying glass? It’s a blast.

You take a slow-moving bug and put it on the sidewalk on a hot sunny day. Then you point the magnifying glass at the bug and turn the glass a certain way so that its reflection becomes a single sharp point of light. I forget what is going on. You may have to converge two points of light together.

Anyway you get this single convergence of light, and it looks very bright and hot. You point this nexus of hot light at the bug, and shortly, the bug actually catches on fire! Yep, you are concentrating the sun’s rays so well that you can actually set things on fire. I assume you could set other things on fire this way such as dried grass or maybe even flammable wood. I think for sure you can burn paper this way because I think we used to set paper on fire like this.

What’s going on. Apparently the glass concentrates or channels the heat of the sun enough somehow that it the heat of the sun can actually start a fire. You can also use any piece of glass or even your eyeglasses! You have to keep moving that magnifying glass until you get that point of hot light down to a small dot about 1/4 inch in diameter. Only then will the sun’s heat be concentrated enough to start the fire.

The science itself. Involves things called photons which  carry the light (and heat) of the sun down to Earth. The magnifying glass is convex so it gathers the photons in a single place all together and the combined heat of the photons concentrated on that spot start a fire.

The temperature has to get up to 451 degrees (remember the Ray Bradbury book?) in order to start the fire. That’s hot enough to burn your skin so never put your finger in that spot of light and never point the magnifying glass at your skin and do this.

Alt Left: The Dangers of Medical Transition for Transsexuals, Especially During Childhood

I hope to do quite a few papers on this subject. In general there is no such thing as transsexualism and there is no such thing as transsexuals. Nobody is born in the wrong body.

~10% of transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen, do have a female-shifted brain, but it is not an actual female brain. Their brain is simply in between a male and female brain, so it is female-shifted if you will. But there is no one who is stuck in the  wrong body. No one has a female brain in a male body or vice versa.

And a recent flood of new cases, mostly in teenage girls, is simply a mental illness being caused by social contagion. In this sense it is quite similar to Anorexia Nervosa and in fact, these girls resemble anorexics in  many ways. All of this is completely fake. None is real at all.

I have to have some sympathy for some transsexuals, mostly gay transwomen. These boys have stubbornly insisted that they were girls from an early age such as two or three. Such cases are intransigent and resistant to treatment. I am just fine with transition for these folks.

The rest are just mostly very effeminate gay men who are so effeminate that they think  they are women, sort of an extreme form of homosexuality.

Many transmen are simply very butch lesbians. Whereas in the past they would simply have identified as lesbians and lived their lives this way (something I am just fine with in these cases as I feel it is biological), now they are insisting that they are really men and transitioning. As might be expected a lot of lesbians are pretty mad about this. They hate men enough anyway, and now many of the recent crop of lesbians are insisting that they are the hated gender. Oh noes!

Puberty blockers are catastrophic and they are being given out en masse to very young children nowadays. The results are disastrous and I think this should be done seldom if ever.

Risks of puberty blockers: Sterility and permanent loss of sexual function. Very high levels of sterility. Impairment of bone mineralization, hence weak bones that easily break. Impairment of proper hip development (females only). Results in a male hip instead of a proper hourglass shaped female hip.

Risks cross-sex hormones for MtF only: 5X rate of throboembolic disease. The estrogen causes blood clots in these men’s veins, how I have no idea. Gynecomastia, rarely reversible. These men develop female-type breasts or moobs that never  go away.

Risks of cross-sex hormones for FtM only: Hirsutism, very difficult to reverse. They will have hairy bodies for the rest of their lives even is they detransition. For instance, even if these women go back to being women, they will still have to shave their faces for the rest of their lives. Deeper voice – this is permanent.

Risks of cross-sex hormones only: Elevated heart attack rate, possibly in both sexes.

Transition unnecessary in childhood – no need for immediate transition to prevent suicide: No evidence that transition with drugs and surgery before adulthood reduces the trans suicide rate.

Fake disorder – transsexualism is not real – they are all just mentally ill: Rates of mental disorder and autism among FtM transsexuals are very high, mostly Borderline Personality Disorder and autism.

Unnecessary – goes away on its own: 80% of childhood onset gender dysphoria resolves, often with puberty.

Narcissism and Psychopathy Are on Continua Too

Very good book.

I just finished reading this book.  It it titled The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain

Author is a well known neuroscientist who discovered while looking at his brain scan that he is a psychopath himself! His scan looks exactly like that of a criminal psychopath. He is what is called a prosocial psychopath. These types or even a lot of the antisocial noncriminal psychopaths types are everywhere in politics, business, law enforcement, the military, law, and medicine. Psychopaths are attracted to all of those fields and all of these areas of work are swarming with those jerks. Most antisocial noncriminal psychopaths never spend one day of their lives in a jail or prison. They are what I like to call legal criminals, always skating  just on the edge of the law. Our government (see Mr. Trump) and many corporations are full of these “legal criminals.” I don’t think too much of them honestly.

I’ve met a few apparent antisocial criminal psychopaths in my life. The last one was a 23 year old woman! You really need to stay away from them.

Every psychopath who entered my life ended up harming me. For the most part, they all stole from me. You won’t be able to befriend these people without getting used and harmed because that is exactly what they do to most if not all other humans. Nobody emerges unscathed from befriending a psychopath. You’re not going to get away with it!

Psychopathy is also a continuum, just like…everything! The PCL scale ranges from 0-40. 0’s and 40’s are not common. For instance, I assure you that I am absolutely not a 0! But I am not a psychopath either, although my score is  for sure somewhat elevated above that of  goody-goods, cop-lovers, authoritarians, and choir boys.

On the other hand, I don’t really victimize innocent people, unless you count women, but that’s debatable as all’s fair in love and war! Sexual relationships are generally outside of morality. They can be immoral but they have to be pretty bad to get to that point. Players, pump and dumpers, easy women, etc. are generally not behaving immorally.

30+ is a psychopath and 20+ has serious psychopathic traits. Even in 0-20, if you score a 6 on the scale, and someone else scores a 12, they will appear more psychopathic to you. If we look at the scale that way and pick out everyone who clearly has elevated psychopathy, we are talking about 10-20% of the population or maybe more. Maybe a lot more.

Most everything else in the world that is a subjective quality  is a continuum too. Philosophically, qualities and objects are different things. Objects are objective and generally are not on a continuum. An object either exists or it doesn’t, 100 or zero. There’s no such thing as part of an object or an object that is only there a little bit but not completely there.

For instance, all humans are narcissistic and you can score that on a scale too. Narcissism and self-esteem mean the same thing! So low narcissism means low self-esteem. And high narcissism means high self-esteem, which is considered to be normal and is actually thought of as good mental health, although some folks might find people with big egos like this a bit much.

Here we are into people who are vain, conceited, self-centered, etc. but nevertheless normal. None of those three things are indicative of narcissism.

Sure narcissists have all of those in spades, but narcissism goes far beyond that. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is pathological narcissism (Trump), and if you have been around anyone like that, trust me, they are real bastards and get on your nerves real fast if you are reasonably sane.

They are very annoying people and actually they are rather mean, ugly, and hostile in many ways. NPD’s are not very nice people!They are also profoundly selfish. They really don’t care about you! It’s all about them. What’s all about them? Everything. Face it, you’re either a taker or a giver in life. Narcissists are takers, not givers. They don’t necessarily take from everyone, but they definitely don’t give to much of anyone either. All of their stuff, material and otherwise, is for them.

Alt Left: Apparently Facts Are Racist Now

I’ve been studying this issue deeply since ~1989. That’s 30 years or half my life. A  journal article by Richard Lynn set me off on this quest.  While it’s obvious that there are racial differences on average between the races, I’m not 100% clear about what causes them, but I doubt if it is racism.

My attitude is that Blacks are deliberately, of their own free will, creating really lousy cultures, and they can knock it off any time they want. In other words, Blacks need their shit  together. While that seems harsh, the alternate opinion, once you throw out racism, is that Black genes are inferior regarding intelligence, and this is where the test score differences come from. I think my view is a lot more Black-friendly, but that’s just me.

I am the odd liberal who even dares to talk about things like this. What is pathetic and rather terrifying is that I get pummeled mercilessly and called racist and ultra-racist for saying things like:

Presently Blacks score 13  points lower than Whites in IQ tests. I believe that IQ tests measure intelligence well and they are not biased in favor of Whites. I am not sure what is causing these differences. Obviously differential intelligence is going to explain a lot of the discrepancies between the races where Blacks seem to come out behind.

