This does not compel even the most hard-hearted neo-reactionary to suggest...

" I submit that Progress is the advance–and as everyone presumably hopes, the ascendancy–of freedom over domination, which clearly cannot be conceptually frozen in an ahistorical eternity, given the growing awareness of both hopes and oppressions that have come to light in only a few recent generations. Progress also appears in the overall improvement, however ambiguous, of humanity's material conditions of life, the emergence of a rational ethics, with enlightened standards of sensibility and conduct, out of unreflexive custom and theistic morality, and social institutions that foster continual self-development and cooperation." - Bookchin

Land is a xeno philosopher, and as such their crudely reductionist in their approach to Being. Being, objectively, is Becoming, in that it is both an actuality and a potentiality.

this is unfounded subjective nonsense, sure you can subtly fuck people over with gibsmedats but theres a smart syncretic way to do it as well, it just takes foresight wisdom and actual good intentions which are all basically nonexistant in present power structures

the answer is and always has been dirigism, and in terms of "subsidies" be they economic or social it still needs to be a fuckin mutually beneficial transaction

we are fuckin ourselves here, if we dont get our shit together and start putting bankers up against the wall we are going to die on this rock and the universe will eventually die with us

You're basically quoting a quick summary of left Hegelianism that does not particularly apply at all, unless you're simply demanding a shift to dialectical thinking, which you're leaving unjustified anyways.

This is so ambiguous it fails to be meaningful or testable.

By that manner, the fact that Russia has more drug abusers than Norway proves that a lack of a welfare state causes fun. It also means that it produces lower Autism Level's, since the Russian Autism Level is lower than the Norwegian one. All of this assuming the validity of Autism Level as a standard of measurement.

You position a claim as broad as it can be and then ask me for the exact nature of the care and assistance provided in welfare states that Russia does not provide, this is distraction.

Welcome.

There are a plethora of variables separating Russia from Norway, and the two countries are not only separated by economic and drug policy.

God no. Singapore has a higher intelligence quotient than Norway, and that probably has little to do with their having a more conservative economic system. There's substantial biological diversity here, and comrade Stalin wiped out the majority of Russia's intellectuals in the first of the 20th century, likely having a significant dysgenic impact.

Wait, you just meant welfare? I thought you meant more specific drug programs. This is just retarded then. Singapore has fewer drug related offenses then Norway, that is not because it isn't a welfare state.

no it isnt you autistic thickheaded tribalistic theorytard zulu nigger, im telling you to pull your head out of your ass and think a little bigger than sterilizing the fucking wretched, you probably are a member of the wretched, the "people" that push this kind of shit are the people that set up georgia guidestones and build bunkers in new zealand, anything coming from the hobbes camp is twofaced lies and machinations from incestious anglo scum that is desperate to mantain its stranglehold on geopol and global finance, they are constantly babbling about how everything is doomed and how we all need to tighten up our fucking belts and make sacrifices for the good of all(of them)

shit is fucked but shit has still gotten better, anyone claiming otherwise is a delusional alienated former marxist that cant handle his fucking amphetamines

humanity is basically a gigantic supercomputer/meshnet where the majority of nodes are fucking broken, sometimes irreparably. the trick is figuring out how to get as many of them working again or at least not actively damaging other nodes while minimizing future breakage so that we can keep up with the exponential curve and get our shit together before we get wafflestomped by a fucking space rock

sounds like you're done for

t. Adam Smith, noted SJW

Just like there are a plethora of variables that aren't taken into consideration in your behaviorist theory.

It probably has a lot to do with Singapore having an education system focused on cramming kids for the sort of stuff that appears on I.Q-tests, while already having a base of higher I.Q people.

Regardless, this all acts from the assumption that I.Q is a useful measurement of intelligence, something you haven't substantiated yet.

I meant both, they go hand in hand.

Singapore proves that all the wealth and the I.Q in the world doesn't produce a place worth living for those who desire more than a consumerist hive mind, I'd rather live in Swaziland.

its a little bit of nature, but its mainly nurture.

Anybody that has actually lived in different places knows this

That image warms my heart and I don't know why

t. typical neoreactionary

Should be a whole lot more concerned with why smart high-achievers aren't having children than with poors breeding.

This. I don't accept the premises of your argument, but when your "intelligent women" no longer need to choose between having a family and a career, the problem as you formulate it ceases to exist.

Yes, that's the point.

Believing the Autism Level mememe

Malthus just can't stop possessing the minds of some people, fucker should have died centuries ago.

I think it could be due to women generally wanting their partner to earn more than they do. If you're a career woman, it's hard to find a man that earns more than you. The time management is also an issue.

