Intellectual Virtue and Intellectual Value
#1
A lot of people are misled when it comes to intellectual virtue. Many think that they can just state their feelings, and this holds intellectual value. Others believe that "insights" -- quick, cheap sayings that activate the novelty dopamine receptors -- are of utmost importance. Still more believe that they secretly know everything, at least as regards some topic for which there is not yet a science (e.g., how power works), and that the only thing they need to do to contribute intellectually is sort it out with English words. These groups -- mental women, insight consoomers, and armchair philosophers -- are not mutually exclusive with one another. 

Each, however, is mutually exclusive with the set of people that understand and practice intellectual virtue. Virtuists must reject feelz over realz, insight porn, and epistemic narcissism because intellectual virtue is the antithesis of those three vices. In other words, intellectual virtue means putting reality first, accepting that knowledge is hard and often only understandable by an elect few, and accepting that we are born in ignorance and will remain in ignorance unless we devote ourselves to knowledge (and even then we are still largely ignorant). 

Darwin is an example of a man of great intellectual virtue. The insight consoomers of his day were busy mentally gooning it to Lamarckian insights. Darwin got his ass on a nasty 19th century boat and went around the world, meticulously collecting BORING data, willing to live in deplorable conditions for the chance to do so, and afterwards writing a book that is a lot less "insightful" than a NYT bestseller, a lot heavier and much harder to understand. After collecting his difficult data, Darwin cast aside feelz and created the theory of natural selection. Many feelzists were butthurt. A lot still are to this day. Darwin didn't care, because he put reality over feelings. Darwin's achievement was also only possible from a position of intellectual humility. For centuries, people thought that Aristotle and the Bible was the answer to all science. I am sure the Hegelians and other philo sophists of Darwin's day had deductive theories of biology. Many insight consoomers thought their insights were key, nothing more to see -- the vices are not mutually exclusive. Darwin, on the other hand,  knew his people's ignorance. And he knew he could not deduce evolution from first principles in an arm chair. He got his ass out on the boat and collected data, in his intellectual humility. 

Curtis Yarvin is an example of a man of poor intellectual virtue. He is an insight merchant, and insight consoomers are often found gooning over hot new Yarvin "insights". In other words, Yarvin thinks knowledge can be quick and easy, and does not use data or mathematics, which are hard and boring. Instead, Yarvin thinks he already knows everything about power and society, and just has to write it down. His source of knowledge is Personal Experience and recycled "insights." He is an epistemic narcissist. He also promotes feelz over realz philo sophistry more generally, frequently talking about how he's just a stage magician activist anyway and how history is just a feelz based narrative, there is no truth, etc. He embraces pomo shit because it appeals to the other vices, the insight sloth and epistemic narcissism. 

Many are deceived and don't know intellectual virtue. They come to believe, through their own moral faults and their own naivity and stupidity, that vice is virtue and virtue is vice. They become insight consoomers. They aren't mathematically literate, no, because that would be BORING -- but they know the deductive pseudosophistries of Heidegger or some other intellectual gooner. They don't see what Yarvin could have been, for instance -- imagine an profound science in place of NRx -- imagine really knowing who rules us. Imagine names and addresses. Imagine quantifying Jooish influence objectively. Imagine hardcore, algorithmic, mathematical models only 130+ IQ people understand. Imagine scientific history. A scientific history of Civil Rights. Of abolition. Of democracy. Of Christianity. Instead, you got half assed "insight", like "middle class profs and journos rule you, goyim", and "Progressivism is Christianity, goyim". Lol! Lmao! Because of his vice, his work has no intellectual value. He got it all wrong, offered no proofs (conjectures are of limited worth, and his are wrong anyway -- imagine winning a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis or a Fields Medal for a random conjecture). He will probably die before Zoomers are his age and he will be forgotten and replaced by virtue. The wages of sin is death.
#2
Great poast
#3
Shit post. And stop typing like a wigger.
#4
one of the dumbest posts I read on this forum
#5
Insight consoomers malding ITT
#6
I am not of the Amarnite social milieu, and largely dissent from it, but I'm going to attempt a response even so.

OP - This is a foolish and childish perspective. I'm well-trained in mathematics and do high-level IBank related financial analysis daily. Likewise, if you were familiar with your example (Yarvin) - you would understand that he has a similar mathematical background and is not remotely scared of getting quantitative. I'm sure many people in these parts have at least some experience in these fields, and lack any innate repulsion towards data or reading JSTOR.

Unfortunately, on most interesting questions - data is either unreliable or tainted by the hypothesis/predispositions of the collector Tools as basic as PCA techniques used in population genetics can produce markedly different results in accordance with parameter configuration. In social science, data is shaped just as much by the questions asked as the questions not asked, as by the phrasing utilized to ask such questions. And most commonly, p-value manipulation is ubiquitous and takes no great skill or talent to carry out. I could go on, but these things are basic for the modern reproducibility crisis in academia.