That is a perfectly noncontroversial opinion! The entire field of intelligence studies agrees that there’s a score gap.

And now nearly the entire field says that IQ tests measure intelligence well (they fought that one forever, but they caved on that one a while back). The left of this field caved on the question of whether the tests are biased in favor of Whites or not even before this latest cave.

The only argument now is over what is causing the differences, and it is raging right along. The fact is that both sides can collect at least a fair amount of evidence for their side. And at the moment, scholars of intelligence regard the question of what is causing these differences as unresolved.

The left of this field mischaracterizes this debate by saying that there is no evidence at all for the genetic side so it is a pathetic and racist argument. This is not true.

The awful nonscientific folks on the Left in the popular media are much worse, regarding  the Genetic Theory as racist pseudoscience. It most certainly is not pseudoscience and it’s not racist at all. It is simply a hypothesis, just as the Environmental Theory is also a hypothesis.

As I said, both sides have a fair amount of evidence for their case sufficient to make for  adequate scientific questions on their part. And instead of being a  pseudoscience, the Genetic Theory has accumulated a rather frightening amount of evidence for their side. However, the evidence is not yet probative, and the question is regarded as inconclusive and presently under debate.

And I’d rather sit this one out as far as conclusions go for a variety of reasons that I will not go into. But I will say that I do not regard the 15 point gap as set in stone and I believe the environment can close at least some of the gap.

So my statement is:

There is presently a 13 point discrepancy between Black and  White IQ scores (fact).

The tests are not biased against in favor of Whites (fact).

I am agnostic on whether the differences are due to environment or genetics. This is actually the official position of the intelligence studies field at the moment, so it’s hardly a racist position!

I believe that a number of the discrepancies between Blacks and Whites are due to this test score differential. This simply stands to reason. A 13 point lower intelligence score is obviously going to play out in all sorts of behavioral variables on the ground, right? I mean that’s just obvious.

So my statement above, for which I get absolutely pummeled for, is made up of two solid facts, the standard consensus of the field, and a statement that is simply obviously true.

See how crazy this is? If you state obvious, proven, scientific facts, you get destroyed for being a racist!

Alt Left: The Real Reason the Racist Right Won’t Shut Up about the B-W IQ Gap

I’ve been around this rightwing racists and their favorite science for a very long time now, and I know them extremely well. I have spent years on their forums and websites like American Renaissance, and in fact, I still comment there sometimes. I was for a time on an acquaintance basis with some of the top names in the field.

These were the “nice” suit and tie, classy racist types, and we emailed back and forth for a while. One thing I will tell about these people is that they are very classy. In all of our emailing, I did not hear nigger, spic, gook, or any other nasty racist slurs. The “nice racists” don’t talk like that. You see, they are too classy for that. But whether that makes them better people is debatable.

I won’t tell you any names because these people have become prominent now with Trump in office, and they are being called White Supremacists in the media and bashed to Kingdom Come.

Well, at the moment I would rather disassociate myself with White Supremacists for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is PR and covering my ass. Plus I don’t really believe in or resonate with that sort of yucky hardcore racism. It turns me off and it feels disgusting to even read it. It’s gross.

I read The Bell Curve and all the arguments against it. I know more about this question than probably anyone you will ever meet. I am acquainted with some of the top names in the intelligence field, and we communicate from time to time by email.

So trust me when I say that the text below describes 100% of the reasons why racist people, mostly Whites, love to jump all over the B-W IQ gap question, while the rest of us feel a bit queasy and nervous when we bring it up, as if we are being impolite (which we probably are).

These people have banners up on their websites about quests for the truth, how truth is the most important thing in science, and how all scientific truths must be examined. Well, they don’t really believe that. They are not involved in some dispassionate, non-biased, non-prejudicial search for the truth. There’s a very nasty political goal behind all of this perfectly valid yet uncomfortable science.

They really don’t give a damn about science at all. They just say they do because their race, the Whites, looks good when scientifically compared to a number of other races. So they get all sciency because the science gives them a shot of pride and boosts their chauvinism. If Whites had come out behind, these people, if they existed, would be bashing away at the science and talking about how biased it is.

The science here seems to uphold their nasty racism. Which why they suddenly love science so much!

But there’s more here than just vanity and prejudice. There is a very ugly politics lurking in back of this science. You see, these racists think that they can use this science, once it is proven mind you, to implement a variety of political projects that they are desperate to introduce. And it just so happens that all of those projects are hard rightwing conservative ideas.

Which is why, if you noticed, almost 100% of White nationalists and even garden-variety White racists are hard conservatives or Libertarians. Some of them go a lot further and say that when the B-W IQ gap question is decided in favor of genetics this will be the death of the Left.

So this is their ultimate weapon to destroy liberalism and the Left once and for all. Now personally, I don’t think even if this uncomfortable idea becomes a truth, it will destroy the Left. It will make our job harder, that’s for sure.

But one of the reasons that I founded the Alternative Left was to come up with a Left response to the uncomfortable scientific truths about race. In other words, what should be the agenda of the Left when it is determined that race is real and important (race realism)? What do we say? What do we do?

Below is a very nice summary from the Right that I found on the Internet about why the racist Right loves the B-W IQ gap thing so much. This is why they can’t stop talking about this rather rude question:

IQ differences between the races matters because it provides an alternative explanation for racial differences in education, income, social deviance, etc. that the Left would rather attribute to racism.

If IQ is primarily based on genetic factors, it also means that most Leftist policies such as affirmative action or racial quotas designed to “fight racism” are not going to be effective because they cannot close the IQ gap that is a primary cause of racial gaps in achievement.

Similarly, if low IQ is related to poverty, then Leftist welfare policies designed to “end poverty” will also be ineffective in the sense that they cannot boost the IQ that is the cause of the poverty. Thus IQ threatens the Left’s very mindset (i.e. racism explains everything) and the “problem solving” toolbox in trying to achieve their desired equality of results.

I will discuss this ugly politics which is what is really behind the racist Right pushing this controversy so hard in a post in the new future.  You hear them yelling, “Hey, we’re just unbiased scientists! Don’t be so mean!”? Well, just forget about that.

But trust me folks, this is what it’s all about. This is how the racist Right intends to use the science of race realism. Which leaves a very cynical and bitter taste in my mouth.

Alt Left: Transgender People Are Obviously Mentally Ill, But Some Are More Mentally Ill Than Others

In 90% of the cases, MtF transgenderism is just a paraphilia. They are crossdressers, transvestites, and autogynephiles. In many cases, the transgenderism simply goes away. If it vanishes regularly like that, then there cannot be anything wrong with their brains and of course it’s just a mental disorder. In the several areas in which male and female brains differ, autogynephilic transgender people’s brains look exactly like male brains. However, in four or five areas that are the same in both males and females, autogynephiles’ brains are different from both sexes. These brain changes may be the source of the mental disorder.
There is an incel on an incel board who identified as transgender in adolescence and went on hormones. He lost 3-4 inches in height and there is something wrong with his face as a result of the hormones. He now describes his transgenderism as a delusion, which it was of course.
Of course it’s a delusion if a man insists he is really a woman. How could it not be a delusion?
10% of transgender people are the real transsexuals. These are all gay men. These are biological transsexuals with a very early onset, sometimes as early as age two. Their brains are different. There are several parts of the brain that are quite different in men and women. In these brain areas early onset transsexuals have brains that are in between male brains and female brains. That is, their brains are female-shifted.
Now that does not mean that they have women’s brains in men’s bodies, but their brains are somewhat feminized. And yes, it does seem to be related to hormonal aberrations in the womb. This transgenderism is more valid because it involves actual changes in brain structures. Nevertheless, if these men insist that they are really women, that is a delusion in my opinion because it’s just not true.
I know little about FtM transsexuals except that 99% of them are lesbians. I am not aware of any good work on FtM transgender people’s brains.
There is a new phenomenon called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria which is hitting teenage girls in an epidemic form. It spreads like anorexia as a social contagion in emotionally susceptible teenage girls. This is simply a mental illness like Anorexia and in fact, it may be closely related to Anorexia because it resembles Anorexia in many ways and it also involves distorted body image.

Alt Left: What's Up with Toxic Masculinity?

