As I was getting ready to post this article the other day, I chanced upon someone over at JihadWatch who was quoting an older article which was arguing the exact opposite, so I figured I'd use it as a foil against which to sharpen up my own thesis. Simply put, Charlton's hypothesis is that there's an inverse correlation between intelligence and wisdom - the more intelligent people become, the less wise or smart.
Elsewhere, he summarizes his thesis as:
"Atheism, socialism, low fertility are aspects of a psychological pathology which was a by-product of rapid evolution of high intelligence. (Naturally, these are products of some underlying disorder which would be expressed differently in different environments; and naturally a.s.lf are quantitative amplifications of pre-existing traits - they are not completely new traits. Rapid adaptation can only amplify what already exists.)"
Of course this presumption is dead wrong. Adaptation (i.e: mutation - whether 'rapid' or not) can most certainly, and often does, add completely new traits to existing organisms.
Now, while of course having a greater intelligence could lead people to actually think more slowly than their less "intelligence-impaired" brethren (because they have more facts to sort through before arriving at their conclusions) it isn't likely to impact those conclusions' veracities, as their increased scope of awareness would also lead them to envision a wider and more varied range of possible scenarios and causes effecting the likely outcomes, too.
Let's define terms:
Intelligence is speed of thought and memory; while smarts (previously known as ‘wisdom’) is how one uses it.
Elsewhere, he summarizes his thesis as:
"Atheism, socialism, low fertility are aspects of a psychological pathology which was a by-product of rapid evolution of high intelligence. (Naturally, these are products of some underlying disorder which would be expressed differently in different environments; and naturally a.s.lf are quantitative amplifications of pre-existing traits - they are not completely new traits. Rapid adaptation can only amplify what already exists.)"
Of course this presumption is dead wrong. Adaptation (i.e: mutation - whether 'rapid' or not) can most certainly, and often does, add completely new traits to existing organisms.
Now, while of course having a greater intelligence could lead people to actually think more slowly than their less "intelligence-impaired" brethren (because they have more facts to sort through before arriving at their conclusions) it isn't likely to impact those conclusions' veracities, as their increased scope of awareness would also lead them to envision a wider and more varied range of possible scenarios and causes effecting the likely outcomes, too.
Let's define terms:
Intelligence is speed of thought and memory; while smarts (previously known as ‘wisdom’) is how one uses it.
Thus one can be slow ("unintelligent") and wise, ("smart; never attacking innocent others first") like the old Indian shaman stereotype, or fast (intelligent) and dumb (unwise), where one is able to do dumb things faster and more accurately - like quickly and efficiently attacking both others and therefore also one's self first, by say rapidly running one's head straight into a brick wall at the precise point one had intended to do so.
Liberals are especially prone to the latter, in acting on 'instinct' (emotion) they are apt to assert "We must do what the violent criminals want, or else they'll do what they want to us anyway!" These knee-jerk reactions give the false appearance of liberals 'thinking' faster than the more considerate conservatives, as if automatic, masochistic and treasonous Submission to the fear of pain were an intelligent habit to cultivate, but in the end it really only proves them to have always been the real 'reactionaries!'
"If it isn't broken, and we don't attack first and rush in to "fix" (break) it, then some other fools will surely beat us to it! Whee!"
The second they imagine an immoral, scary bad idea, they will submit to 'ethically' compromising with it.
This leads them to always accidentally "fail upwards," as, in refusing to solve problems, the exponential symptoms of their perpetual crimes of negligence cause the creation of endless crises for them to then exploitively, lucratively manage, as "there's no money in solutions!"
Humans can only multitask, on average, from between five and seven processes or variables at once (picture people juggling six balls - add the seventh and they are likely to drop them all at once, in frustration). So, while the less intelligent can juggle less balls, the ones they can still juggle aren't juggled with any less focus than used by those who can juggle more balls; becoming more easily frustrated really only demonstrates a lack of memory capacity, not the instinctive reactions of a noble savage, much as liberals might prefer it to be. Less intelligent people are not the oppressed victims of the more intelligent.