Now, the problem goes far deeper, and a familiar example will suffice: Say we have data that we trust. For example, we all basically agree that IQ measures something related to intelligence, even if the correlation is not perfect. In fact, it is even widely agreed that African Americans have a lower IQ on average. No one here would dissent! Despite what HBD advocates profess, mainstream academia does not heavily dispute or contest this claim either. The real dispute has never been about correlation, but about the theories of causation. In practice, this results in a dialogue between hereditarian theories and theories of systemic racism. Both sides can generate large swaths of ancillary data supporting their qualitative reading, and one ultimately arrives at a position where data alone is not sufficient for developing a reading/understanding. One needs a foundational set of principles, moral valuations, and base-level intuitive heuristics in order to effectively cast judgment - to exercise discernment.

Even in my own work, data is used to supplement, support, and prove existing theses on market behavior. We live or die by our qualitative insights, and we use data (of an extremely reliable form) to test our assertions before taking our positions. For deep social, psychological, and philosophical questions: data is infinitely less reliable. We are forced to admit an epistemic humility and return to our most primitive (yet thoroughly well-trained) heuristics based on anecdotal and interpersonal data. This is, as one shitposter once remarked, the truest and most traditional form of reasoning. Science often leads us astray - but direct pattern recognition is robust. We condense our recognizable patterns into small grains of 'insight' and share them with others - if they resonate widely, then we gain confidence that these observations are not singular to ourselves. If not, we challenge and refine ourselves. An aphorism or one-sentence 'principle' can contain more insight than a thousand tomes, but these things require active and intensive participation on the part of the reader - who must shittest the assertion against the entirety of the lived experience, data, and other knowledge of the relevant field-specific domain. Intellectual virtue is the personal quantity cultivated by repeating this thousand of times.

It is for this reason that sometimes the ignorant illiterate mystic can often be far wiser than the over-educated bookcel. All that is required is the will to engage in long and quiet contemplation, and a measure of humility. We should not ignore data. We should always desire better data, and we must accord reverence for those who engage in that hard (and often tedious) work of accumulating it - but the development of judgment and taste is not reducible to 'muh data'.
#7
(10-11-2022, 12:09 PM)Guest Wrote: I am not of the Amarnite social milieu, and largely dissent from it, but I'm going to attempt a response even so.

[...]

>Likewise, if you were familiar with your example (Yarvin) - you would understand that he has a similar mathematical background and is not remotely scared of getting quantitative.

I am embarrassingly familiar with Yarvin. I've read his entire body of "work" and know pretty much everything about his background. I've read his usenet comments. I've read his 00's forum comments. I'm familiar with Urbit. I know about where he worked and what he worked on in the 90s. I know his educational history. I know his childhood and his involvement in SMPY. I have read his lawsuits. I know about his network. I know his gonnegtions. I have mathematical estimates of his astroturfing. You have beclowned yourself my duderino. As the superior expert and preminent Yarvinist, I can tell you with authority that Yarvin has never gotten quantitative in any of his work ever. It is unclear how much mathematics he knows -- his background is as a computer scientist. He got into SMPY on verbal scores (SMPY is a misnomer -- I bet you didn't know that). I have a computer science degree -- we don't learn much math or statistics. There is no reason to think that, unless he independently studied these topics, he would even be familiar with things as basic as Bayesian statistics, optimization (such as that used in ML and micro economics), linear algebra, or differential equations. That said, his mastery or lack thereof of these topics is besides the point. He might be very comfortable with these things. He has never applied them to understanding society and that is because of his intellectual vices -- he is a postmodernist epistemic narcissist insight merchant. 

>Unfortunately, on most interesting questions - data is either unreliable or tainted by the hypothesis/predispositions of the collector Tools as basic as PCA techniques used in population genetics can produce markedly different results in accordance with parameter configuration. In social science, data is shaped just as much by the questions asked as the questions not asked, as by the phrasing utilized to ask such questions. And most commonly, p-value manipulation is ubiquitous and takes no great skill or talent to carry out. I could go on, but these things are basic for the modern reproducibility crisis in academia

I was thinking earlier, before I read your comment, how insight addicts often justify themselves with the other vices -- feelz are real, or they know everything already. But those who subscribe to neither of those vices generally justify themselves with epistemic despair. The idea that rigor is impossible -- "insight" is the best we can get, so might as well consoom. I have heard this time and time again. As far as I am concerned that is all you are doing. I have heard it before. 

Your specific copes are worth correcting though. Like many insight addicts, you have a confused relationship with "data" and language. Understand this: data is just a very large amount of quantified observation. Measuring and data collection is hard, so insight addicts don't like it. Epistemic emotionalists and narcissists don't want to observe at all, or think that their low n personal observations are enough. 