The feminists and SJWtards have been tossing this concept around for a long time. First of all, we need to recognize that feminists wish to wipe masculinity off the face of the Earth. They don’t want any of us men to be masculine anymore. Only when we have renounced all of our masculinity, will we finally be free and will they finally be satisfied. For the record, the feminists also wish to abolish femininity because they hate that too. They want to get rid of every last bit of femininity in women.
Now these desires are most prominently seen in Radical Feminism. I am not sure how prominent they are among Third Wave Feminists. 3rd Wavers have been well know for saying that it is ok for feminists to wear dresses, heels, spandex, and makeup and to act as feminine as they wish. Women can wear this stuff and act this way and still be feminine!
However, Gloria Steinem is not a Radical Feminist and in a recent interview, she said her goal was to eliminate gender. I asked my mother what that meant and she said Steinem wants to get rid of masculinity and femininity because she thinks femininity oppresses women and holds them back.
Feminists have always hated femininity. It just dawned on me that this is why feminists cut their hair short, wear men’s clothes, refuse to shave their armpits or legs or use makeup and generally dress and act as much like men as possible, the end result being that most feminists have deliberately made themselves very ugly. This attempt to look like males is part of feminism’s war against the Beauty Industry, which they say oppresses women, and it is also a big middle finger to femininity.
All feminists, 2nd and 3rd wave, all believe that gender is a social construct. It is an article of faith among all modern feminists that there are no biological differences between men and women at all  other than the obvious and that there are no differences in our brains. Neither masculinity nor femininity have any biological basis at all. In spite of the fact that this seems ludicrous on its face, there has been quite a bit of good, hard research coming out in psychology journals involving studies with very young children which prove that masculinity in males and femininity in females have a biological basis.
Although radical feminists hate masculinity period (this can be observed by the fact that the only male radical feminists are gay men or very wimpy, feminine or even effeminate  straight men), 3rd Wavers seem to mostly wage war against Toxic Masculinity while supposedly arguing that there is some healthy type of masculinity that is not toxic.
I have done some research, and I still can’t figure out what toxic masculinity is. If you mean the hypermasculine strutting, swaggering, bragging, asshat, super-aggressive, dick-measuring contests and fistfights in the comments section you see on your typical horrific PUA site, then I would agree that that’s pretty toxic stuff. The thing is that the most toxically aggressive men, the most hostile, belligerent and unpleasant men of all, men who fight all of the other men around them, get the most women. So women love toxic masculinity. In fact, a recent study showed that women preferred toxically masculine men over men who lacked toxic masculinity.
Toxic masculinity seems to involves a reduced range of emotions with anger being the only prominent emotion allowed, a fear and hatred of softness or weakness, high aggression, violence, competition, oneupmanship, objectification of women, and bragging about sexual conquests.
A lot of these things are just normal male behavior. All men objectify women in the sense that they check out goodlooking women. They only men who  don’t do that are gay men or straight men who might as well be gay. And yes, the definition of objectifying women is to look at women in a sexual way.
All or most all men brag about their sexual prowess or conquests. That’s just normal guy behavior.
The problem with being an emotional man or showing a lot of weakness is that society including both women and men, will beat the crap out of you for doing this. I used to do both of these things quite a bit but I got my butt kicked so many times by both women and men over this that I said the Hell with it, shut down my feelings and turned hard as a rock. I don’t know if it’s healthy, but society seems to demand it and I’m tired of getting beat up for not going along.
Most men are not particularly violent, nor do they love violence. You see this in boys or young men more than among older men.
As a terminally laid back man, I despise highly aggressive males, but I wonder where society would be without them. Face it, these guys kick ass, take names, and get stuff done.
Same with competitiveness. I am too laid back to be a competitive man, but it is that male competitive drive that drives a lot of mankind’s highest achievements.
More and more I am thinking that “toxic masculinity” is nothing more than normative masculinity in American society. If a man appears to behave in a normative American masculine way I would assume he is engaging in toxic masculinity. No one has shown me what healthy masculinity would look like as compared to the toxic stuff. So the war on toxic masculinity just seems to be one more end run to attack masculinity itself.
If you all have any thoughts on masculinity or toxic masculinity, let us know in the comments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

America's Ferociously Anti-Intellectual Culture Is Literally Idiocracy In Practice

Rahul: Robert, Feynman didn’t win the Nobel Prize in Physics because he had a 190 Physics IQ or because he had a 125 IQ. He won it because he was ardently passionate about Physics and Math, and he contributed enough to the betterment of using Physics to serve humanity. That’s why he won the Prize.
I don’t mean to be rude when I say this Robert (hell, this is the case with pretty much any disagreement I have, which is a lot), but this comment was somewhat insulting to Richard Feynman. Really, you’re attributing it to his 190 Physics IQ (which I doubt)?

He was passionate about it and he contributed to using physics to better humanity because he had one of the most brilliant physics minds ever recorded. It’s not insulting to say Feynman had a 190 IQ in Physics. In fact, I bet if I knew him and I said that to him, he would probably laugh and say I was right. The 190 physics IQ is literally proven by having some of the highest physics scores ever recorded on various tests. If you go around the Net, everywhere they talk about Feynman’s IQ, they say just this. No one anywhere says he did it by trying really hard.
You do not get one of the highest Physics scores ever recorded on a widely given test by trying really hard. Fuck that. You get that by being one of the smartest and highest Physics IQ men in history in Physics.
Why are you such an IQ denier? Have you lived in America your whole life?
Because in this idiot, insane culture, the line is, “Anyone can do anything” and “Intelligence doesn’t matter.” And in America, there is a complete denial of intelligence itself. This is shown by contempt for the very concept. In America, “anyone can do anything they want if they give it enough effort” and often you cannot even acknowledge that human beings differ in intelligence at all or that this matters in any way.
I talk like this a lot because intelligence is interesting to me, and I get very politely shut down (they simply disagree with me very politely, mostly by dismissing my argument with a smile) all time.
This Idiocracy culture is so infuriating. We acknowledge frankly intellectual gifts in a whole range of things, even athletics, where “physical intelligence” forms a large part of “athletic genius.” Haven’t you heard athletes who say things like, “Baseball is 90% mental.”? However, your average American usually insists that great athletes simply tried real hard.
We often speak of artistic and musical genius and the implication is that it was inborn, though you often run into resistance to that with countless Americans implying that musical and artistic geniuses simply “tried really hard.” 
Americans simply refuse to believe in the concept of inborn intelligence or intellectual strengths in any way, and that is when they acknowledge that intelligence itself even exists at all.
Many, perhaps most Americans simply insist that “there is no such thing as intelligence,” which is a stunning statement for a human being to utter. Most infuriating of all is that the smartest people are the worst intelligence deniers. Even more infuriating is that the more leftwing people get, they more openly hostile they are to the very concept of intelligence, especially if it is inborn. All I have to say is that an American Left culture that has extreme hatred for the very notion that intelligence exists at all is not one I want to be a part of. It doesn’t sound like one that’s going to be very successful either, or if it is successful, I fear for the country that ends up being run by these overeducated fools.
You start getting down below 100 or especially 90 IQ, they generally agree that some humans are definitely way smarter than other humans. At that level, people are often awestruck by very smart people.
That’s if they are not too stupid. Truly stupid people around 80 IQ often can’t even seem to grasp the concept of intelligence at all or refuse to see how it could be important in any way. This is because they are literally too stupid to even recognize intelligence for what it is.
Further, if you start talking about intelligence even related to jobs in the US, you get shut down almost immediately with, “Oh no, you don’t have to be smart to do that. Anyone can do that.” You even get shut down if you imply that some people are smarter than other people.
Sometimes I talk about how I can tell someone is smart by simply looking at their faces while I interact with them. I usually get completely dismissed when I say that. I can tell how smart someone is by looking into their eyes, listening to how they talk (for instance, speed, comprehension, response speed), and mostly looking for, more than anything else, simply speed of response. Smart people are simply faster than other human beings. And it correlates directly with IQ.
I had a girlfriend with a 140 IQ once, and she was one of the fastest women I have ever known. She got my jokes, bam, immediately, as soon as they hit her brain just like that. And she had a sharp response to the joke almost instantly. She was so fast it almost seemed like she started laughing before the joke was even over. I had another girlfriend with a ~115 IQ, and while she was definitely intelligent, there’s no way on Earth she was that lightning fast.
And I met a woman with an IQ of 156 once who was literally the fastest woman I have ever met in my life. She was faster than the 140 woman, knew more stuff, and picked up completely new topics she knew nothing about very quickly. She would ask me, “What is that?” about some concept that she had no idea what it was. I would start to explain it, and it never took more than 3-5 minutes before she had gobbled up the whole concept and had gotten the gist of it like an expert. I have never met a woman who understood brand new things with so little explanation.
She might even have been faster than I am. Her IQ was ~10 points higher. I didn’t feel outclassed at all though. We were basically on the same level. But I had definitely met my match. She was a real challenge to talk to, but I love challenges.