However, it must also be noted that the more of one's available perception slots is already taken up by prejudicial, biased and so, idolatrous pre-conceptions, the less intelligent (and so also, the less smart) one is able to be. This is why all "dumb" criminals (i.e: "liberals" and "muslims") get frustrated so easily when their glib fantasies hit the metaphoric wall of reality.
Thus the true fault and differences between the two approaches to the dynamics of life must obviously lie in the software, (training/education) not the hardware (genetic intelligence), as was erroneously proposed by Bruce G. Charlton. Charlton seems to think the stereotypical and habitual pedantry of supposed geniuses (picture the typical socially-inept, absent-minded or control-crazed Dilbert-like "engineer," harping on minutae, in stead of seeing the big picture) is caused by something genetic, in stead of having always been a choice to avoid being seen as wrong. Most people - even 'geniuses' - will react to the perception of being attacked, by instinctively counter-attacking, in stead of adopting a more detatched, objective approach to achieve a mutual, symbiotic and collaborative attempt at problem solving. The blast of defensive facts one can expect to see spewed forth from a startled academic is simply their shotgun-like defensive cover of monkey-feces, giving them more time to think.
And the format of these habitual choices are all driven, these days, by the “info-tainment” sales industry and advertising, which encourage people to react with slander in stead of to collaborate:
It’s a monkey-see, monkey-do process, foisted on our kids by the corporate advertising salesmen who always advertise fear in order to sell us the greedy hope of relief from their own initial threats – all it really is, is the same, ages-old stick and carrot, fear and greed behavioural conditioning binary at work.
They “teach” (abuse) our children with the libertine’s divide and conquer notion that they can have pleasure without pain, hope without fear, and rights without responsibilities – in fact, they ‘teach’ them every alibi excuse under the sun to pretend to have a false right to remain irresponsibly wrong, while also avoiding their own responsibility to become right by offloading it onto their victims by slanderously blaming them first. It’s a criminal’s kleptocracy.
These same behind-the-scenes corporazi oil-bankster sales-masters who own all the political parties' sell-out sales-puppet "politicians," want to keep the populace controlled:
"Evil isn't evil because we all do it too! Whee!" Kids are taught "Group-might makes rights."
;-(
What sane people call “the slippery slope,” liberals call “progress!”
And it’s no more than victim-blaming EXTORTION – aka coercion, duress, intimidation, bullying, harrassment, activist agitation, and of course, “terrorism” – criminality, exactly like in islam.
Kids today are actually being trained to become vapidly inane, shallow and contentious trolls, by watching TV; I’ve just stated why this is, and here’s exactly how:
Actors are lying fakers, and are reading from scripted responses, so their "Heroic" TV and film characters' patter is always immediate and enlightened; in order to fit into their given time-slot and to advance the "narrative," (story,) so, even when they seem to consider an option, at most it's portrayed as “Hm!” – an immediate, considered response. And even when a character is scripted as insane or mistake-prone, he or she is a foil for the others who are instantly able to accurately appraise and devise plans to correctly counter their errors. And the narratives also reflect these liberal prejudices, (for instance all white men are clueless doofuses, and all blacks are clever, amusing and good-natured yet still oppressed, with such backwards racist and nonsensical victimology stereotypes being 'proven' by the scripted witty and glib banter being thrown back and forth by the characters). In aid of such tropes, the most vapidly inane, stock responses are often celebrated by them as the most to be desired - witty stupidity is presented as the height of intelligent discourse, with all the trappings of social approval (usually a canned laugh-track) to train our children in their corporate sales-master sponsors' preferred Pavlovian responses.
Thus our children are being trained to believe they too must instantly present a response – ANY glib response – as quickly as possible, and also that any response at all is all that is required.