Data cannot be innately "tainted." Some data is simply useless for some purposes. If it's possible to know something, you can always figure it out with the proper data, in theory. Sometimes it is not yet physically possible to collect the correct data. In that case, we are restricted on what we can know, because we can't observe the things we're curious about. No amount of insight porn or armchair philo sophistry will change this. Ancients thought they could understand the solar system with philo sophistry and insights, but they could not. They were simply making up things about it. This destroyed their curiosity, and made it harder for the virtuists to correct the made up stuff when the time came, because people were no longer curious. The correct position was, "we don't know what the Sun is, or how the sky works, or what the Earth is. We need a lot better observations to find out.", not, "blah blah blah blah I deduce it's flat and the sun goes around us from the principle of man's centrality blah blah blah the heavens are filled with water by the impossibility of gaseous substance filling the heavenly void blah blah blah." 

In social science, retards often correct retarded data and draw impossible, retarded conclusions with said data. Their data is not "tainted," they are simply liars who are hardly better than Yarvin. If Yarvin had surveyed n=31 college students on political preferences and inferred from that data the supremacy of monarchism, he would be just as bad. This is essentially what political scientists do, except they replace monarchism with democracy. That some sophists collect n=31 survey data, phack it to get p=0.04, write in the conclusion that black people are equal and democracy is the most preferred and stable form of government, does not give Yarvin license to spew 10 million words of sophist bullshit in response. 



>Now, the problem goes far deeper, and a familiar example will suffice: Say we have data that we trust. For example, we all basically agree that IQ measures something related to intelligence, even if the correlation is not perfect. In fact, it is even widely agreed that African Americans have a lower IQ on average. No one here would dissent! Despite what HBD advocates profess, mainstream academia does not heavily dispute or contest this claim either. The real dispute has never been about correlation, but about the theories of causation. In practice, this results in a dialogue between hereditarian theories and theories of systemic racism. Both sides can generate large swaths of ancillary data supporting their qualitative reading, and one ultimately arrives at a position where data alone is not sufficient for developing a reading/understanding. One needs a foundational set of principles, moral valuations, and base-level intuitive heuristics in order to effectively cast judgment - to exercise discernment.

This is idiotic. Hereditarianism is proven by the data. Shitlibs lie about it because they're dishonest activists whose lives depend on nigger worship. You're incredibly ignorant throughout this comment and it shows itself clearly here. 

You have quite literally confabulated this paragraph in order to support your insight addiction. Anything to make room for your vice. You are like a ptolemyist who does not like that what I have said implies that his "insights" are worthless and that in order to know things he must work and potentially be more intelligent than he is. Many are deceived and hooked by entertainers like Yarvin, many spend hours doing their own armchair philo sophistry, writing Yarvinist vice blogs (e.g., Spandrell), they are not receptive to the idea that they are useless, that what they have faith in is fake, that their time has been wasted, that what gives them dopamine is vice -- they will attempt to make room for themselves in whatever way they can -- in this case you have gone as far as HBD denial, confabulating that insight gooners are actually needed to know that nigger is genetically stupid. What a ridiculous claim! 


>Even in my own work, data is used to supplement, support, and prove existing theses on market behavior. We live or die by our qualitative insights, and we use data (of an extremely reliable form) to test our assertions before taking our positions. 

Everything I wrote above I wrote before reading this paragraph. I correctly diagnosed you as an insight gooner. Funny to see that you admit this yourself -- you are here to defend "insights" above all. "We live or die by our qualitative insights". So typical and see-through. 

>For deep social, psychological, and philosophical questions: data is infinitely less reliable. We are forced to admit an epistemic humility and return to our most primitive (yet thoroughly well-trained) heuristics based on anecdotal and interpersonal data. This is, as one shitposter once remarked, the truest and most traditional form of reasoning. Science often leads us astray - but direct pattern recognition is robust. We condense our recognizable patterns into small grains of 'insight' and share them with others - if they resonate widely, then we gain confidence that these observations are not singular to ourselves. If not, we challenge and refine ourselves. An aphorism or one-sentence 'principle' can contain more insight than a thousand tomes, but these things require active and intensive participation on the part of the reader - who must shittest the assertion against the entirety of the lived experience, data, and other knowledge of the relevant field-specific domain. Intellectual virtue is the personal quantity cultivated by repeating this thousand of times.