Why Emphasizing the Exceptions Over the Rule is Dumb, Lacks Self-Awareness, and Gives False Hope

Thinking Mouse: Also, why do you use the Feynman example as a minimum? He’s an ultra exception?

Didn’t he get a Nobel? Well, if he did, he is interesting because I suppose that is a threshold effect. But bringing him up over and over to prove some point is dumb.
You must understand that Feynman scored the highest score ever on the Physics entry exam to his university. A number of his other tests in physics were completely off the charts. So Feynman was like a 190 IQ in Physics. Feynman was weak on verbal. People who have access to his notes have observed frequent spelling, punctuation and grammar errors.
So using the Feynman example that “any 125 IQ person can win a Nobel” is just stupid. Can a 125 IQ person win the Nobel Prize? Sure, maybe in Physics. But all you need is a 190 IQ when it comes to Physics. How many 125 IQ people have that? Zero? That’s what I thought.
And it gives false hope to a lot of people while de-emphasizing the importance of intelligence to others. To allow a 100 IQ person to go to university without telling them or at least knowing yourself that they will have to work very hard is irresponsible. To allow someone with an IQ below 115 to even entertain the possibility of getting a PhD or an MD is the height of irresponsibility. I mean it’s hard to tell people these things, but you can always let them go find out for themselves and learn the hard way. But giving people false hope is stupid, cruel, and a waste of time and resources.
The Greeks said, “To know thine own self is the rule.” One of the purposes of life is to know yourself or finally understand yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, the whole nine yards. Not understanding yourself and always overestimating how good you are at this or that is ridiculous.
Most people I know do not know themselves well at all, even far into their 50’s. This is ridiculous. “I am good at this” or “I am not good at that,” takes a lot of bravery that most folks just don’t have. This is a problem because always overestimating what you can do leads to a lot of time and effort wasted on useless projects and further leads to a lot of frustration and depression when you inevitably fail.

How IQ Limits You in School and Life

Rahul: Robert, there are professors with IQ’s in the 90’s out there. There are scientists too, and many other professions.
You are being very IQ deterministic. IQ does carry some merit, but it’s not the only thing. Also, intelligence can span from many different things. Intelligence is the ability to learn. People with Low IQ’s are very street smart, more so than high IQ folks. Musical intelligence exists too, many low IQ blacks are excellent rappers. Mechanical intelligence, not every high IQ fella can fix shit with their hands.
There’s this article on Grey Enlightenment on illusory superiority. It’s a phenomenal article.
Also, you can increase your IQ, it’s not fixed at all. Just because most people don’t increase it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Some people get pretty big gains too.
For a degree, you only need an average IQ.
For a masters too, only an average.
Even for a PhD, you only need average.
Hell, for the Nobel, you probably don’t need a monstrously high IQ either.

There are almost zero university professors with IQ’s in the 90’s. I dare you to show me one university professor with an IQ at that level. With an IQ in the 90’s, you will have a difficult time getting a BA, for Chrissake.
Show me one “scientist” anywhere with an IQ in the 90’s. One.
You don’t realize that IQ is intelligence. By attacking IQ, you attack the very concept of human intelligence itself.
Street smarts, musical and mechanical knowledge alone won’t get you through university or a job as a professor or scientist. As an aside, most very good musicians are quite intelligent. We think Blacks are stupid, but I have read interviews with great Black blues musicians who no one would ever think would be smart, and I was shocked at how smart they were. I read an interview with Miles Davis, and it almost knocked me on the floor. He’s at least as smart as I am.
I am always shocked at how smart auto mechanics are. They’re not book smart intellectuals, but I haven’t met a stupid mechanic yet, and I’ve met more than I can count. We think they are just stupid grease monkeys, and they don’t act all that smart, but those guys are wicked smart. I saw a chart once and I was shocked at how many auto mechanics had IQ’s of over 130. That will literally put you in the gifted program at school.
I met a man the other day whose job was fixing the slot machines in gambling houses. I was stunned at how smart he was. I could tell he was smart very fast just by looking at his eyes, listening to his speech and just seeing how sheer fast he was.
After age 18, IQ doesn’t go up much at all. Nor does it lower much either. IQ is even preserved in alcoholism, believe it or not. It can damage your brain, but IQ is typically preserved somehow.
Show me one person who got an over 15 IQ gain in adulthood. I would even like to see someone who got 15 points. I’ve heard it’s possible, but I’ve never known anyone who did that.
An average IQ of 100 will not get you a BA. You will struggle a lot, and you will simply not be able to understand a lot of the material. Many 100 IQ people will drop out of the university. You need a minimum 105 IQ to get a BA. You need a 110 IQ to get one relatively easily.
I definitely don’t see how you easily get an MA with an average IQ. I have known people who seemed to do it, but they were schoolteachers getting more or less bullshit Education MA’s, the easiest MA’s out there. And this woman that I knew had to have her attorney mother write most of her papers for her, otherwise she would never have passed.
I was in a Master’s program and there didn’t seem to be a lot of average IQ folks in there. Some of them were smarter than I was, or at least they were better at the material. For a Master’s, you will ever struggle at a 105-107 IQ. You won’t understand a lot of the material, and you will have a high likelihood of dropout, assuming you can even get in anyway, as you have to pass the GRE, and it is hard to pass the GRE with average intelligence. I would want a 115 IQ to get a Master’s degree, and even then it will be hard.
You need a minimum 115 IQ to get a PhD, and even then, you will not understand a lot of the material and you will have a high tendency to flunk out. You want a 125 IQ to get a PhD. If you have an IQ below 115, in all likelihood you will simply not be able to get a PhD unless you have an extremely lopsided IQ.
Most Nobel Prize winners have IQ’s of over 145. They’ve been studied.

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.
But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.
Measuring potential school performance:
Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false
Job performance:
Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.
Eugenics:
Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:
Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning
And i also agree with:
Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture
and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):
Height and IQ Genes
making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind
Testing mental health:
This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.
Criterion validity and correlation:
I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).
I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.
And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.
I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 
I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.
You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?
Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.
Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.
Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.
State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.
Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.
Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.
Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.
Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.
Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.
Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls
Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.
Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.
Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.
The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.
Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.
Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

Alt Left: Identity Politics is Based on Postmodernist Obscurantism

All modern Identity Politics movements, including feminism, are infected with postmodernism, hence the answer to a lot of questions is,

“There is no answer to that question…There’s no way to determine that…That’s not a question that can be answered by science…That’s not a matter that science can investigate…”

All IP groups are like this. All the important questions can never be answered, there are no truths because exceptions prove that truths don’t exist, there are no facts, there are no statistics to be measured and all statistics to be gathered are to be questioned on the grounds of false data, etc.

Alt Left: How Many Men Are Gay, Bisexual and Straight, and How Common is Homosexual Behavior in Men?