Thus our children are being trained to believe they too must instantly present a response – ANY glib response – as quickly as possible, and also that any response at all is all that is required.
So if and when a feral millennial responds with “I know you are but what am I!?” it’s held as good enough among their peers; because, as AN answer was given, it qualifies as a valid response.
They have been taught (abused) to react, trying to fight "fire" (fear and pain) with more of the same, creating a "pre-emptively defensive," static fact-proof and habitual mind-shield to pre-empt other peoples' "inevitable" attacks. And they always have to have The Last Word.
"They think in situations where they are supposed to feel."
And what are they supposed to 'feel?' That everyone has a right to not be offended or have one's subjective feelings and opinions hurt by the often-painful, objectively factual Truth.
Emotive liberals say "Bonds are formed between people based on empathy, not on laws!"
But "altruism" and "empathy" are really only synonyms for masochism - the desire to cancel other people's natural fear and greed, by making THEM feel safe and happy, respectively!
;-)
In this case, empathy is a temporary masochism, a hope of solving a problem - BUT it can become a bad habit, self-enslaving in order to feel morally superior, when it isn't reciprocated.
If you try to cancel my fears by making me feel safe, and to cancel my greed by making me feel happy, BUT I don't want to do the same for you, because I'm evil and my chosen way of feeling safe is to make you feel unsafe and defensive, off-balance, and my way of making me feel happy is to make you feel unhappy, then for you to keep trying to make me feel safe & happy would be a mistake on your part, because it would be only a choice to self-enslave your self to me, in order to feel morally superior: "If and when I CHOOSE to agree to let you assert that you're better than me, then it's all your fault, and, since it's all your fault, then none of it's my fault, so I'm still better than you! Whee!" This nonsense is what is generally known as "The Moral High Ground."
Evil people do that, and cowardly masochists go along with it, because slaves need a master to blame for their own choices. After all, if "With great power comes great responsibility," then it's equally true that "With no power comes no responsibility! Whee!"
Being falsely polite, considerate and tolerant is not only a great way to avoid offending anyone, it's also a great way to avoid defending anyone else from other bullies' slanders.
Good people try to neutralize your potential threat to them, by making you feel safe and happy. Evil people try to fight fire with more fire. It's a shallow, knee-jerk reaction, and it doesn't matter if their supposed "attacker" is telling the truth in self-defense, because the idolater's reaction is always habitual victim-blaming slander, not dependent on any facts.
That's why these days, when presented with unfamiliar facts, TROLLS can be guaranteed to rudely LIE to refute them (in stead of, say, simply asserting "I find that hard to believe!" and/or asking one to "Prove it?!") - they will say "NO IT ISN'T!" or "NO IT DOESN'T!" and then dig themselves in ever deeper to bolster their initial reaction with rationalizations by doubling down on their LIES.
(Presenting one's entirely fact-free, subjective opinion AS an objective fact, is to lie).
And the justification is slander: that they have to lie, "because everyone else is lying to them, too!" They are abused by our "education system" to remain stuck in denial of reality.
(Presenting one's entirely fact-free, subjective opinion AS an objective fact, is to lie).
And the justification is slander: that they have to lie, "because everyone else is lying to them, too!" They are abused by our "education system" to remain stuck in denial of reality.
That's the problem with what passes for online public social media "discourse" these days - it's an endless war of conflicting opinions, presented as facts! In order to not "lose the argument" an instant response, however wrong, is required:
"Gotcha" politics and one-upmanship are the TROLL's hallmarks. Their favorite immorally relativist reaction is the critical thinking logical fallacy known as the Argumentum Tu Quoque:
"It's not an evil crime because we (i.e: you) all do or did it, too! Whee!"
As if by merely comparing two unrelated wrongs, could somehow magically turn one of them into a right.