This is puke worthy cope meant to guard your utter intellectual sloth. The wisdom of the crowd idea is probably the worse thing here. I have heard it before countless times, in fact I specifically rebuked it in the OP. You say "We condense our recognizable patterns into small grains of 'insight' and share them with others - if they resonate widely, then we gain confidence that these observations are not singular to ourselves." Gross! I said "intellectual virtue means putting reality first, accepting that knowledge is hard and often only understandable by an elect few, and accepting that we are born in ignorance and will remain in ignorance unless we devote ourselves to knowledge (and even then we are still largely ignorant). ... [Viceists] believe that they secretly know everything, at least as regards some topic for which there is not yet a science (e.g., how power works), and that the only thing they need to do to contribute intellectually is sort it out with English words ... Yarvin thinks he already knows everything about power and society, and just has to write it down. His source of knowledge is Personal Experience." You have explicitly flipped "[i]accepting that knowledge is hard and often only understandable by an elect few" [/i]on it head, instead immorally assuming (for your pleasure as an intellectual diabetic) that knowledge can "resonate widely", the opposite of intellectual virtue, which accepts that true knowledge will not resonate widely -- true knowledge is generally sneered at or ignored, as you have sneered at this thread, because most people don't understand it or don't like it once they do. Your disgusting epistemic democratism leads you to the other vices -- instead of optimizing for conformance with reality, you are explicitly optimizing for "resonance" among some mass -- this is in effect feelz over realz my dude. You justify this to yourself with epistemic narcissism. While I wrote, "Yarvin thinks he already knows everything about power and society, and just has to write it down. His source of knowledge is Personal Experience.", you wrote "Science often leads us astray - but direct pattern recognition [i.e., Personal Experience] is robust." It is remarkable that you are preaching the precise opposite of what I am preaching -- you are quite literally Satanically Inverted. You have not gone down some other path I missed, no, -- what I have called vice you have called virtue, and what I called virtue, you dismissed with despair. This is exactly the same as Satan telling Christians, it is not possible to be Saved, do not even try to resist Sin, but fear not, for Sin is Virtue, now revel in orgies of lust and pride and worship me! Christians know this is Satan's favorite path of subversion! Satan says it is prideful to resist him and his sin, humility is submitting to the world -- you say "We are forced to admit an epistemic humility and return to our most primitive (yet thoroughly well-trained) heuristics based on anecdotal and interpersonal data." Yes, we are forced to admit humility and return to our most animalistic, to murder, chaos, orgies, barbarism -- you have turned humility on its head. 


>We should always desire better data, and we must accord reverence for those who engage in that hard (and often tedious) work of accumulating it - but the development of judgment and taste is not reducible to 'muh data'.

A strawman. If this was your post, I would have been much kinder. Moral failing can result from ignorance or poor moral fiber. I might be able to chip away at ignorance -- I remember being ignorant as a boy, for instance -- but poor moral fiber is something I can only attack. By confabulating and lying above, you demonstrated not only ignorance but poor moral fiber, imo. But I could be wrong. 

So yes, with your strawman you get at something trivial yet potentially unknown to someone who doesn't have a lot of experience with intellectual virtue and value creation. There are databots that seem to have deficits when it comes to theorization. These are people like social psychologists who collect data so they can come up with priming or some gay shit like that. These people are mentally piddly, but better than Yarvin, because their stuff is at least sometimes useful to someone who has the capacity to theorize. In fact, I'm betting that there's a lot that can be derived from existing social data, that is not yet known, because of the narrow mindedness and regime obedience of academic researchers. If Yarvin were serious, he would have already systematized all of the existing data , probably discovering a lot of new things before even needing to collect his own data. I can only hope that somebody more intelligent than Yarvin will do this soon. It is sad to think that Yarvin was intelligent enough to do this, and because he didn't due to vice, we have pure retardation instead of a real scientific system with names and addresses, like what Marxism claimed to be but wasn't.
#8
(10-11-2022, 02:05 PM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote:
(10-11-2022, 12:09 PM)Guest Wrote: I am not of the Amarnite social milieu, and largely dissent from it, but I'm going to attempt a response even so.

[...]

[...]

Incredible. 

Quote:I have a computer science degree -- we don't learn much math or statistics. There is no reason to think that, unless he independently studied these topics, he would even be familiar with things as basic as Bayesian statistics, optimization (such as that used in ML and micro economics), linear algebra, or differential equations....

Do you understand how telling this is about you, AryanGenius1488? Yarvin was a participant in JHU's CYT. As was I, albeit many years after Yarvin. Virtually everyone in that program knew all of the aforementioned topics by heart and by the time we turned 16. They are not deep. Every decent (say top 20) CS program covers them, and practically every engineering program does. If you weren't required to learn them, it is because you are in a program that is grooming you to be a webshit React developer. Congratulations. 

IIRC, Yarvin went to Brown, and then pursued a PhD at UCB, where the then-mandatory Math GRE would have required knowledge of all of those topics and more besides, along with an 80%+ percentile score. Read his technical theorizing on Hoon if you want to see how serious he can be. Now, I have intense disagreements with him on many points, and find his recent writings tedious and dull - but you're spectacularly off-base here.

Quote:This is idiotic. Hereditarianism is proven by the data. Shitlibs lie about it because they're dishonest activists whose lives depend on nigger worship. You're incredibly ignorant throughout this comment and it shows itself clearly here.

You can't read. I made no value judgements or dispute hereditarianism (something I believe in!). I illustrated an example. Yet there is also data indicating that socioeconomic factors also influence IQ. I believe in both of these things. Discernment arises from the need to decide which is more influential, and should form the basis for politics. It is inescapable.