It’s been a longstanding shibboleth in the gay community that all men are basically bisexual and with straight guys, all you need to do is seduce them into their natural tendency. First of all, the common myth that everyone is bisexual, attributed to Freud, is just not true.
The best study I found, of medical students in Australia, found that 62% of men are completely straight, with the remaining 38% having some degree of bisexual attraction. If nothing else, this rather shocking figure should serve to normalize the notion of many straight men having at least some homosexual attraction. 40% is a lot of people. It’s almost half.
However, most of that 38% were made up of straight men with maximal attraction towards women and only minor or incidental attraction towards men. On a scale of 0-100, with 100-0 being completely straight and 0-100 being completely gay, most of that 38% were made up of 90-10 and 80-20 men. A very large number of these men will go their whole lives and never act on  their minor homosexual attraction. As long as they are extremely turned on by women, there’s no need to feed your curiosity about gay sex.
Once you get to 70-30’s and 60-40’s, you are starting to get into more of your true bisexuals. But even these men are straight leaning. I would imagine quite a few of those men have at least tried gay sex. 50-50’s or true bisexuals are very rare in both men and women, constituting only 1% for each gender. The longstanding old wisdom about bisexuals, that I even learned from my own mother (born in 1932), was that most bisexuals tended to lean one way or the other, often strongly.
Anyway, of all men who have some attraction to other men, 80% of them lean straight. So 80% of “bisexual” men (in attraction anyway) lean straight. Which is quite an interesting figure.
But it makes sense when you realize that 93% of all men are maximally attracted to women. Heterosexuality or maximal attraction to females is nearly the norm in almost all human males. Only 7% of men are maximally attracted to men, and only 2% of all men are gay. So strong attraction to other males only effects a tiny number of men, barely more than 5%. Gay men or even gay-leaning bisexual men are extreme outliers among human males.
6% of men are either gay or gay-learning bisexuals, which is interesting as this figure is higher than what most surveys come up with.
But there is a good argument that a lot of people lie in phone or face to face surveys. In particular, many lie about homosexual attraction or behavior, and it is very common to lie about hard drug use. So there’s typically a lot more hard drug use or homosexual/bisexual behavior or even identity than the typical survey finds.
How do we know this? Because of one study which was done completely blind. Subjects were in a closed room with a computer entering answers. They were assured that they each would only be given a number and no one doing the study would know what any subject entered. So subjects felt that this was a completely anonymous survey.
Subjects were young college-aged men in Ontario, Canada. The results were very interesting.
A whopping 13% of these men had had gay sex in the past six months, even though most of that 13% identified as straight or straight-leaning. That was considered current homosexual activity. So an incredible 13% of these young men were currently having gay sex. That is a very high figure for current homosexual behavior in men, one of the highest I have ever seen. This implies that there might be a Hell of a lot more gay sex going on than we think, and most of the hidden gay sex involves straight or straight-leaning men, and possibly most of those engaging in this hidden sex are very young men, with rates presumably dropping as men age.
And the rates of heroin and PCP use were also quite high. ~4% had used heroin and ~3% had used PCP. These figures were 3-4 higher than the typically found figures of 1%.
Anyway, no, all men are not bisexual, the difference between a straight man and a gay is not a six-pack of beer, etc. This is all just wishful thinking and solipsism on their part. The gay men are acting like solipsistic women. They are very attracted to men, so therefore all other men must also be attracted to men too. Solipsism is a problem with boundaries where the boundaries between the self and say half the population dissolve. People like this just can’t believe that anyone would think differently from themselves.

Alt Left: An SJW Calumny Against Milo Yiannopoulus

Now hear me out. I absolutely despise Milo Yiannopoulus, the reactionary Alt Right troll and hero of sticking it to the SJW’s. But he does a lot more than skewer leftwing airheads.
He’s also a reactionary on everything else, and if you have been reading this blog long enough, you know that we are basically liberals to Leftists on most issues aside from the Cultural Left Freakshow, about which we are to the right of but not all the way to Republican social conservatives, who we consider to be rightwing Puritan crazies.
So with the Alt Left here, as with the Alt Left on so many things, it’s idiots to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. We would never want to be members of any club that would let us in, but no one would let us in anyway. Instead, everybody hates us. To be Alt Left is to be in the center of a circular firing squad. But it also means to be correct. The Alt Left is based on facts, truth, and science – Enlightenment values if you will. It’s not only the Right that hates science and truth, it’s the Cultural Left too. They’re just as bad as Republicans, as most Identity Politics movements proceed from fact-free theories and assumptions.
Anyway, Milo is a stinking filthy rich member of the ruling class, and he’s depraved, degenerate, and decadent like so many of them. Morals? Milo doesn’t have any. He jokes about taking huge Black cocks up his ass. His Alt Right “conservative” audience roars with approval. Since when is interracial homosexual sodomy the favorite meal of…reactionaries…?!
None of it makes sense unless you understand the decadence of the ruling class. The ruling class takes power on campaigns of religion and morality, which they sell to the masses. Morals are for the poor, and they go on and on about how immoral the poor are. Why, if they would only go to church more, they would get rich!
But you know pesky things like morals are only for those Little People. The aristocrats are of course exempt from morals in the realm of sex, drugs, and…just about anything, just like they’ve always been. So it is only in this context of chastity for the poor, interracial gay gangbangs for the rich that this confounding Milo can be understood.
Of course Milo has a right to be a degenerate homosexual.
As noted earlier, SJW’s harangue us straight men endlessly daring to look at JB’s, but gay men get to bang all the boy JB’s they want because gay men are good in SJW theory, and straight men are evil.
But somehow the SJW’s violate their own rules when it comes to Milo. Now if Milo was just an ordinary leftwing gay man, no one would care what he said or did. But Milo did the unthinkable. He decided to be a typical degenerate gay man while adopting ultra-rightwing politics. It was the latter that pointed the bulls eye on his head for SJW’s. So rightwing gays are in a class similar to straight men – evil males who must be demonized.
Hence the constant “Milo is a pedophile” claim from the SJW Left.
But what’s behind this serious allegation? Is Milo just an ordinary pedestrian chicken hawk like so many gay men? Nope. He’s not even that bad! Under SJW parlance, Milo was actually a victim of gay child molesters or pedophiles. So SJW’s are calling the kid who got molested by pedophiles a pedophile for daring to get molested! Outrageous or what?
The truth is a bit more complex. Milo stated flippantly that as a precocious male Lolita or Lolito of 13, he was already deep into gay sex and drug party culture. Of course, this culture is full of underage teenage boys. They’re everywhere at parties like that, and the older men pass them around callously like candy.
Milo said he was a regular at these degenerate sex and drug gay parties on fancy boats owned by gay men. There was plenty of sex with older men on offer for the budding Milo, and I guess he decided that the stovepipes were to his liking. In other words, Milo said that as a young teen of 13, he used to go to gay drug and sex parties full of older men, he had a lot of hot sex with  older men, and worse of all for SJW’s, he dared to actually like the experience.
Now victims of statutory rape or kids who get molested are not allowed to enjoy the experience, although many if not most of the teens love it. Even some of the little kids enjoy it. If they do enjoy it, the feminist line is that these poor kids or especially teens are deluded. Their enjoyment is not real. It’s fake. It’s fake because somehow they have been brainwashed into getting off on it. They actually hate it but they only think they like it because as minors they are too immature and stupid to figure out if they enjoy something or not!
This is the source of a lot of confusion for them because it was wrong, but it felt so good, and this mixes them up a lot. This is part of the reason that so many molested kids go on the years-long Therapy Express. But no one ever talks about this. No one talks about how some of the kids and most of the teens liked or even loved the experience. To do so brands one a pedophile by proxy simply by promoting a “pedo argument.” Except the pedo argument here happens to be true.
So, Milo isn’t a pedophile and he’s never been one. Instead Milo is being called a pedophile for what SJW’s would call getting molested or being a victim of sexual assault and breaking the rules by saying he liked it instead of falling apart like a baby.
So why is Milo a pedophile? Because he was a molestation victim who enjoyed getting molested. Even if that is true, how on Earth does that make someone, anyone, a pedophile?
Milo’s a slug but I believe in fairness and giving everyone their due. Next time you hear BS about Milo being a pedophile, you might want to, just maybe, think twice before believing that accusation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alt Left: Why the Endless Feminist Screeching about Male Violence Against Women Is Wrong

I recently clicked on a Youtube video that talked about the wave of violence against women in South Africa. Women down there were organizing demonstrations against the murders of women, and feminists around the globe were agitating about the number of murders of women by men in that country.
Then I did a bit of research. Sure, the numbers of murdered women (almost all by men no doubt) was quite high at least by Western standards. But I did some mucking around with statistics and came up with something very interesting.
88% of all people murdered in South Africa are their fellow males. Only 12% of male murders in that country are females.
So according to feminists, we are supposed to ignore that men get the most horrific brunt of male violence in South Africa and instead focus on the women who are murdered in vastly smaller numbers. Furthermore, the feminist critique of male murders of women is that they are all motivated by misogyny and that men specifically single out women due to their sex alone for violence and murder.
Men kill women for all sorts of reasons. I’m sure misogyny is one of them. But a lot of other times misogyny is not a factor. Maybe a man is mad at a particular woman. Maybe he’s a psychopath who doesn’t care about the gender of his victims.
And if men go out of their way to specifically target women for no reason other than their sex, why are the numbers of murdered women so low compared to the murdered men? If anything, men are massively deselecting women for homicide compared to their population, and they are deliberately selecting men for murder to a huge degree. So men aren’t singling out women at all for murder down there. They’re singling out men for murder. But that doesn’t fit the feminist theory,  so that fact is elided.
In science, if your theory doesn’t match the facts, this means that your theory is wrong, so it’s back to the drawing board.
However, when the facts on the ground don’t match the feminist theory, feminists, like ideologues everywhere, decide that the theory is just fine and the problem is that the facts are wrong. Instead of redoing the theory, they decide that they need to redo the facts to make them fit the theory because feminists believe that theory trumps facts and evidence.
You women think you got it bad in terms of male violence against you, try being a guy! You ladies are getting off easy.
Hint: it’s even worse.

