_h4xr

6 ms·

1.
by _h4xr 16y ago
"You are aware that the very definition of a fact precludes it from having exceptions, right?" He's talking about statistical distributions. "It's an established fact that six-year-olds are taller than five-year-olds. There are exceptions."
2.
by _h4xr 16y ago
I know. I often fear a nightmarish reality in which women spend minutes or even hours per day carefully disguising natural facial features, odors, and hair--or even exercising at a gym--just so they can manipulate men into wanting to be wit
3.
by _h4xr 16y ago
I recommend The Red Queen if you want to start learning about this. The short answer: men largely choose mates based on looks; women choose based more on social status. Signalling low social status reduces male attractiveness; signalling
4.
by _h4xr 16y ago
It is odd that you're demonizing Malcolm X and Steve Sailer, while refusing to address their arguments. Apparently they are "clumsy," "racist," and "grotesque," producing "simplifications" and a "non-sequitur." But in the time it took you t
5.
by _h4xr 16y ago
It's still ad hominem , even if it's also inductive reasoning. I'm still hoping for a follow-up addressing the claims, rather than the person making those claims.
6.
by _h4xr 16y ago
Has anyone disputed them? This seems like a great example of an ad hominem attack--you haven't had to question their data, or their logic, just the fact that they've found an argument supporting their conclusions. That's a good way to tal
7.
by _h4xr 16y ago
There is a big difference. You're a "supremacist" if you think one group is better. You're a "nationalist" if you think these groups should be separate. Many white nationalists will freely admit that Japan is much more law-abiding than the
8.
by _h4xr 16y ago
Would you laugh at someone who thought that it was a good thing for humans to selectively breed plants and animals? We certainly couldn't maintain our population without them. Would you laugh at someone who had a preference for a desirable
9.
by _h4xr 16y ago
Okay, that's what I suspected. At the right level of abstraction, you can certainly find non-selfish activities. But a gene's-eye-view is the most significant view, because in the long term anything that doesn't adhere to that view is extin
10.
by _h4xr 16y ago
Define "Selfishness" in this context. In a broad sense, it's very hard to argue that selfish genes don't explain most human behavior. Certainly, I would spend my time differently if I weren't the result of a couple billion years of brutal g
11.
by _h4xr 16y ago
Conservatives say they don't believe in evolution, but act like they do (in the sense they tolerate "animal spirits" in economics, a sexual division of labor, and racial disparities which may be genetic in origin). Liberals say they believe
12.
by _h4xr 16y ago
That is definitely not an answer. Grandparent suggested that genetics plays a role in why people in one country are different from people in another. And you respond by saying that if he says that, he might say something else, which you fin
13.
by _h4xr 16y ago
You don't need to get drunk. Alcohol gradually reduces inhibitions, so if everyone has had a few drinks, they'll be able to sustain a conversation about, e.g., which project is actually way behind schedule, or what they really think about
14.
by _h4xr 16y ago
Then you're not drinking enough. Seriously. Alcohol is a great evolutionary adaptation, since it allows people to be extremely dour and responsible most of the time, while being able to loosen up with chemical assistance. Countries that are
15.
by _h4xr 17y ago
I don't understand. That Time article is very clear about how beneficial European rule was. It goes on and on--about the mines and the industries and the shops and the general sense of law and order. Did the Belgians just find a country
16.
by _h4xr 17y ago
If the smartest non-C programmers all started programming in C, and the C programmers never switched to something else, you could make that judgment. What's interesting is that I almost never find out, halfway through an argument like this,
17.
by _h4xr 17y ago
You know, their crime rate is amazingly low. Seriously, if you compare their numbers to the US, your first instinct is to assume that they moved the decimal point over. So it seems that these "accidents" are rare, there.
18.
by _h4xr 17y ago
The third-world isn't some laggard full of overbreeding simpletons. Any concrete reason for that belief? It looks like the "overbreeding" is objectively true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate . As far as simp
19.
by _h4xr 17y ago
I recommend getting over it. You are almost certainly the descendants murderers and conquerors. http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7819&... That's just how humans roll. Western Europe had lots of problems, but countrie
20.
by _h4xr 17y ago
Of course technical people would be the ones you find behind successful acts of destruction. But that does not mean that all engineering and hard-science types are more likely to become terrorists. Right, but that's not what I said at a
21.
by _h4xr 17y ago
This seems like an incredibly poor idea. For whatever reason, people with engineering and hard-science backgrounds are much more likely to become terrorists ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/engineers_terrorists... ). And dollar-for
22.
by _h4xr 17y ago
(Based on my own anecdotal experience, rich people are not especially smarter than the poor or middle-class) IQ correlates better that parental socio-economic standing. But there are lots of factors that make this appear false -- the peop
23.
by _h4xr 17y ago
My impression was that it's pretty rare to move more than half a standard deviation by using test prep. And that median is skewed by the fact that scores fluctuate from one session to another, but the lower scores are discarded.
24.
by _h4xr 17y ago
Right. If you're okay with selling it in increments, but not selling all of it, there's probably a cutoff. And your cutoff is probably lower than 99%.
25.
by _h4xr 17y ago
Of course it can be beneficial to slaves. If they're an asset, and the appreciation in that asset's value accrues mostly to the owner, that owner has every incentive to maximize their value. As Mencius Moldbug ( http://unqualified-reservati
26.
by _h4xr 17y ago
Even if, theoretically, it might benefit someone to sell their freedom, its too dangerous to allow such a transaction to be considered legitimate. That is simply untrue. We sell our freedoms all the time. I sell big chunks of mine in two-
27.
by _h4xr 18y ago
No, no, no... I'm not saying that! :) That's how you're interpreting it. You're almost there. I understand that you, yourself, do not think that raising IQ is rational and sensible -- that if we just give Nigeria a few billion dollars mor
28.
by _h4xr 18y ago
Would you argue, then, that instead of sending food and medical aid to poor countries, we should send teachers? Teachers do not raise IQ. Proper nutrition does. And accusing someone of holding racist and vile views is sarcasm - the lowes
29.
by _h4xr 18y ago
I'm sorry my sarcasm was not more apparent. My point was that raising IQ would do a lot of good for those people -- more than reducing their pain, in the long term. High IQ groups tend to create stable states and nice places to live, and t
30.
by _h4xr 18y ago
isn't it rather Western to consider raised intelligence the most talkworthy improvement!? I assume you're using "Western" to mean something very racist and vile, like "analyzing the data rationally and coming to the most sensible conclusi

More ›