Quote:They don't see what Yarvin could have been, for instance -- imagine an profound science in place of NRx -- imagine really knowing who rules us. Imagine names and addresses. Imagine quantifying Jooish influence objectively. Imagine hardcore, algorithmic, mathematical models only 130+ IQ people understand. Imagine scientific history. A scientific history of Civil Rights. Of abolition. Of democracy. Of Christianity. Instead, you got half assed "insight", like "middle class profs and journos rule you, goyim", and "Progressivism is Christianity, goyim". Lol! Lmao! Because of his vice, his work has no intellectual value. He got it all wrong, offered no proofs (conjectures are of limited worth, and his are wrong anyway -- imagine winning a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis or a Fields Medal for a random conjecture). He will probably die before Zoomers are his age and he will be forgotten and replaced by virtue. The wages of sin is death.

Is this your idea of science AryanGenius1488? Is this your idea of 'intellectual virtue'? Compiling data to prove and support your naïve and lower-tier /pol/ variant of the JQ? Do you understand how quickly even the most mediocre leftist professor could justifiably rip such work to shreds, or how thoroughly unconvincing a massive work dedicating to quantifying 'Jooish influence objectively' would be? You've presumed already answered the implicit question - who has the most influence and responsibility for the conditions of modern life - and now you autistically mourn the fact that others have not compiled the intense amount of data needed to support your gut level judgement. You contradict yourself in your own terms, but you don't realize it. Real curiosity doesn't set itself upon the task of compiling evidence for a pre-existing position. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The goal of reason is to exhaust itself in an attempt of disproof of a thesis, not it's proof. Many of us came to our positions on race because we tried extensively to disprove various 'racist' beliefs about the world, and found ourselves unable to do so. No one who is in possession of the 'intellectual virtue' you so esteem would be convinced by such an artifice as you propose to construct - they must convince themselves independently that the myriad of alternative explanations are untenable. Do tell us what 'mathematical models only 130+ IQ people understand' we are lacking with regard to the JQ, I would love to hear.

Quote:By confabulating and lying above, you demonstrated not only ignorance but poor moral fiber, imo. But I could be wrong.

And you, AryanGenius1488, have demonstrated yourself to be a midwit. But I could also be wrong.
#9
(10-11-2022, 03:26 PM)Guest Wrote: [...]

Are you Jewish? I would estimate P(Jewish | Your comment)/P(Jewish) > 20 -- i.e., P(Jewish| Your comment) =~ 40%. Comments that really stick out: 

>Compiling data to prove and support your naïve and lower-tier /pol/ variant of the JQ? Do you understand how quickly even the most mediocre leftist professor could justifiably rip such work to shreds, or how thoroughly unconvincing a massive work dedicating to quantifying 'Jooish influence objectively' would be? ["convincing" is a Rationalist/San Francisco phrase, faith in leftist professors is way too high (they are all retarded liars and can't even rebut Kmac, whose work is valuable but incomplete), countersignals JQ]

>The goal of reason is to exhaust itself in an attempt of disproof of a thesis, not it's proof. [Popperism, very San Francisco Rationalist-esque (Yud was not one ironically)]

>As was I, albeit many years after Yarvin. Virtually everyone in that program knew all of the aforementioned topics by heart and by the time we turned 16. They are not deep. Every decent (say top 20) CS program covers them, and practically every engineering program does. If you weren't required to learn them, it is because you are in a program that is grooming you to be a webshit React developer. Congratulations. [Coastal and high Jewish overrepresentation in SMPY not accounted for by racial IQ average].

You definitely seem like a Rationalist adjacent type. I smell it on you. I've seen surveys indicating they're 40% Jewish. So it's fair to estimate that the probability you're Jewish is about 40%. 
............................................................................................................................................................................................

You say: 

>And you, AryanGenius1488, have demonstrated yourself to be a midwit. But I could also be wrong.

Yeah, you are wrong. You seem like the real midwit. For one, Rationalists way overestimate their IQs. They think they are 145+ but in reality the mean is maybe 120. You can see this just by their stupid output. Their best people write book reviews for a living. But there are some comments from and some data related to them that make me estimate your IQ in the 120s: 

> You've presumed already answered the implicit question - who has the most influence and responsibility for the conditions of modern life - and now you autistically mourn the fact that others have not compiled the intense amount of data needed to support your gut level judgement. You contradict yourself in your own terms, but you don't realize it. Real curiosity doesn't set itself upon the task of compiling evidence for a pre-existing position. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The goal of reason is to exhaust itself in an attempt of disproof of a thesis, not it's proof.