Alt Left: The Transgender and Transtrender War

Recently the 12% of trans people who are actually pure transsexuals with severe gender dysphoria from an early age have weighed in on the TERF versus Transgender debate. This group takes a very different stance from the 88% of transgender people who are autogynephiles, crossdressers, and transvestites. It is this larger group of most heterosexual male transgender or transwomen who are driving this debate. They also seem to be the ones making the most noise and threatening and assaulting the TERF’s.
The 12%, however, take a very different stance towards TERF’s. These are the real transsexuals, assuming there is such a thing. The transsexuals are much more sympathetic to the concerns of the TERF’s and many of them argue that they, the transsexuals, possibly should stay out of women’s spaces.
The transsexuals realize that they do indeed have a medical/psychological condition, which is a fact. They tend to be much more science-minded than the other group, which is just another Cultural Left Identity Politics that plays fast and loose with facts and truth like they all do. These transsexuals often have very early onset of gender dysphoria, sometimes as early as age two.
And transsexual brains are in fact different. Transsexuals are not women in men’s bodies, but their brains are female- shifted, that is, their brains are more feminine than the typical male brain. Transsexual brains are about halfway between a male brain and a female brain. The autogynephiles on the other hand have brains that look like a normal man’s brain in the areas in which men’s and women’s brains differ. In other words, the autogynephiles are not men in women’s bodies either, and they do not even have female-shifted brains. Instead they have a normal male brain with some differences. Their brains are different in 4-5 areas that are the same in men and women. So there are two types of transgender people that can even be differentiated on brain scan.
There is a war brewing between people who consider themselves real transsexuals or transgender people and others who this former group derides as fakes or pretenders.
This war is being called Transgenders versus Transtrenders. The autogynephiles are seen as faddists by the transsexuals, and the transtrenders often don’t even have gender dysphoria, although for decades they have been lying and saying that they did, driving clinicians crazy in the process.
The transtrenders also hate the word transsexual, apparently because it implies a medical condition, and they say they are fine. The transtrenders are much more anti-scientific than the transsexuals. In fact, the word transsexual is now apparently a transphobic slur! You might see a lot more psychopathology in the transtrenders too, as they are basically faking it. I have heard people say that 95% of transgender people are transtrenders, and only 5% of them are the real deal. I’m not sure how accurate that is. It’s interesting that the real transgenders are a lot more sympathetic to women than the fakers who are often called misogynists by feminists, but then feminists call 95% of men misogynists, so that might not mean anything.

Alt Left: TERF Theory on Transgenderism: Is It Rational?

Radical feminist theory poses a serious challenge to to transgender ideology. It is for their critical stance on transgenderism that the Trans Community has taken to calling these women TERF’s or Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists. There has been a long-term war, now escalating very rapidly, pitting the Trans Lobby and their SJW Third Wave Intersectional Sex-Positive Feminist allies and Second Wave Radical Feminist TERF’s. This has now escalated into threats and assaults against TERF’s by transwomen. It is an interesting debate but as it is taking place on the fringes of the Cultural Left, most folks have never heard of it.
It actually takes the side of reason, rationality, and common sense, which is strange feminist theories are almost never based on truth or facts. However, I would argue that it does not challenge transgender ideology on very good grounds. In other words, they come up with the right answer to the question, but my beef is in the theory they used to arrive at the right answer and not the answer itself.
Radical feminist theory says that transgender people are simply mentally ill people with gender dysphoria for some variety of reasons. Transwomen are just men in drag or men who think they are women. Transwomen are not women and they should not be allowed in women’s spaces.
This is all more or less correct, but as I said, my beef is how they arrived at the answer and not the answer itself.
What theory did radfems use to arrive at this answer? Simple. Radical feminists absolutely hate men.
Anyway, TERF dislike of transgender men or transwomen who they insist on calling TIM’s (Transsexual-Identified Males) is based simply on radfem hatred of men. Transwomen are simply the hated men now dressing in drag and pretending to be or insisting that they are women and demanding access to women’s spaces.
TERF’s hate the idea that men are claiming to be women, as TERF’s quite logically say that only they and and other born females are real women. A real woman is born with and has an XX chromosome, female genitalia and female reproductive organs. Any human born with an XY chromosome and male genitalia is a male, plain and simple. And a male can’t turn into a female or vice versa, at least with present technology.
An incredibly high percentage of radical feminists are lesbians, usually lesbian feminists, which means that they are straight women who chose to be lesbians out of extreme hatred for men as a feminist political act. Most lesbians hate men quite a bit as it is, but when you combine a lesbian with a radical feminist, you get quite a potent mix of shrill man hatred.
The problem is that the nonheterosexual coalition which started out as gays and lesbians, then included bisexuals to be GLB’s,  has now expanded to included transsexuals, so the coalition is now called GLBT.
Recently queers (a term which has no meaning whatsoever other than nonheterosexual) has been idiotically added to this alphabet soup.
Some add an I for Intersex people, once again mixing gender expression (Intersex and Transsexuals) with sexual orientation (GLBQ).
There is also a movement now to add on an A for Asexuals.
God knows what they will come up with next. Pretty soon this acronym is going to be harder to pronounce than an Icelandic placename. A lot of people are exasperated by this ever-expanding list of nonheterosexual and non-cisgender orientation and identity soup and often add on ABC or WTF, so you end up with things like GLBTIQABCWTF.
Now there is quite a bit of friction between a lot of lesbians, many of whom are also radical feminists, and the transgender folks. Lesbians have been denied the right to march is Gay Pride parades and fights have broken out between lesbians and transgender people at these events. Quite a few leftwing outlets are banning TERF speakers from speaking at their venues or removing TERF books from their bookshelves. Many lesbians have been attacking the whole idea of
TERF’s logically argue that since transwomen are really men, they should not be allowed in women’s bathrooms, homeless and abused shelter’s, and prisons. Indeed, transwomen have already committed crimes against women in women’s prisons and bathrooms, so the fear is not unfounded.
In addition, many transwomen, especially the autogynophiliacs, were heterosexual men before they transitioned. They were attracted to women when they were men and now that they are transwomen, they are still attracted to women. So transwomen go from being heterosexual men to being female lesbians in a sense. A lot of these lesbian transwomen are doing a lot of yelling because most lesbians won’t give them the time of day, much less have sex with them.
This is especially true since many transwomen are pre-ops who have not had the operation to remove their genitals, so they still have male genitalia. What lesbian wants to have sex with a man with a penis and testicles who dresses up like a woman? Lesbians like women, not men in dresses. These lesbian transwomen have been calling real lesbians “transphobic” for refusing to date them. This predictably has a lot of lesbians, especially the radical feminist ones, up in arms.
As you can see, TERF’s both lesbian and straight have a lot of quite good reasons to be anywhere from dubious to outraged by transwomen.
Further, 88% of transwomen are not even real transsexuals. The real transsexuals with early onset gender dysphoria and different brains are a mere 12% of transwomen. I have a lot of compassion for these “real” transsexuals.
The rest, I am sorry, are just sexual perverts of one sort or another. 88% of transwomen are crossdressers, transvestites, and autogynophiliacs. These are also a lot of the ones that are committing sex crimes because they have paraphilias. Most don’t realize that paraphiliacs typically have more than one paraphilia; in fact, they can have several. It seems there are perverts and non-perverts, you are either one or the other,  and if you are a pervert, you tend to be polymorphously perverse instead of limiting yourself to one perversion..
People with paraphilias can definitely commit sex crimes ranging from harmless but annoying flashers all the way to serial killers and necrophiliacs. Most serial killers are sexual sadists, and sexual sadism is a paraphilia. I doubt if the real transsexuals are the ones who are committing these sex crimes or threatening the TERF’s. The real transsexuals seem calmer and more rational and believe it or not, they actually believe deeply in science and science is on their side somewhat.
The problem is that radical feminist theory on transgenderism completely collapses when it comes to transmen or female transsexuals. The reason it falls apart is because the theory has a poor basis – it is based simply on a hatred of men per se and does not try to make a coherent argument against transsexualism as a whole.
Radfem theory on transsexuals absolutely collapses with the complete and utter silence about transmen or female transsexuals. These are women who think they are men. There are quite a bit fewer transmen than transwomen for some reason. If transwomen are irrational and crazy, so are transmen, but radfem trans theory does not critique the rationality or mental fitness of transmen. In addition, the focus on violent and criminal transwomen, while good in theory, collapses once again as transmen are ignored. But transmen can be violent too, just like transwomen. Women who transition to men are more likely to become criminals than if they had stayed women, possibly a hormonal effect of testosterone.
I get all the radfem venom and rage against transwomen. It’s not hard to figure out. But why let transmen off the hook?
Why do radfems let transmen off the hook? Because they’re women! Well, that’s a logical theory! So radfems let transmen off the hook because they are women and women cannot be criticized by they bash transwomen to Kingdom Come because they’re men! Look, I am quite sure that radfem transsexual theory suits the emotion needs of radical feminists, but where’s the science? Where’s the science for the radfem theory that transmen are a-ok and transwomen are Satan’s children?
Oh wait. I forget. We are talking about feminists here, and feminists simply don’t do science. In fact, feminists now openly state that truth, logic, and science – (The very Enlightenment itself!) are permanently tainted because they are derived from men’s thinking and are the product of patriarchy. Anything that comes from men is junk and needs to be tossed. Feminists have a new epistemology: There is a “women’s way of knowledge” which apparently transcends science, facts, and truth, rendering all of them unreliable. They’ve taken the postmodern ball and the length of the field with it. In fact they didn’t even stop in the endzone. They kept running after the touchdown and now they are halfway across town.
The funny thing is that transmen are not really the friends of radical feminists or of women in general for that matter. I mean these are women who have decided that being a woman is so disgusting and horrible that they want to turn into men. That’s some powerful self-hatred they have going on there. Transmen call their vaginas “front holes.” Are radical feminists on board with vaginas being called “front holes?” Transmen also say that men can now have vaginas, ovaries, uteruses, etc. In fact, transmen even insist that men can now get pregnant! Are radfems cool with the notion that their hated dudes can have vaginas too just like ladies?
Radical feminist theory on transgenderism is just fine as long as it sticks to transwomen. It is based on facts, truth, and science. Of course radfems only choose facts, truth, and science when it allies well with their ideology, but I do commend them for using Enlightenment tools of knowledge at all.
But when it gets to transmen, radfem transgender theory shipwrecks on the shore. According to radical feminists, trannies are groovy and cool as long as they are lady trannies, but dude trannies are incarnations of the Devil Himself.
And this is…a scientific doctrine?