Nobody seems to have ever bothered to teach these feral trolls that lying is the most basic form of theft - it's the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth. Since all crimes are forms of theft, lying ("fraud") is a crime, and all such criminally libertine "liberals" are really no more than puerile thieves.
The most popular group-might-made-right victim-blaming slanderous extortion these days is the "since you have stuff, you must've stolen it - from me!" meme known as "white privilege."
"Gotcha" politics and one-upmanship are the TROLL's hallmarks. Their favorite immorally relativist reaction is the critical thinking logical fallacy known as the Argumentum Tu Quoque:
"It's not an evil crime because we (i.e: you) all do or did it, too! Whee!"
As if by merely comparing two unrelated wrongs, could somehow magically turn one of them into a right.
Nobody seems to have ever bothered to teach these feral trolls that lying is the most basic form of theft - it's the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth. Since all crimes are forms of theft, lying ("fraud") is a crime, and all such criminally libertine "liberals" are really no more than puerile thieves.
The most popular group-might-made-right victim-blaming slanderous extortion these days is the "since you have stuff, you must've stolen it - from me!" meme known as "white privilege."
Is it even possible to be “glib,” yet always right ('wise')?
As it turns out, YES it is! With training. Recognizing The Golden Rule of Law (as "Do Not Attack First") and it's basis in cause and effect, it's right to self-defense, and to recognize it's lack in others' arguments, is the key to understanding and enabling wisdom in one's life.
;-)
The nitty-gritty today is, as was foretold in the distant past by such luminaries as Isaac Asimov, that:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
In stead of teaching kids how to think for them selves, or even what to think, all the so-called “education system” seems to do these days is teach kids how to not think at all – how to avoid thinking entirely. It thus only indoctrinates them into remaining infantile delinquents, (worse than the juvenile kind) dependent on the nannystate for all direction in their lives. It only ‘teaches’ them (abuses them) to enjoy slavery, to pave their own roads to hell with good intentions, and to look forward to the trip.
They tempt children into believing their lies: that, “Since life is too complex for cause and effect to ever really be understood, all facts are really only opinions, so your fact-free subjective opinions are the diversely opposite equals to those silly conservatives’ objective facts! Whee!”
Abusing kids with these false notions of “entitlement,” (to rights to one's own facts in any and all cases and situations, without any concomitant corollary responsibilities) is a crime.
It also short-circuits the basic learning process, where exposure to unfamiliar ideas only STARTS with denial, but then moves on to acceptance. Again: Liberals insist kids have the false right to remain irresponsibly wrong, to not be “offended” by having their “feelings hurt” by initial exposure to the often-painful Truth.
And to enable such, their proud motto of “And always remember, kids – there’s no wrong answers!” corrupts kids into stopping learning at the point of their initial “But I don’t want to learn it!” reactions, depriving them of both their responsibility and their rights to learn to become self-reliant and responsible adults.
Victimology is irrationality or ‘deranged thinking:’
Criminals (“muslims” and “liberals”) have to pretend to be literally, perceptually de-ranged – to reverse cause-and-effect, or proclaim life is too complex for it to exist at all – in order to present themselves as victims BY blaming their own victims for their criminal desires and actions.
Such proud criminal idolaters pretend rights and responsibilities are unrelated opposites.
But any real sense and perceptual sensation is based on dynamic thought and precise specifics, NOT static preconceived alibi-excuse generalizations (idolatry/nonsense)!
It’s the difference between seeing things as static nouns(Good/Bad) or dynamic verbs (Gain/Risk).
And NO ONE in academia/higher-learning/University/College ever seems to understand this; in fact, their income depends on the exact, criminally negligent, fraudulent opposite, as in: “There’s No Money In Solutions!” – and of course the old standby “Remember, kids! There’s No Wrong Answers! Whee!”
Such Libtards always sound literally retarded simply because they’re always trying to convince the law-abiding, sane people that theft and extortion are good ideas!