Again, it's hard to disentangle moral failure and stupidity. But the idea that I just want to confirm what I already know is midwit. I literally never said I know the extent of Jewish influence already. Can you post SAT or GRE reading scores please? 85+% of people are significantly functionally illiterate and consequently score low on those tests. Most rationalists I talk to fall into that camp -- they can hardly comprehend what I'm saying. You seem to have literacy deficits. Personally I've maxxed out scores on SAT/GRE reading since the age of 15 when I first took the PSAT. Never tested before that. But a lower score at the age of 13 just 2 years prior would have gotten me into the SMPY on verbal scores. I was never invited since SMPY is a status laundering racket ran by Jews for coastal silver spoons and not an actual study of genius. The cutoff is merely the threshold for "elite" IQ, which is about 125. More on this below, you failure to understand this and your own professed life history suggest you have an IQ of about 125. 

Also Popperism is self-evidently wrong and gay and it tells me you have no experience with creating knowledge on your own. At best any output from you is strictly in the Academy, where you can just copy others without really getting a sense for how knowledge works. It is likely to be in something like math or CS where you don't need to actually study the world. This is the only way you can have output and be a Popperist. Popper himself had no output, just philo sophistry -- atheist metaphysics, descriptive speculation, and verbal pseudologic. That's how he was a Popperist. He also just plagiarized the Vienna Circle and changed one thing and declared himself original. The thing he changed looks like he basically just wanted to have a schtick to feel original while not really being orignal. He morhped verficationism into falsificationism. He was a Jewish liberal activist and got astroturfed, and now ignorants default to Popper and falsificationist speak, when the reality is that verificationism is better, and the super reality is that even verificationism is dumb philo sophistry and really all one has to do is look at the living tradition of philosophy (natural philosophy and quantitative logic) in order to understand.

> Virtually everyone in that program knew all of the aforementioned topics by heart and by the time we turned 16. 

Why were you reading linear algebra text books at 15, and do you think that is g loaded, conscientiousness loaded, both, and how much g do you think one needs to understand linear algebra? When is g mature? Spoiler: a midwit thinks g matures until 18 or 25 or something like that, a 15 year old reading a linear algebra textbook must be a 190 IQ genius, and g is the only trait there is and it naturally draws one towards linear algebra at 15. 

>Now, I have intense disagreements with him on many points, and find his recent writings tedious and dull - but you're spectacularly off-base here.

Failure to comprehend my problem with Yarvin, indicates poor reading comprehension and midwit status. You also kind of hint that you think UR was good or something -- this is a sure sign someone is not very smart. I don't think it can be just moral failure when it comes to UR. UR is so vapid that you absolutely have to have an IQ under 130 to think it's of any value whatsoever. Someone higher with poor intellectual virtue would gravitate towards something with at least some reasoning behind it, maybe something like Jouvenel, while saying that UR is a cool project but if you're cut out for it read the oldies. Maybe something like Schmitt, I've seen a few Schmitt worshipers around. That's where the high IQ insight gooners go, Yarvin is exclusively for midwits. 

Now, on SMPY/CYT. The main problem with claims of genius IQ based on participation is twofold: the first is that regression to the mean is not accounted for. The second is that the g threshold for participants is uncritically asserted to be comically high. These really may be the same underlying problem, that the test is not very g loaded, but these are the things to keep in mind when estimating Yarvin's IQ. People assume that Yarvin would have the same relative performance he had at 12 when in fact there are general figures for regression to the mean. People also comically underestimate the base g of a 12 year old relative to an adult, and therefore get a retardedly high adult IQ estimate for 12 yo Yarvin. 

Yarvin got into the SMPY by getting a 630 on the SAT at the age of 12. The claim is that they were picking people with 1/10,000 g, or 3.719 SD. This is an uncritical, unjustified, totally retarded claim. But let's take it for granted. That SAT test correlated with IQ at about r = 0.80. So to get his 12 yo IQ, we do 3.719 * 0.8 = 2.97. But there is regression to the mean from childhood to adulthood due to things like different developmental speeds. From 12 to adulthood it's about 0.80. So we do 2.97*.8 to estimate his adult IQ: 2.37, about 135 or 1/100. This is all assuming that his score on the SATV was truly 1/10,000 for 12 year olds. But we have no reason to think this was the case. As far as I have seen, the SMPY people never justified their numbers -- it was pulled out of their asses, and they have been known to write letters of rec for participants. It's a status laundering scheme, one where Jews are way overrepresented even adjusting for their mean IQ of 110. On the test he took, a score of 700 was only 2.32 SD, or 1/100 for 15-16 year olds. The data I have seen suggests 12 yos have an average IQ of 85 in adult terms, so if we are super charitable we add an SD to 2.32 to account for Moldbugs age. And remember, Moldbug only needed to score a 630 to qualify, not a 700. So a starting score of 3.32 is a better estimate than 3.719. Now we correct for g loading and age regression to the mean and get 2.12, or 131 IQ. About 1/70. This is a maximally charitable estimate. If in reality he had a 1/1000 score for 12 yos on the SATV we'd get 3 * .64 = 1.92 = 129 IQ, so upper 120s. This is exactly where an objective judge would place him given his writing, so the data and the judgement are convergent. This is not a coincidence.
  3.719The 
#10
This post is well poised for me to make the following distinction:

Intellectual virtue, which you have just described, is evidence of positive character traits, and also enables the most perfect knowledge of truth.