Alt Left: How Many People Are Transgender, and Is the Rate Increasing?

Eric Blair: Speaking of gender, I am not very familiar with non-binary gender stuff..how did we even get from two genders to 70?

Thanks for the comment, George, and thanks for stopping by the blog. All this time I thought you were dead!
That’s a damn good question. My position is that once you let people act as crazy as they want to, you open the door, and there’s no limit to how crazy people will act. Which is how you end up with 70 genders.
The trans madness has been exploding. The figure cited in the 1960’s and 1970’s was 1/30,000. Presumably almost all of these were the more pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age, sometimes as young as two. However, a recent survey of Generation Z showed that 2% labeled themselves transgender, and another 11% labeled themselves nonbinary. So you can see that the rate of this stuff has gone through the roof.
You would not expect a genetic or biological condition to go from 1/30,000 to 1/50 in a few short decades (someone do the math for me please). Genetic or even biological change does not happen that fast. Obviously this is a sociological phenomenon no doubt being driven by quite a bit of faddism. Even trans advocates admit that 88% of transgender people are not transsexuals. Only 12% are the relatively pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age. The other 88% are people with paraphilias, all or almost all men. The paraphilias encompass autogynephilia, crossdressing, and transvestism. The latter are mostly heterosexual and the former are mostly homosexual.
Indeed, when we get to the point where 2-3% of people are gay and another 2% are transgender, we are definitely getting into a pretty weird world here in the Current Year. It’s long past 1984 already and we are into a whole new dystopia of sexual bizarreness.

How to Define Sexual Orientation – Behavior or Attraction?

It is often said that the statement “Straight men who have sex with men” is an oxymoron because any man who has sex with men is at least bisexual. I disagree.

It depends on how you want to define sexual orientation.

First of all we need to realize that most gay men have had sex with women, and many continue to do so. And all the talk about married gay men. Most lesbians have had sex with men, and many continue to do so. So none of these gay men (almost all of them) who have had sex with women are really gay? So none of these lesbians (almost all of them) who have had sex with men are really lesbians?

I do not define sexual orientation on behavior. Behavior is one thing and orientation is another. They tend to line up pretty well but not completely and not always.

Orientation is the largely biological tendency or setup of what at least men and many women are attracted to. A lot of lesbians appear to be biologically set up to be this way.

Behavior is who you have sex with, which usually lines up fairly well but sometimes not completely with orientation.

It’s well known that when women are not around, straight men (men who are attracted to women only and men not at all) will have sex with men.

Many lesbians who have little or no attraction to men nevertheless have sex with them, often quite a bit of sex. Note how many prostitutes are lesbians.

Many straight women will have sex with other women in all-female institutions if there are no men around.

The people engaging in this opportunistic homosexuality are often not bisexual; instead they are just deprived straights fulfilling their sexual needs with the same sex as the opposite sex is not available.

The only men who are bisexual are those are who attracted to both sexes.

We also get into how people identify, which is important. I know women who have sex with men and women but identify as straight, as they only have relationships with men. I know a woman who identifies as lesbian though she has sex with men too because she can only fall in love with a woman. This woman was a 25-75, which normally should mean lesbian-leaning bisexual, but she defined herself as lesbian.

Many men are 90-10’s or 80-20’s (very straight leaning bisexuals), but as they have no interest in and refuse to act on their male interest, they identify as straight, which is reasonable. Many women who define themselves as straight to me tell me that they have some lesbian interest but refuse or choose not to act on it.

The GLBTQWTF SJW’s have been wildly antiscientific about sexual orientation since forever. You almost never read anything truthful, factual, or scientific about sexual orientation in the popular press and increasing even in academic journals. That is because the debate has been taken over by GLBTQWTF SJW’s who have twisted all the science into propaganda and lies for their nonheterosexual orientations.

There are very few clinicians or scholars who are doing actual scientific work in sexual orientation nowadays because GLBTQWTF SJW’s are utterly hostile to even having science look at the question.

Joe Kort is a gay psychologist. He is one of the few humans in the US who is actually doing real work on sexual orientation. He has written a book called Straight Guise about straight men who have sex with men. He lists all the different reasons why they do this.

Kort defines them as straight because they are not attracted to men or men’s bodies.

Alt Left: Putting "Transsexual" Minors on Hormones Boils Down to Child Abuse

70% of “trans” minors grow out of it by age 18. I know a man who tried to transition as a teenager. Then he went back. He now has some permanent physical damage and deformation to his body (3 inches too short for instance) due to his normal development as boy getting hijacked by powerful hormones. He calls his trans phase a delusion (which it is), and he’s deeply depressed, even suicidal. Oh, and he’s also incel. And consequently he’s really pissed off on top of the suicidality and self-hate.
Giving these “trans” kids those insane hormones boils down to child abuse.

Radfems and MRA's: Two Peas in a Pod

Noting that radfems reject the strong science proving the reality of biological gender, the fact is that radfems anti-science. So like the reactionaries in that way…must be horseshoe theory again.
Radfems are some of the most extreme ideologues out there. I see absolutely zero difference between radfems and the MRA’s, PUA’s, incels, and MGTOW’s. Radfems the other side of the mirror, that’s all. Radfems hate men like MRA’s hate women. Both screech that they are constantly under attack by the other gender. They both claim that their gender suffers from horrific oppression. They both propose extreme solutions to deal with the enemy, which happens to be the other gender.
Both deny that there are any good people of the other gender. And it appears that they both hate science when it gets in the way of their precious ideology. They’re both frighteningly angry all the time, but MRA’s anger is more dangerous because male anger is more physical. They both center your entire existence and the entire universe around the notion of gender. They both claim their own gender is an oppressed class. They both refuse to make allies with the other gender.
They both claim that the other gender does not suffer or that their suffering merits no importance. Both claim the other side has it easy and is not oppressed. Many of both seek to live lives as separately from the other gender as possible. They are both wildly ideological, with lists of 100’s of positions that every one in the movement must check one, and if even one checkmark is missed, that person is declared on the side of the enemy and is thrown out of movement. Ideological diversity is nonexistent in either movement. Neither group believes in the existence of nuance.
Both groups are examples of extreme solipsism – the whole universe is about them – their own bodies, that is, their gender. Both claim to be engaged in informed searches for the truth, but they are too weighted down with dogma to do that. Both lionize some of the worst haters around. Schopenhauer is Mary Daly. Nietzsche is Julie Bindel. Elliot Rodgers is Valerie Solanis.
Misandrists and misogynists are the same thing. Both groups are forms of Identity Politics. Radfem is female IP and MRA is male IP. They hate each other, but they are both just different forms of IP and they are much more alike than different.
Most sane people reject both of movements and think they’re both insane, just at different ends of the crazy spectrum. No one likes MRA’s for good reason, and radfems are not popular either. Even normal feminism is not popular. Only 14% women say they are feminists, though equal rights is a reasonable concept. This is because though equal rights is great, most feminists are fanatics, and their views do not line up with that of the average woman because feminist views are extremist.

Gender Is Biological and Given, Not Social and Constructed

The view of radical feminism and in fact all of feminism is that gender is socially constructed. From a radical feminist or radfem website:

There is no such thing as biological gender! Seriously dude, do you even know what radfem is? From your comments here you seem to think we are a bunch of sexless, genderless, manhating, violent women.
Sex is biological. We are born either male or female (with a small percentage intersex).
Gender is a social construct with attributable stereotypical traits, behaviours and presentation.
Please educate yourself on the basics.

All you have to do is wander around the planet a bit for while with your ears and eyes open to realize that that’s not true. Recent advances in neurology indicate that there are vast differences in male and female brains in terms of the number of structures effected, which typically differ in size, shape, etc.
Look also at the experiences of transwomen,  men who became women. On female hormones, their behavior and  thinking changed radically and even their entire view of the world became radically  different.
Some transwoman’s on those hormones have reported changes in emotionality and even entire worldview. I realize radfems reject biological gender, but these reports are very interesting. One transwoman was a very masculine, almost stoical, hard-type man. On the hormones, he reported that he was wildly emotional, all over the place all the time, and frequently out of sorts via being confused by all this mercurial emotionality. And this guy was John Wayne before. I figure the pills caused the changes. And one more thing, radfems will hate this too – he said he started giggling. A lot. Not sure if I have ever seen a man giggle.
Another transwoman was on the Reddit Redpill MRA group (I know you hate them but I read everywhere). He reported that on the hormones, the world felt very frightening and confusing and he has a strong sense of weakness and wanting to be protected, specifically by a strong, powerful figure. He also become quite emotional, often for little reason. He noticed that his “cis” boyfriend pretty much ignored the emotionality and this transwoman felt that men often ignored a lot of women’s emotionality because a lot of it was not based on much and its too tiring to respond to weathervanes all day.
I know feminists don’t believe any of this stuff, but those pills are very powerful and surely hormones can have some psychological effects? Isn’t this obvious evidence that gender is biological? Give a men female hormones and his behaviors, emotions, thinking and even epistemology change dramatically in ways that remarkably resemble stereotypical female behavior. How can feminists explain this away?
.

Why Do Many Geniuses Have a Large Forehead?

You mean people with genius IQ’s over 140? I am not sure about those with 140–160 IQ’s. Their heads are surely larger than average, but whether you would notice it or not is dubious.
But quite a few super geniuses with IQ’s of 160–200 have extremely large heads. Christopher Langan had to special order a motorcycle helmet made specifically for him because his head was so big. The manufacturer told him that only 1 out of every 3.3 million people had a head as big as his. He has some videos on Youtube. If you look closely at him, you might notice that one thing that is remarkable about him is that he does indeed have a huge head.
This is where the term “egghead” comes from. If you get a chance, look up an old photo of the team that worked at the Manhattan Project to make the nuclear bomb at White Sands, New Mexico. There are 30-40 men in that photo. Look closely at them, and you will see that most of them have pretty big heads. In particular, look at how big their foreheads are. The larger forehead on very bright men gave an egg-shaped appearance to their skulls, which gave rise to the phrase.

Shouldn't One's Confidence in Their Intelligence Validate Itself, Since Intelligence Is Defined in Some Spheres as the 'Ability to Discern Similarities & Differences?'

Answered on Quora.
Well, I am supposed to have a genius IQ, but even I cannot understand what the person asking this question is trying to say.
First of all, if critical thinking is anything, it is intelligence.
Intelligence, more than anything else, is pure brain speed. And in fact, that is exactly what an IQ test tests for.
Let us say that I have a higher IQ than someone else. Mine is 147. The other person’s is 120, almost a full two SD’s below me. For some people around this level, I seem smarter than they are, but on the other hand, they are no dummies. We can communicate very well. It’s the difference between a smart person and a really smart person, which doesn’t boil down to a whole lot in the real world.
For others at ~120, I hate to say it, but I simply cannot see how I am smarter than they are, even at a near full two SD difference. Now why this is, I am not sure, but maybe we are comparing smart with very smart, and it’s hard to see a difference there.
Nevertheless, according to an IQ test, comparing me to the 120 IQ person:

  • I have a faster brain.
  • I have a better and bigger memory. I can remember more stuff and keep it around better.
  • My memory recall is faster and more accurate. I can pull stored knowledge out of my brain faster and more correctly.
  • I have better verbal and nonverbal analytical skills. I am better at “seeing the whole picture” and “tying it all together.”
  • I can analyze a problem in terms of vocabulary and make sense out it and see patterns and connect them together better and perhaps faster.
  • I can see patterns in objects in space and connect them up more faster and more accurately.
  • I can find the answer to a new problem that I have never seen before faster and more accurately.
  • My critical thinking skills work faster and more accurately.

Bottom line is simply that I have a faster brain. My brain also utilizes glucose better and faster. In addition, my brain itself may well be larger, and I may have more cells and especially connections.
I may not be more creative, and I may well have worse musical or artistic skills. These are all subtypes of intelligence.
My kinetic intelligence may well be worse. This is “physical intelligence.” It is a real thing. The best athletes actually have “intelligent bodies.” They are better and faster at moving their bodies the way they want them to than I am.
I may have worse social intelligence. Social intelligence is a very real thing. It is definitely a type of intelligence.
I may have worse street smarts, or crafty, foxy, sly, clever, or sneaky type intelligence. This “smart like a fox” intelligence is a very real thing, and it is a type of intelligence.
I may not be as wise. In fact, I may have little or no wisdom at all, and I may live my live in a completely idiotic or para-suicidal manner. Wisdom indeed is a type of intelligence.
I may well have worse mechanical skills. Mechanical skills are absolutely a type of intelligence.
I may have poor skills at higher mathematics. IQ tests only test low level mathematics. Quite a few very high IQ people barely got through high school math and struggled with Algebra 2 and Geometry, including me.

  • An IQ test does not test for artistic, musical, or creative intelligence. Not at all.
  • An IQ test does not test for kinetic intelligence of course. You would test that on a playing field of some sort.
  • An IQ test absolutely does not test social intelligence at all. You test that out in the real world with real people, and they will be the judges of your social intelligence, not you.
  • An IQ test does not test crafty, sly, or street smart intelligence. Street smart people will judge you on that on their own, and they will always be right.
  • An IQ test is absolutely not a wisdom test! So many people cannot seem to figure this out as they constantly conflate raw intelligence and wisdom. They are two different things.
  • An IQ test does not test mechanical intelligence at all.
  • An IQ test absolutely does not test for higher math skills at all.

I hope this clarifies for people exactly what an IQ test checks for and how indeed it leaves out a number sub-intelligences which may well be very important for you and society.

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn't Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.
It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!
Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.
Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.
Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!
So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.
You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.
A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.
In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.
Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.
Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.
To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.
Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.
This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

Can a Person Have Above Average IQ 125-135 SD=15 and Still Be a Slow Thinker?

Answered on Quora.
That would not make sense at all.
IQ more than anything else (at least fluid IQ) is a test of raw, pure, brain speed and efficiency. Studies have found that as IQ rises, the brain works more efficiently.
If you have spent time around bright people, one of the most striking things about them is how lightning fast they are. This can be seen even in conversation. Have you ever met people so fast that they almost finish your sentences for you. You get halfway through the sentence, and they are already reacting to the sentence because they have actually predicted what the rest of the sentence is! That’s pretty damn smart.
Some very bright people have fast moving eyes. If you watch them when they talk, you see their eyes flitting all around very rapidly. Sometimes there are also a lot of micromovements with their faces.
In fact, I think I can see this even comparing a 110–115 IQ person to a 95–100 IQ person (I am guessing at their IQ’s). The latter are noticeably slower, and the former are often strikingly fast. The slower people are often very nice and pleasant, but they’re just not as fast. You have to admit it.