There was a paper not too long ago documenting the effects of outsourcing of factory jobs on marriages and stuff, basically The Bad Shit increased when factory jobs, typically worked by men, were outsourced. So it could be that decreasing male earnings made the men in the area less appealing marriage partners. This sounds like a typical MRA argument, but it could be true.

So it is a feminist issue of gender roles/stereotypes?

Probably some combination of that and biology, women are biologically wired to want a mate that can provide for them since they're physically weaker. I don't know if this trend applies worldwide but it seems to hold in advanced economies at least.

women not wanting your obese poorfag ass is obviously a feminist issue

chad is the patriarchy

yes, thats why I repeated it minus your rope-a-dope snark:^)

its a very useful "ideology" when you are running shit thats for sure, get people to act against their own interests. Malthus is also probably a much better reference point than hobbes

I see this shit in so many different flavors and it makes me genuinely angry, its so shortsighted, and its probably the one case where telling someone to fucking kill themselves is a legitimate argument

have you considered killing yourself?

be the solution, suck on a tailpipe

you probably get the point

spooky assumption there

Hardly.

In economies where physical prowess is the least relevant economically it makes the biggest difference in mate selection? Seems counterintuitive.

Despite popular belief all questions of gender norms or stereotypes are feminist issues. MRAs are feminists, as they take a gendered view of specific social issues. I don't claim to be a casanova of any kind but I do alright for myself in the young adult academic dating circles. Also pls use shitpost flag when shitposting, makes it funnier.

Despite the motte and bailey tactic, it doesn't.

Is this where the claim that islam is a feminist religion comes from?

If you want to claim another definition for the word 'feminist', now's the time to do so.

Most people don't matter to any standard of progress and never will, especially when robots and soft AIs push the vast majority out of work.

You're feelfagging.

Why would I trust this man over more recent, replicable scientific study?

Monogamy + women not working is pretty damn near traditional patriarchy, which would do a lot to eliminate the flat out dysgenic trend but probably not wholly solve the problem.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160289688900165
academic.oup.com/cercor/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/cercor/bhl125
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341500250X
Intelligence testing has a positive correlation with brain volume, grey matter size, and neural efficiency.

It has a substantial positive correlation with income, achievement in several academic fields and professions, educational success, and a negative correlation with crime.

It's a significant degree of each.

The only thing worse than a humanitarian Malthusian experiment is one in an unbounded petri dish.

There is no ultimate definition of feminist because what feminism is follows from what feminists say and do.

This is word thinking.

Not surprising since retards generally have low I.Q's. If we take this correlation to substantiate the standard, we could just as well make a test about knowledge of literature, and we will see the same correlation.

Retards are defined by low I.Q.s, and without a murmur about injustice.

Even if you exclude retards from study the correlation holds. It maintains even when comparing the intelligence quotient of different races.

Knowledge of literature would almost certainly have a strong, positive correlation with I.Q., I'm not sure what your point is.

you don't really get it do you. theres a concept of a general factor of intelligence. factor, as in a number that you can pull out of a bunch of numbers. eg: numbers representing how one does on a specific test. the whole point of intelligence testing is that thousands of these different little tests all positively correlate, so you can pull out a general factor.

And it goes further, with this general factor also positively correlating with health, good looks, height, financial success. It looks more and more like a general factor of eugenic quality, not just intelligence.

Welfare is indeed shit, which is why we should abolish the capitalist system that necessitates it, an argument that most reactionaries fail to respond to with more than the vague assumption that Austrian economics are correct.

How about we actually care about definitions of words, instead of making stupid claims like that.
Feminism at its broadest is to take a gendered view on a (social) issue. This is how we capture both academic feminism (ie. the historical, comparative study of married women in the feudal classes) and androphobic lesbian utopianists under a single term.

The correlation shakes when people whom you can have a perfectly normal conversation with can have an I.Q of 70 while a chrischan tier autist can have one of 120. It also priorities skills on which there is more emphasis on in different cultures, making it more of a skill test than one of intelligence.

My point is that factors you mention that correlate with I.Q do just as well correlate with many other test forms. That these correlate with I.Q is exactly my point, the correlation isn't specific to I.Q.

This entire argument is pointless because general intelligence is unrelated to partially hereditary personality traits that can potentially make someone a detriment to society. Smart bad people are simply more efficient at being leeches, i.e. white collar crime and managing organized crime instead of doing the wet work.

I might if you can refute Wittgenstein and explain to me how meaning does not follow from use.

ISIS is feminist then?

It does follow from use, just not your use. A word cannot have multiple mutually exclusive definitions.

You claim it follows from principle, from definition.

