the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Yes, it's also about maleness and the reasons why women score differently on exams.

The preoccupation with "race" differences is silly, given the numbers of "mixed" people --who often choose the category of "Other" --and outperform "White males." We don't know why that is, thouogh.

There has been a recent resurgence of Bizzaro racists within the so-called intellectual dark web, of which Peterson is a denizen. Sam Harris has also platformed Charles Murray and subsequently embarrassed himself in a much-publisized exchange with Ezra Klein in which he throws a fit and published their private email correspondence. Dave Rubin platformed cult leader Stephan Molyneux who loves to go on and on about how black people have smaller brains and how he's "not a white nationalist, but he sure loves Poland because everyone is white and it's so perfect."

There is clearly some connection between this reactionary racist conservative cultural current and these racially and ethnically motivated mass shootings. It's a problem.

Excellence in human achievement appears everywhere throughout the world. Clearly, therefore, high intelligence and superior talent is not limited by race, ethnicity, gender or social class, but equal opportunities to employ personal intelligence and talent may be sadly limited in some circumstances.

Doc Stier wrote:Excellence in human achievement appears everywhere throughout the world. Clearly, therefore, high intelligence and superior talent is not limited by race, ethnicity, gender or social class, but equal opportunities to employ personal intelligence and talent may be sadly limited in some circumstances.

Exactly.

Right on, Doc.

If one accepts that genius is literally equally distributed among the human population, then it's easy to see that distributing the opportunity to express genius can only be a benefit to humanity. Somewhere out there, some child's brain may have the idea that leads to a cure for cancer, etc. That child might be in China or in Harlem or in Tasmania. If there were a formula for producing or predicting Einsteins or Hawkings, we'd have loads of them. The Perseverance mission is a good example. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/meet-t ... ance-rover

I'm waiting to see that little copter fly.

My point was that no matter how good your intentions are you will always subconsciously judge the world and people around you. Prejudice = prejudgement (well, duh). And that having expectations about people based on their looks, behaviour, gait, usage and state of voice, etc is perfectly normal and nothing that should be looked down upon.
I believe the judging function is part of the non-dual mind and should be properly trained so it can function spontaneously and reliably instead of denied. And then, if it works well enough I.e. the proper judgements are made without much effort, you can start integrating it into the non-dual.

If that makes me a racist, sexist bigot in the eyes of some people, so be it. And this has nothing to do with where can you find geniuses and how often. Average = ever-age = eternity? The average X is... The average of X is...

My point was that no matter how good your intentions are you will always subconsciously judge the world and people around you.

Nobody needs good intentions to know that it's stupid to judge people you don't know --because they're generally wrong. I don't know whether you're white, black, yellow, or half-yellow, part yellow, white, and red. So, what should my prejudices be about you?

On Peterson and his chaos dragon....

https://rhizzone.net/articles/chuuni-se ... BQEqtoxMh4

It is really about psychology, not race, gender, or ethnicity. The philosophical aspect concerns the moral and ethical decisions made on the basis of those categories. That is, it's in the realm of moral philosophy (Enlightenment to mid-20th century), and has little to do with formal modern logic.

So, people create or make stuff up, and the issues becomes who believes them. Take 1930s statements about Jews, for instance. That's Greg's Enlightenment tagline. "He who can get people to believe absurdities can get them to commit atrocities."

Anything can be used to discriminate people: as "race", looks, IQ tests, history, geography, what people like to wear etc. etc. etc. It's all about the lust for power and creativity.

Jane Elliott's classic "blue eyes/brown eyes".

The day after Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed, Jane Elliott, a teacher in a small, all-white Iowa town, divided her third-grade class into blue-eyed and brown-eyed groups and gave them a daring lesson in discrimination. This is the story of that lesson, its lasting impact on the children, and its enduring power 30 years later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mcCLm_LwpE

If you're brought up believing that you're a prince or princess, you expect people to treat you like one. It takes an exceptional person (a kind of intelligence) to see beyond those claims. It's why the Prince is the hero of the Prince and the Pauper.

Btw, brown-eyed, dark haired people score higher than blue-eyed, blonde people. Afa prejudice, that's reflected in the "dumb blonde" category of jokes. For some reason, of course, this comedic trope was only applied to females.

Steve, I think I'm royalty myself, so cheers.

I think it is natural to have a reaction to the scientific data presented.
it is, after all, a very personnel personnel and potentially divisive subject.

As the speaker pointed out, for instance, IQ is not a predictor or related to say ethics,
or being honest. IQ is just IQ; it is mental prowess.
Or strength... like the number of soldiers you have.
Xerxes had a ton or them... but the Spartans held the Hot Gates.
So for me, sure a high number is good, but more importantly it is what you DO with the number
that is the ultimate deciding factor.

Strange, I think everyone can think of themselves as royalty, no matter what anyone says about them. It just doesn't automatically mean they're actually better than anyone else, and they're fooling themselves if they think it does. Otoh, it's more than likely that you're better than someone at some things and worse than someone at others.

Jared Diamond wrote a book that began with him recounting a walk in the woods, or something like that, with a young child in the forests of Borneo (or somewhere similar). His whole point was to question the idea of intelligence --because he knew that, left on his own, the 8 year-old was smart enough to survive if he got lost, while Diamond would die in a day. Ultimately, intelligence is a survival trait where context is everything.