;-(
Lying criminal idolaters like to pretend dynamic verbs are static nouns (and ‘verse-vicea’) – for instance, like the ongoing circumstantial and situational process of reasoning is pretended by them to be some sort of standalone entity, once ‘abstracted’ or removed from that same circumstantial, situational context – which they then call ‘Reason.’
As if ‘it’ could exist without any people actually ‘reasoning!’
And let's not forget the criminals' favourite idolatry: "Tolerance!" (towards everything?! Well, it certainly seems like that's what they mean; after all, their "Judge Not - EVER!" interpretation of Christian doctrine means "Go Along" (with criminal lies) "To Get Along" (with all the other lying criminals, too)!
And let's not forget the criminals' favourite idolatry: "Tolerance!" (towards everything?! Well, it certainly seems like that's what they mean; after all, their "Judge Not - EVER!" interpretation of Christian doctrine means "Go Along" (with criminal lies) "To Get Along" (with all the other lying criminals, too)!
The common liberal trope stance today is that not having one’s feelings hurt, trumps risking being offended by the often-painful truth – as if all humans didn’t naturally first react in denial to all new ideas (see Elisabeth Kubler-Ross' five stages of grief denial, and others).
Since they do, it’s not the responsibility or right of any other human to short-circuit their natural learning process – of going from fear to hope – by retarding them or allowing them to retard them selves by indulging in their first instinctive response:
“But I don’t want to learn that!”
PC is both fraud (crime) and extortion - pretending that, either you lie along with the majority, or you'll be replaced with a better liar by that same majority; group might makes right! Exact same as communazism.
It extorts people to "Go Along" (with criminal lies) "To Get Along" (with criminal liars).
Unfortunately, this is exactly what the corrupt traitors in today’s so-called education system are abusing the children in their charge with, by dint of tempting kids with it:
“Remember, kids – there’s no wrong answers! Whee!”
Their next step is inevitably to assert it’s “unfair!” that other people learn to do things better than they can do them, and to then also insist those others be prevented from learning, too!
Liberal “educators” say it’s perfectly fine for students to hate learning new things, but then want to make ‘hate’ illegal too!
ALL “Academic” and “discipline” fields of education are nothing more or less than basic Idolatries:
Beyond the leftists’ group-rights, fear-avoiding idolatry and politics, what universities and colleges most abuse people with is in describing dynamic, human-driven processes, (habits) by the use of static nouns, as static, immutable objects. c.f: “Economics;” “Politics;” “Psychology;” etc – as if these things, like “Reason,” “Freedom,” etc actually existed as real things abstracted outside their only real circumstantial situational contexts of being nothing more than human actions and chosen activities.
i.e: “Freedom” TO – what? “Freedom” – FROM what?!
Again: there is no such thing as the generalized, false concept of “Reason,” beyond some real live individual human people in different situational circumstances, doing some very specific reasonING.
In other words, they are idealized as static excuses, which “make” humans do things; as predetermining causes, not as the mere effects which they always, in fact, really are.
To “idealize” dynamic processes (into static ideals) by abstracting or removing them from their original situational circumstantial cause-and-effect contexts, is to lie (to commit intellectual & criminal fraud).
;-(
So: PHILIP WYLIE, AUTHOR OF GENERATION OF VIPERS, WAS RIGHT – ONLY PSYCHOLOGY SHOULD BE TAUGHT! (Because, really, that’s all there IS, anyway)!
And psychology is binary – it’s a “hard science,” too, despite all the “soft science” evasions to date! The same old i/o, 1/0 stick/carrot, fear "and" greed behavioural conditioning binary.
What have been described (or more accurately mis-labeled from an evolutionary hardware standpoint,) as the “primary” and “secondary” emotions, are simply the perceptual predictive levels of fear, greed, and hope. (Freud incorrectly, idolatrously anthropomorphosized them as "Id, Ego, and Superego.") As such, Freud pretended the three static states of perceived emotional matter were dynamic personas, as did Carl Jung with his "archetypes," and both did so in a way similar to Plato and Aristotle's mistaken "spiritual forms." The historical academic record is ripe with examples of the various faculties of thought 'evolving' from erroneous idolatries.