It can, I define a porcupine as an orange fruit, my friend defines it as a kind of sea otter, there you have it.

Theories of human genetic decline are completely unsubstantiated and tend to be based on personal values rather than evolutionary biology. And even if we assume they are correct, attempts at resolving them scientifically do not factor in race as much as they generally endorse authoritarian government for all people. As in, you would not get a free ride while the untermensch suffer for their original sin.

The fact that intelligence scores have been rising for a century either means the opposite is happening, or intelligence testing is meaningless.

Of course you fucking can, that doesn't mean you should. You are basically admitting that you do not want to have a meaningful discussion of any kind, but will still likely sperg out when people disagree with your opinions.

Pop-evo psych was a mistake.

No, I mean, I don't know anything about non-advanced countries so I couldn't tell you if they differed culturally in that way. It's presumably a holdover from before industrialization.

If you consider your theory of language as a perquisite for discussion, then that might be your conclusion if you consider my argument against this as done as a trolling attempt.

Words do not have ultimate definitions, because words do not gain their meaning from other words, try to define how the colour yellow looks as an example of this.

Cupidity and exploitativeness may be considered, on separate merits, negative traits, but the ability to pursue your interests and accomplish things is, as long as humans are not assumed universally evil, uncontroversially positive. If you care a lot, you could eliminate the hereditary part of those other partially hereditary traits and make people more intelligent. Intelligence has a lot (or everything) to do with why most of us put humans above chimps.

Read the prior article about fertility and intelligence (>>1472175). They address nearly everything you say.

If the solution is an authoritarian government, then there you go.

People are not valuable merely on the basis of adept in conversation. The ability to learn, which Autism Level tests are designed to measure, is crucial to most things I, and probably you, consider valuable about human beings. A world filled with the most vapid retards on Instagram may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned.

Which kind of shithole do you want to live in where it's necessary to run quickly to survive? Be realistic about the kind of culture you would care to be a part in.

I.Q attempts to measure those correlations in a way that's, ideally, neutral to cultural background and upbringing, and measures raw retention and computational ability. The fact that raw retention and computational ability scale well with knowing things generally does not mean that they're bad- in fact it means the opposite.

Jesus what a dummy.

We are only asking you to argue on clear terms. It's not unreasonable.

You'd be fighting against capitalism by preventing women from working, since capitalists want to expand the size of the labor force and the government wants to expand the size of the tax base.

It's also a waste of human capital. It'd be better to just pay smart people to have children, or even pay them to donate eggs/sperm. Parental investment statistically has little to do with children's outcomes after all.

Does ISIS take a gendered point of view on something? I thought they were more into religious/traditionalist perspectives.

This. What I propose is that if there isn't a working definition for feminism we make one, generally or for the purposes of the conversation. Wittgensteinian wankery isn't a reason to obfuscate.

Neither are they merely valuable on the concept of I.Q. Again, the same might be said about a test on knowledge of literature, those who do well on it would also generally do well in their learning. If I.Q is a valid standard for intelligence on those grounds, many other tests would be valid as well, and we'd have to conclude that intelligence can be measured by literary knowledge.

Hey, it's your oyster..

I like the irony in the preferred place of reactionaries being one of neutered domestication, exactly the comfort that is supposed to bring us sodom and gomorra with nature filling in the role of god.

It isn't neutral to cultural background and upbringing, and even if it were, there's still the problem of a myriad of other standards and test fitting the correlations as well.

Can you define this for me in a way that does not rely on it's opposite, being reasonable?

Religious perspectives are gendered.

That you had to reach that far to intentionally misrepresent my argument is telling.

I am not debating the concept of human intelligence, I am contending the notion that I Q and genetics reinforce reactionary political values, which, as usual, are also founded on random unbacked assertions that they think the sheeple won't question. Human biology is flawed in many different ways because nature is stupid and lazy. The day a perfect person exists is the day it's brought out of a lab.

I am aware of this supposed hereditary link and it is part of the same dysgenic theories I had called retarded before. It's nothing but two correlating variables with no proven causation and multiple well-backed alternative explanations for their relation. The Woodley articles are especially retarded because they basically try to measure intelligence scores without I Q and only point out variables that happen to correlate with it separately, which means their entire argument conflicts with direct measurements of intelligence.
You would basically have to argue that the Flynn effect is so strong that it can cause extreme gains in intelligence that compensate for losses in genotypic I Q, which are incredibly unlikely.

this pretty much
/thread

What are the two variables here? I'd like to know exactly what you mean before I type very much.

In a way yes, so to improve the explanatory power of the definition we have to adjust it.

In this sense, gender is never the defining aspect, that would be ideology.