Some intellectual value, however, is not found in intellectual virtue. From the Templist Canon:

"The truth of all reality is complex, multifaceted, and only one way. The chance of finding it is slim. Those who, through their abilities, are able to obtain truth, ought to distill it in whatever simplified or facetious way will allow those of lesser ability to comprehend and believe truth's essentials. Or, in whatever simplified or facetious way will allow those of lesser ability even just to act as if they knew truth, though they are led to believe a compatible untruth."

Which idea is known to the Templist as "elitist pragmatism".

Guys like Yarvin have value. They distill something that approximates truth to an audience that is susceptible to their rhetoric. This is true even if they do not evince intellectual virtue - they are useful idiots, useful pseudo-intellectuals, their words are useful propaganda.
#11
(10-11-2022, 04:40 PM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote:
(10-11-2022, 03:26 PM)Guest Wrote: [...]

[...]
  3.719The 

Your stimulant abuse is showing. Ask your doctor to titrate you downwards. 

Quote:You also kind of hint that you think UR was good or something -- this is a sure sign someone is not very smart.

Yarvin did more to normalize certain strains of RW thought than nearly any other individual in the last decade. A large portion of the dissident sphere due to him. He err'ed often and wildly, but was widely successful in promoting and revitalizing certain perspectives that had been suppressed before him. And like Bronze Age Pervert, he cultivated a kind of context for likeminded people to play with ideas far outside of the mainstream. Are you familiar with what the 'e-right' looked like before Yarvin? Did you see Stormfront in it's heyday? Yarvin, if nothing else, provided a basis for the post-2016 new right to analyze the world that wasn't grounded in decades old reactionary theory, and gave it enough of a respectable veneer that existing and aspirational elites could feel at home in his frame. The JQ was not (and still isn't) on the table. Nor is explicit HBD. You may meme it, you may attempt to pull on the Overton window, but it is a non-starter in our time. As always, rhetoric and pathos carry the day, and Yarvin was able to package a substantial number of subversive concepts into a normie-digestible form. Even my formerly liberal mother speaks of the Cathedral now, and recognizes the corrosive influence of academia/media institutions. For her and many others, 'cultural marxism' would have been a non-starter. Do you understand the social significance of that? 

Schmitt, Evola, Guénon, Spengler, etc - are fascinating and interesting writers. Worth reading, I agree. But that style of reactionary traditionalism died several decades back. New memeplexes, appropriate to the mood and aesthetics of our time, will carry the day and shape the future right - be it BAP-style vitalism, landian NRx, or integralism. I am not a fan of any of those, but the winds of the future are what they are.

Quote:Why were you reading linear algebra text books at 15?

Boredom. It is not a hard subject, and if I intended to stunt, it would not be the subject I chose to name. As for the rest of your remarks: WAIS-IV, FSIQ: 134, PRI, PSI higher, WMI lower. Math Subject GRE: 92nd percentile. Double majored in physics/math. Never took the SAT/ACT. Not a rationalist (or have ever been such). Not Jewish, though my wife is.
#12
(10-11-2022, 06:24 PM)Guest Wrote: [...]

>Your stimulant abuse is showing. Ask your doctor to titrate you downwards. 

I am caffeine sensitive, today was coffee day. No doctor, amphetamine is for losers. 


>Yarvin did more to normalize certain strains of RW thought than nearly any other individual in the last decade. A large portion of the dissident sphere due to him. He err'ed often and wildly, but was widely successful in promoting and revitalizing certain perspectives that had been suppressed before him. And like Bronze Age Pervert, he cultivated a kind of context for likeminded people to play with ideas far outside of the mainstream. Are you familiar with what the 'e-right' looked like before Yarvin? Did you see Stormfront in it's heyday? Yarvin, if nothing else, provided a basis for the post-2016 new right to analyze the world that wasn't grounded in decades old reactionary theory, and gave it enough of a respectable veneer that existing and aspirational elites could feel at home in his frame. The JQ was not (and still isn't) on the table. Nor is explicit HBD. You may meme it, you may attempt to pull on the Overton window, but it is a non-starter in our time. As always, rhetoric and pathos carry the day, and Yarvin was able to package a substantial number of subversive concepts into a normie-digestible form. Even my formerly liberal mother speaks of the Cathedral now, and recognizes the corrosive influence of academia/media institutions. For her and many others, 'cultural marxism' would have been a non-starter. Do you understand the social significance of that? 

Cope. Recasting Yarvin as a great propagandist disagrees with nothing I said. A propagandist LARPing as an intellectual should be found to have low intellectual virtue. That said, Yarvin is astroturfed, not intrinsically great. I could have written UR in middle school, it's really that bad (again, I have read all of Yarvin). Of course, I might be what Yarvin claims to be (167 IQ) while Yarvin is ~129 IQ, so me being able to do UR in middle school doesn't knock Yarvin as much as it would if I were on his IQ level. 

You should agree that UR is vapid, at this point you're basically claiming that he's great because he appeals to midwits a lot. You know who else appeals to to the low IQ? Jake Paul. What's his IQ? Retards appeal to retards, midwits to midwits, geniuses to geniuses; one expects audience size to shrink as IQ goes up from 100. From this principle alone, one expects a hard science of society to have a smaller audience than Emil Kirkegaard (17k on Twitter.com). BAP/0hpl (Yarvinists/neoYarvinists) have a sphere 3-5 times that big. If they appeal to 1/15 (midwits), Kirkegaard appeals to 1/75 (130 IQ), a 145 IQ science would appeal to 1/1,000, or 1/13.3333 of Kirkegaard's audience: just 1275 people on Twitter.com. Small. We should expect the popular people and their output to be progressively dumber. Appealing to popularity is an accusation of stupidity. 


>Boredom. It is not a hard subject, and if I intended to stunt, it would not be the subject I chose to name. As for the rest of your remarks: WAIS-IV, FSIQ: 134, PRI, PSI higher, WMI lower. Math Subject GRE: 92nd percentile. Double majored in physics/math. Never took the SAT/ACT. Not a rationalist (or have ever been such). Not Jewish, though my wife is.

I appreciate your honesty.
#13
For God's sake everyone please use the quote function (the thing that makes their text show up in coloured boxes) to quote people. It's a few seconds of work but makes your post 100x more readable.
#14
Haven't read the rest of the thread yet but the gist of Guest's first post is correct. Logic/philosophy is superior to data because data can be flawed, fabricated, p-hacked, and can tell you nothing or almost nothing about reality, e.g. causation, predictive power, etc. I believe libertarians call this praxeology? I wish I studied more statistics so that I could explain this concept better. The point still stands, philosophy trumps empiricism any day. I do not think necessarily that this is a slam dunk on OP though.
#15
(10-11-2022, 07:23 PM)BillyONare Wrote: Haven't read the rest of the thread yet but the gist of Guest's first post is correct. Logic/philosophy is superior to data because data can be flawed, fabricated, p-hacked, and can tell you nothing or almost nothing about reality, e.g. causation, predictive power, etc. I believe libertarians call this praxeology? I wish I studied more statistics so that I could explain this concept better. The point still stands, philosophy trumps empiricism any day. I do not think necessarily that this is a slam dunk on OP though.

You are an intellectual puppy and I don't want to ruin your innocence. Don't read my post.
#16
I sometimes wish my post on Germany survived amarna1 because it covered how I feel about so much that I don't really want to write pages on again.

OP is gutted by pointing out the obvious. Why of all questions should we be exploring (or doing the HARD INTELLECTUAL WORK [lumberjack face] on) the influence of Jews in society? Did HARD INTELLECTUAL WORK OF VIRTUE lead to the idea that this was necessary? Of course not. As Guest says (thank you guest you are an excellent poster) the real place for this kind of datawork is challenging your feelings and assumptions. Doing apologetics for something you already believe is a disgusting fetishisation of science (or INTELLECTUAL VIRTUE). It's working backwards.

Also I'd like to thank everyone so far for being good sports and continuing to post, even if I disagree with most of what's being said. This kind of heavily developed back and forth is what forums are for. This is the real intellectual work.
#17
Jvlivs, your logorrhea is reminiscent of Moldbug's. I hope everyone can appreciate the irony of this.

Different guest here. Making an effort to express our beliefs regarding phenomena ("the kikes did it again!") in terms of measurable entities, and drawing relationships between such entities mathematically doesn't seem like a bad idea for the purpose of attaining predictive power. I say this as somebody with no real experience in any science.
#18
(10-11-2022, 10:27 PM)Guest Wrote: Jvlivs, your logorrhea is reminiscent of Moldbug's. I hope everyone can appreciate the irony of this.

Different guest here. Making an effort to express our beliefs regarding phenomena ("the kikes did it again!") in terms of measurable entities, and drawing relationships between such entities mathematically doesn't seem like a bad idea for the purpose of attaining predictive power. I say this as somebody with no real experience in any science.
Is sockpuppeting your own threads on an obscure YuGiOh-themed Hitler fansite a good idea for attaining predictive power?
#19
that consecutive guest-posts by different users get squished together is something you can see by checking out the elves thread (then again, it could be that I acted deceitfully in both places)
#20
Thus could all be quickly resolved if ivlivs were to post a certified iq test and his dating history...if I'm double mogged I will have no choice but to kneel "Norwood! Norwood!" I have a full, beautiful head of hair so I get to decide what's Norwod and not


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)