The more intelligence (speed of thought and memory) an animal has, the ‘deeper’ the levels of it’s emotional perceptions CAN be, but they must be applied to the future, not short-circuited by fear.
Problem is, evil criminals begin with masochism, where they pretend to be able to “control” their natural logical fears, BY causing the very worst-case scenario pains they most fear!
You know that old saying, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!”?
It’s STUPID! And criminal, too!
The real Truth is:
“We have nothing to fear, but (the mistakes and problems which cause the damage which causes) pain itself!”
In a related article, Charlton asked whether or not Christians were smarter or dumber than non-Christians.
"The three big disadvantages of high IQ which I listed were atheism, socialism and low fertility. In a nutshell, I regard the modern high IQ elite member as a relatively recent product of rapid natural selection (some several or many hundreds of years) - of fast adaptation to the powerful selection pressure of a type of agrarian society - and like almost all examples of rapidly evolved adaptations this is achieved at a cost in pathology.
Since we currently live in a society dominated by high IQ atheist, leftists who are uninterested-by and hostile-to marriage, families and children - and since our public discourse is professional and essentially consists of the mass media backed by the systems of law, education and government - we are in the historically and geographically incredible position that ordinary common sense and personal experience have been all-but abolished.
Our world is abstract and theoretical - and this applies not only to the high IQ elite, but pretty much across the board, affecting nearly everybody.
So that Christianity - and traditional, orthodox supernaturalist religion of any kind - now strikes many people as not so much false as merely bizarre and foolish. "
He thus posits that liberal atheists are more intelligent, but, since they refuse to reproduce, they are ultimately "dumber" as well, which shows Charlton agrees with my above definition of terms, even if he hasn't thought it all through and can't actually admit to it yet.
The Bible said: Fearing fear AS pain, and then deciding to attack it BY ignoring it, in stead of listening to and learning from it, is the first lie all criminals tell themselves (AND their victims)! It’s the root cause of all blustering criminally negligent outrages and “sins!”
"The three big disadvantages of high IQ which I listed were atheism, socialism and low fertility. In a nutshell, I regard the modern high IQ elite member as a relatively recent product of rapid natural selection (some several or many hundreds of years) - of fast adaptation to the powerful selection pressure of a type of agrarian society - and like almost all examples of rapidly evolved adaptations this is achieved at a cost in pathology.
Since we currently live in a society dominated by high IQ atheist, leftists who are uninterested-by and hostile-to marriage, families and children - and since our public discourse is professional and essentially consists of the mass media backed by the systems of law, education and government - we are in the historically and geographically incredible position that ordinary common sense and personal experience have been all-but abolished.
Our world is abstract and theoretical - and this applies not only to the high IQ elite, but pretty much across the board, affecting nearly everybody.
So that Christianity - and traditional, orthodox supernaturalist religion of any kind - now strikes many people as not so much false as merely bizarre and foolish. "
He thus posits that liberal atheists are more intelligent, but, since they refuse to reproduce, they are ultimately "dumber" as well, which shows Charlton agrees with my above definition of terms, even if he hasn't thought it all through and can't actually admit to it yet.
The Bible said: Fearing fear AS pain, and then deciding to attack it BY ignoring it, in stead of listening to and learning from it, is the first lie all criminals tell themselves (AND their victims)! It’s the root cause of all blustering criminally negligent outrages and “sins!”
The ability to learn from mistakes, to solve problems, also leaves us able to (choose to) NOT learn from those same mistakes, and to refuse to solve problems (both of which choices define “Sin.”)
And “Sin” is a synonym for Crime, and “sinner” = criminal.”
;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment