Bitcoin Forum
October 13, 2019, 11:52:47 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 ... 151 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Economic Devastation  (Read 503947 times)
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 01:42:33 PM
 #1821


What that means is that you and no one else can top-down decide which individuals in which situations will be worthwhile. It won't depend on just one metric such as IQ. Life is much more complex, chaotic, and higher entropy than just IQ. I explained it as follows in my seminal essay:

But we are talking about the economy here, where people are money oriented and go where the money is.

We already see massive unemployment in Europe due to corporations moving out to S-E Asia and Africa to find cheap labour. The labour market is just optimizing, everyone follows the incentives.

A corporation wants to make more money, so it has to move to places where you find the same quality labour for /10th of the price.

This is partly due to minimal wage laws (employers forced to pay high salaries to people who dont produce that much, so they lay off bad quality workers, a.k.a socialist job-buster ) , high regulations, and printed money.

But even if those 3 elements weren't there, it would still happen eventually, as technology grows. So socialism only accelerates the problem, but it doesn't cause it.

The real cause of unemployment is technology & human incentives, which can't be changed.


So as high IQ people in the past got wealthy (they can do it just now but a bit harder) and were smart enough to not raise offsprings that are spoiled brats and waste their wealth. Instead this old money got preserved by the rich people's families. Perhaps not all offsprings but some:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3195273/Son-Swiss-multi-millionaire-convicted-deliberately-setting-fire-150-000-Ferrari-458-Italia-failed-attempt-claim-brand-new-supercar-insurance.html


So like it or not, they were smart enough to keep their wealth, so they now dominate the planet, and unless you can raise to their ranks with intelligence, cunning and a bit of luck, its hard to imagine that anyone of us will dictate the future of mankind.

Thus these corporations will dictate it (unless a massive economic reset happens as I said already, and the rich will be dumb enough to not arrange their wealth safely and lose it all)

So as technology becomes more complicated LOW IQ PEOPLE & LESS CAPITALIZED PEOPLE (which is nearly the same), will be shoveled out of the economy, and 1 out of 3 outcomes will happen:

Quote

So basically 3 futures can exist:

1) 1-2% of the population with IQ over 140, and the wealthiest, will provide the goods & services in the more and more complex economy, the manual labour will be achieved by robots, and the rest of the people 98%, will be on permanent welfare like some freeloaders, in a massive socialist economy

2) The elite will do eugenics, and will wipe out the low IQ people with war,plague or else, and reduce the world population to a very very small level, and only keep the high IQ people alive.

3) The economy will be reset, everybody loses all their money, and we start over, but soon enough the high IQ people will again emerge wealthy even with equal opportunities, and the same shit starts again.


I`d prefer 3) but i think 1) is the most likely outcome unfortunately. I also think that if 1) will become true then it's only a matter of time until the elite will become fed up with so many freeloaders so 1) will become 2) in a matter of years.



1571010767
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571010767

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571010767
Reply with quote  #2

1571010767
Report to moderator
1571010767
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571010767

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571010767
Reply with quote  #2

1571010767
Report to moderator
1571010767
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571010767

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571010767
Reply with quote  #2

1571010767
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571010767
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571010767

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571010767
Reply with quote  #2

1571010767
Report to moderator
1571010767
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571010767

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571010767
Reply with quote  #2

1571010767
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 01:56:03 PM
Last edit: August 17, 2015, 02:10:35 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #1822

RealBitcoin you must be one of those low IQ people you irrationally view as useless.

How many posts now have I tried to explain to you that so called "lower IQ" people are not so worthless that they can not work to feed themselves. Only welfare, minimum wages, regulations (e.g. preventing growing a vegetable garden and raising pigs and chickens in a city backyard), and inflated living expenses due to rampant (e.g. housing loans) debt driving up the prices of everything causes them to not work. Physical products are declining towards 0 price due to technological advance.

Besides it seems you don't understand a Gaussian distribution means half of the population has an IQ higher than the mean. If you are insinuating that only a person with a 140 IQ can earn enough to buy or work on their own backyard to grow their own food, then I think I will just ignore you now.  Roll Eyes

And I have on idea why you think only people with a certain IQ threshold are able to do anything other than manual labor. Even a person with an IQ of 95 such as my brother-in-law who is working in a hotel in Brunei are capable of more than manual labor. He is doing many knowledge age sort of functions such as creating dance classes for the guests, etc.. I measured his IQ on a Raven's matrices test and he is quite capable of doing tasks that are not only manual labor. In fact, it was I who did the manual labor to build a concrete house in their squalor area in 1996 (I was 31 and he was a teenager) and he was too lazy to help me.

RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 02:09:58 PM
 #1823

Even a person with an IQ of 95 such as my brother-in-law who is working in a hotel in Brunei are capable of more than manual labor. He is doing many knowledge age sort of functions such as creating dance classes for the guests, etc..

I already told you the artist class is only like 0.1% of the job market, so its really surreal to think that everyone will be artist in the future and even if that were true, the competition would be so big then that most of them will be driven out, and become again unemployed...

RealBitcoin you must be one of those low IQ people you hate.

How many posts now have I tried to explain to you that so called "lower IQ" people are not so worthless that they can not work to feed themselves. Only welfare and inflated living expenses due to rampant debt driving up the prices of everything causes them to not work. Physical products are declining towards 0 price due to technological advance.

Besides it seems you don't understand a Gaussian distribution means half of the population has an IQ higher than the mean. If you are insinuating that only a person with a 140 IQ can earn enough to buy their own food, then I think I will just ignore you now.  Roll Eyes

But it's you who can't grasp the fact that the corporations are more efficient and drive out competitions with or without printed money.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/09/radiating-death-how-walmart-displaces-nearby-small-businesses/3272/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/franchise-rule-could-destroy-700000-small-businesses/
http://moneymorning.com/2013/05/29/how-big-corporations-are-destroying-the-free-market/

So unless they lose all their money in the next crisis (unlikely), you won't have a free market. They are ultracompetitive and they fill out all inefficience gaps in the market, so small businesses will be outcompeted by millions.

Do you realize that you will be shoveled out of business if you are not competitive?

So how do you think low IQ people, and undercapitalized ones, can compete with a mega corporations, where every advantage is on the corporation's side?

EX: Average Joe opens a Grocery store and he wants to compete with Wallmart.

-He doesnt have good connections with producers, and he is new so he wont get discounts
-His accounting is probably inefficient and will lose money on that
-His electricity configuaration is also inefficient
-Taxes and regulations also bury him under 5 feed of dirt vs big corporation
-His workers are probably unskilled and he doesnt ave the time and money to train them
-He is new so he doesn't have many customers
-He doesnt have a parking space, so he wont have massive buyers
-He cannot afford promotions and competitions that big store usually do to attract people
-He will get harassed by all kinds of government inspectors like they like to harass small shops
-He doesnt have money for proper security systems so he can get robbed
-He doesnt have enough credibility so he cannot get bank loans easily to expand his business
-He might get harassed by local gangs and mobs
-He can barely pay his insurance costs and employees
-He will offer his products at a high price to cover all his risks, which will make him very uncompetitive
etc...

So a small business owner has all this negative disadvantage on his side vs the big and established corporation near him, so its no wonder he will go out of business in a matter of months.

Sorry this is reality, sharks eat small fish.

Besides I got an IQ of 138 just for the record.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 02:12:50 PM
Last edit: August 17, 2015, 03:26:23 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #1824

But it's you who can't graps the fact that the corporations are more efficient and drive out competitions with or without printed money.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/09/radiating-death-how-walmart-displaces-nearby-small-businesses/3272/

...

Besides I got an IQ of 138 just for the record.

No you don't. There was something wrong with that test. Which just goes to show IQ tests are bullshit.

You don't seem to comprehend that monopolizing a zero margin directed sector of the economy is akin to having sex withraping a dying old woman. Not a gratifying or relevant achievement.

Edit: even if were true that low IQ individuals are worthless to society, then they will be culled by nature and evolution will raise the IQ levels rapidly with natural selection. Nature is not as helpless as you seem to imply with your top-down proscriptions.

The plight of people today is much better than in the Middle Ages when there was so much overpopulation that human labor was nearly worthless. The Black Death resolved that.

The problem of the world today is that the Industrial Age capital is dying. Individuals need to break free of that morass on their own accord by embracing the autonomous opportunities available to them in the Knowledge Age.


I really need to stop commenting. So if you insist going on with your top-down Chicken Little Malthusian themes, I guess you'll get the last word in our thread for a while.



Edit#2: George Carlin - People Who Ought To Be Killed seems appropriate in this context.

username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 09:54:47 PM
Last edit: August 18, 2015, 10:04:37 PM by username18333
 #1825

(In light of the posts above, a psychology review seems in order.)

Quote from: Penn State University, Psychology 532   <http://elearning.la.psu.edu/psy/532/lesson-2/intelligence-and-leadership/g-factor>
g factor

When thought of as one factor, intelligence is often referred to as general mental ability (GMA) or general factor (g factor or g for short). The tradition of studying intelligence as a single concept follows in the footsteps of Charles Spearman. While examining student test scores in the early 1900s, he noticed that individual students performed very similarly on different cognitive ability tests. These observations made him theorize that intelligence is a single underlying factor for all abilities. Spearman is the one given credit for coining the term g and g factor.

g vs. IQ



More commonly, g is referred to as IQ (intelligence quotient), but that term actually refers to a score on an intelligence test, so the term g is actually a more accurate description when discussing intelligence in general. In your readings, you will notice that the terms are used interchangeably, similar to the way they would be in actual conversation. See the figure for a comparison of g and IQ.

g and Leadership



This single-factor intelligence has been found to be the best predictor of general job performance, particularly for complex jobs (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). However, the link between g and leadership is not as strong as one would think. The correlation is moderate (0.21-0.27; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004). That is not to say that the relationship is not useful, just that when one considers that the relation of g to general job performance is 0.51 (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), it does not seem as impressive. In fact, intelligence actually ranks behind extraversion (0.31) and conscientiousness (0.28) for relationship to leadership ability (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &  Gerhardt, 2002). See the figure.

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 10:14:50 PM
Last edit: August 17, 2015, 10:26:30 PM by username18333
 #1826

Gold simply does not back anything any more because it no longer correlates to the intangible knowledge that is valuable in an era where knowledge moves the economy.

Semi-/precious metals and stones (e.g., rose, white, and yellow gold and diamonds) are "standard of [metallurgical and geological, respectively] beauty," and beautifulness is "intangible knowledge" (TPTB_need_war) (i.e., knowledge).

And a miniscule (and shriveling in terms of relative growth) portion of the intangible knowledge economy.

Relative size is an important concept in economics, as well as scalability and relative rates of growth.

And that 'beauty' attribute is not the attribute that historically imparted most of the value to gold. Rather gold was a more rare, compact, fungible, durable physical representation of physical value in a physical economy where trade of physical objects was the major aspect of the economy. It was like packing a bunch of land into a compact, transportable form. Whereas if you review my essay linked from the opening post of this thread, I argue that knowledge creation is accretive, spontaneous, and the property of the creator, thus it can't be tied to money or physical value. Knowledge creation is like an end-to-end principled network in that middle men (Theory of the Firm) can only obstruct it.
(Colorization mine.)

You failed to address a relevant scope of my argument (which pertained to quartz, copper, topaz, palladium, sapphire, etcetera).

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 10:21:03 PM
 #1827

Edit: even if were true that low IQ individuals are worthless to society, then they will be culled by nature and evolution will raise the IQ levels rapidly with natural selection. Nature is not as helpless as you seem to imply with your top-down proscriptions.
(Colorization mine.)


More intelligent women are less likely to choose to have children, research suggests.

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SSR2014.pdf

Abstract

Demographers debate why people have children in advanced industrial societies where
children are net economic costs. From an evolutionary perspective, however, the important
question is why some individuals choose not to have children. Recent theoretical developments
in evolutionary psychology suggest that more intelligent individuals may be more
likely to prefer to remain childless than less intelligent individuals. Analyses of the
National Child Development Study show that more intelligent men and women express
preference to remain childless early in their reproductive careers, but only more intelligent
women (not more intelligent men) are more likely to remain childless by the end of their
reproductive careers. Controlling for education and earnings does not at all attenuate the
association between childhood general intelligence and lifetime childlessness among
women. One-standard-deviation increase in childhood general intelligence (15 IQ points)
decreases women’s odds of parenthood by 21–25%. Because women have a greater impact
on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is
predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced
industrial nations

(Colorization mine.)

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:32:22 PM
 #1828

But it's you who can't graps the fact that the corporations are more efficient and drive out competitions with or without printed money.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/09/radiating-death-how-walmart-displaces-nearby-small-businesses/3272/

...

Besides I got an IQ of 138 just for the record.

No you don't. There was something wrong with that test. Which just goes to show IQ tests are bullshit.

You don't seem to comprehend that monopolizing a zero margin directed sector of the economy is akin to having sex withraping a dying old woman. Not a gratifying or relevant achievement.

Edit: even if were true that low IQ individuals are worthless to society, then they will be culled by nature and evolution will raise the IQ levels rapidly with natural selection. Nature is not as helpless as you seem to imply with your top-down proscriptions.

The plight of people today is much better than in the Middle Ages when there was so much overpopulation that human labor was nearly worthless. The Black Death resolved that.

The problem of the world today is that the Industrial Age capital is dying. Individuals need to break free of that morass on their own accord by embracing the autonomous opportunities available to them in the Knowledge Age.


I really need to stop commenting. So if you insist going on with your top-down Chicken Little Malthusian themes, I guess you'll get the last word in our thread for a while.



Edit#2: George Carlin - People Who Ought To Be Killed seems appropriate in this context.

Thats a really rude comment and you fail to address my points, you just mumble around and reiterate your points, which i clearly refuted, but instead of you defending it you just now start insulting and repeating yourself.

I never said that low IQ people are useless to society, and you really misinterpret my points (perhaps intentionally).

My whole point is that the wealthy decide the future of humanity weather you like it or not, and they, do not like low IQ people.

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/24/human-cull-how-to-decode-elite-eugenics-propaganda/

Just read eugenics books that were written by the elite and you will see that they all call for population reduction and elimination of "unwanted traits".

So either nature will eliminate low IQ or the elite will, in either case, we will see a very dark future in our paths because it seems to me that humanity is getting more and more at the edge of it's existence.

username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 11:21:22 PM
Last edit: August 17, 2015, 11:37:00 PM by username18333
 #1829

My whole point is that the wealthy decide the future of humanity weather you like it or not, and [the wealthy], do not like low IQ people.

You confuse g (i.e., "general intelligence") and particular intelligences (hence, the post that cites course material from a graduate-level psychology course). Certain intelligences (namely, those of Socrates that ensured his demise) might prove hostile to plutocracy (at least, without the plutocracy); however, other intelligences might aid its "self-actualization."

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 11:34:48 PM
 #1830

My whole point is that the wealthy decide the future of humanity weather you like it or not, and [the wealthy], do not like low IQ people.

You confuse g (i.e., "general intelligence") and particular intelligences (hence, the post that cites course material from a graduate-level psychology course). Certain intelligences (namely, those of Socrates that ensured his demise) might prove hostile to plutocracy (at least, without the plutocracy); however, other intelligences might aid its "self-actualization."

I`m talking about general problem solving intelligence.

The guys who have photographic memory and other "gifts" can easily be replaced by AI, but the problem solving one can't be because an AI doesn't necessarly work on the human desire level, and you end up with a SKYNET terminator apocalypse.

We know that AI run world will come eventually, the question is, how are we going to integrate it with humanity to avoid humanity's destruction?

username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
 #1831

We know that AI run world will come eventually, the question is, how are we going to integrate it with humanity to avoid humanity's destruction?

"AI" (RealBitcoin) could come to be to Homo sapiens what Homo sapiens came to be to Homo erectus.

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
OROBTC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1003



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:46:05 AM
 #1832

...

While we are in danger of wandering deep into the weeds again (and hence I am happy this is over here at "Devastation"), I have comments below on a couple of notions that username18333 raises.


(In light of the posts above, a psychology review seems in order.)

Quote from: Penn State University, Psychology 532   <http://elearning.la.psu.edu/psy/532/lesson-2/intelligence-and-leadership/g-factor>
g factor

When thought of as one factor, intelligence is often referred to as general mental ability (GMA) or general factor (g factor or g for short). The tradition of studying intelligence as a single concept follows in the footsteps of Charles Spearman. While examining student test scores in the early 1900s, he noticed that individual students performed very similarly on different cognitive ability tests. These observations made him theorize that intelligence is a single underlying factor for all abilities. Spearman is the one given credit for coining the term g and g factor.

g vs. IQ



More commonly, g is referred to as IQ (intelligence quotient), but that term actually refers to a score on an intelligence test, so the term g is actually a more accurate description when discussing intelligence in general. In your readings, you will notice that the terms are used interchangeably, similar to the way they would be in actual conversation. See the figure for a comparison of g and IQ.

g and Leadership



This single-factor intelligence has been found to be the best predictor of general job performance, particularly for complex jobs (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). However, the link between g and leadership is not as strong as one would think. The correlation is moderate (0.21-0.27; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004). That is not to say that the relationship is not useful, just that when one considers that the relation of g to general job performance is 0.51 (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), it does not seem as impressive. In fact, intelligence actually ranks behind extraversion (0.31) and conscientiousness (0.28) for relationship to leadership ability (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &  Gerhardt, 2002). See the figure.

*   *   *

If Spearman is who I think he is, he found that general intelligence ("g") is more accurately a set of somewhat different factors.  I may very well be butchering the example (probably am, I don't have the proper info at hand), but he found that high school students had differing levels of three "factors" that explained a lot of g:

-- English and language skills
-- Computational ability
-- Spatial thinking ability (geometry)

I do not know the latest thinking on the subject of Factor Analysis and intelligence, but it *seems to be* pretty explanatory.

A good reference "for the rest of us" non-mathematicians was written by Paul Kline, An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, 1994, Routledge

*   *   *

I have also seen a completely different explanation of "Leadership", at least in the bureaucratic sense.

Namely: a "leader" is typically someone with "charisma" (a fuzzy term, but I read this in a non-academic piece) and the ability to withstand extremely high (and long periods) of boredom.  That sounds about right...  Like all the bosses I had had...

And yes, relatively low amounts of "g".  

(Take that J. O'Connell)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 09:15:54 AM
Last edit: August 18, 2015, 01:54:56 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #1833

You don't seem to comprehend that monopolizing a zero margin directed sector of the economy is akin to having sex withraping a dying old woman. Not a gratifying or relevant achievement.

Thats a really rude comment and you fail to address my points

I addressed your points but ostensibly you are not astute enough to grasp that.

, you just mumble around

To a person with apparently such low conceptual IQ as yourself, signal appears to be noise. It may be that the subject matter is new and so if you were astute, you'd realize you are stumbling into a Dunning-Kruger effect because you assume your conceptualizations are complete and don't even bother to delve deeply into the concepts I am teaching.

I am intentionally berating you by now, because you've demonstrated that you are a fascist moron.

and reiterate your points, which i clearly refuted

Dunning-Kruger effect. You didn't refute.

I never said that low IQ people are useless to society,

I guess you can't read. You specifically wrote that only 1-2% of the people would be employable and the rest would be on welfare.

My wholeentire/salient point is that the wealthy decide the future of humanity weather you like it or not

You seem to confuse monetary digits and political power with real capital.

As Warren Buffet said, "You'll know who wasn't wearing underwear when the tide goes out".

The old world industrial capitalists can print international dollar debt to the tune of $9 trillion and cause filipinos to build redundant gas stations every 500 meters where a few years ago there was none, but misallocation of real capital destroys real capital and leaves those leaders with a dying NWO system of starry-eyed fools. The real capital that is working away like busy bees almost unseen is gradually taking over the world. Have you ever contemplated that all the systems those dumb asses employ depend on us[1].

[1]"nobody can take it away from us any more, we have the internet"
https://www.ted.com/talks/danny_hillis_the_internet_could_crash_we_need_a_plan_b?language=en
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4155
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4213
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4441

So either nature will eliminate low IQ or the elite will, in either case, we will see a very dark future in our paths because it seems to me that humanity is getting more and more at the edge of it's existence.

First you argue that low IQ persons are worthless. Now you argue the antithesis of what you argued before, that humanity will go extinct if we cull the low IQ people.

Your logic has gone away. It appears your rational pre-frontal cortex may be have been subjugated by your innate "primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer ... fight-or-flight adrenaline spike".

For the second time, I refer you to my summary of the future that lies ahead. Actually try reading it slowly and clicking all the links and reading them. And try to learn.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 09:34:34 AM
 #1834

I`m talking about general problem solving intelligence.

With your 138 IQ, please choreograph some hip-hop, Zumba gym sessions for the Brunei hotel patrons. Leverage your vast sensibilities of Asian culture, so that it doesn't make the patrons turned off.

My 95 IQ ex-relative is able to do this, and neither you nor A.I. can.

You fundamentally don't understand that economy is locally annealed fitness, and IQ is not the only variable at play.

Your simpleton Malthusian (the sky is falling) conceptualizations are banal enough to make eating chalk a more pleasant proposition than reading your posts.

RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 02:39:42 PM
Last edit: August 18, 2015, 02:50:58 PM by RealBitcoin
 #1835


Dunning-Kruger effect. You didn't refute.
Well i`m not living in hallucinations, i analyze the real world based on real data, so my intelligence is what it is, I can use my mental capacity to analyze the world correctly, perhaps with a little ego, but this Dunning-Kruger effect is just your excuse to cover up the fact that you can't refute my points.


I guess you can't read. You specifically wrote that only 1-2% of the people would be employable and the rest would be on welfare.
No no no, hold on a second , now you spin my words. I was implying that the elite don't need them.

I`d be happy to live in a harmonic society with every person, but that is not where the current progression of technology will lead us.

A terminator type future is more likely.



You seem to confuse monetary digits and political power with real capital.

So you deny that the current elite are preparing also for the collapse?

I get that they became wealthy from this money printing ponzi scheme, it's obvious. But they were intelligent, not necessarly moral people, but intelligent enough to scam the whole world.

And the whole world was so stupid to fall for their scam. How is that not intelligence when you can scam 7 billion people and besides a few hundred thousand educated economists, nobody else bothers?

Yes they are not moral people, but they are intelligent because they achieved that.

See intelligence is a double-edged sword, it can be both used for good (bitcoin, satoshi probably had IQ over 200), and evil (atomic bomb), etc.

SO:

They now scammed the whole world with fictional money, and they are now saving their phony wealth, by buying up real assets, so guess what:
When the economy get's reset, they will still be the financial elite!  Cheesy (and they will be even wealthier)



First you argue that low IQ persons are worthless. Now you argue the antithesis of what you argued before, that humanity will go extinct if we cull the low IQ people.

Your logic has gone away. It appears your rational pre-frontal cortex may be have been subjugated by your innate "primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer ... fight-or-flight adrenaline spike".

For the second time, I refer you to my summary of the future that lies ahead. Actually try reading it slowly and clicking all the links and reading them. And try to learn.

I didnt said that humanity will go extinct because of that. In fact I havent even said the reason why.

So let me say now, the reason why humanity will go extinct if the current world order dissapears, is because in a possible financial meltdown globally, the elite will start to distrust eachother. And everybody will start to grab power for himself. Whereas today the limits of power are somewhat constrained, in a totally chaotic world it would be not.

So a nuclear apocalypse is more likely in a devastated world, than today with American - Russian minor conflicts.

I`m talking about general problem solving intelligence.

With your 138 IQ, please choreograph some hip-hop, Zumba gym sessions for the Brunei hotel patrons. Leverage your vast sensibilities of Asian culture, so that it doesn't make the patrons turned off.

My 95 IQ ex-relative is able to do this, and neither you nor A.I. can.

You fundamentally don't understand that economy is locally annealed fitness, and IQ is not the only variable at play.

Your simpleton Malthusian (the sky is falling) conceptualizations are banal enough to make eating chalk a more pleasant proposition than reading your posts.

Ah c`mon now you intentionally deceive yourself.

I told in a previous post that artists make up about 0.1% of the job market, so they are insignificant in the global economy. Why is it so hard to understand?

Guess what the other 99.9% of people do (except the intellectuals, and "authority" figures, and elite), they live the average life: eat ,drink, shit, get a mate, and make children. It's a very average way of living, and except a few % of them, they actually don't contribute anything significant to society.


1aguar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 05:09:11 PM
 #1836

(In light of the posts above, a psychology review seems in order.)

Quote
According to multiple, peer-reviewed studies, simply being in an open network instead of a closed one is the best predictor of career success.
...
In fact, the study shows that half of the predicted difference in career success (i.e., promotion, compensation, industry recognition) is due to this one variable.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelsimmons/2015/01/15/this-is-the-1-predictor-of-career-success-according-to-network-science/


While the basic social pyramid systems are now governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks, the publicly significant opposition to that continues to mostly be controlled, although they may not understand that, due to the languages and philosophies that they continue to use to think with and communicate through.

civilization is necessarily operating according to the principles and methods of organized crime, due to the death control systems being the central core of all other systems.

In extremely profound ways, our civilization is based upon deliberately ignoring the principle of the conservation of energy as much as possible, while understanding the concept of entropy in the most absurdly backward ways possible, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS SOCIALLY NECESSARY TO ENABLE ENFORCED FRAUDS TO CONTINUE WORKING!

This is all to say that you cannot cancel out a debt with another debt; you cannot make payment on a debt with a promise to pay (bank note); that is not a payment and discharge of the debt.
Demand lawful money and full discharge, and start utilizing the alternative currency that is in place. See my earlier posts here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 05:34:48 PM
 #1837

...this Dunning-Kruger effect is just your excuse to cover up the fact that you can't refute my points.

You are confirming it in spades. The usual symptoms are glaringly apparent and smart readers see it (they private message me advising me to ignore you).

See intelligence is a double-edged sword, it can be both used for good (bitcoin, satoshi probably had IQ over 200), and evil (atomic bomb), etc.

Well then since I've designed a system that 10X better than Bitcoin then I guess that means my IQ is 2000, lol (I know IQ is statement about rarity in the population and in that case every person's IQ is a zillion, because every human is unique but you'll never understand this)


Yes they are not moral people, but they are intelligent because they achieved that.

...

Ah c`mon now you intentionally deceive yourself.

I told in a previous post that artists make up about 0.1% of the job market, so they are insignificant in the global economy. Why is it so hard to understand?\

Computer programmers are artists. We are not insignificant.

You entirely missed the point which is that utility of people is due to their unique fitness to a myriad of circumstances. The world of work is much more fucking diverse than you have been exposed to. Get off your sofa and go out into the world and learn. You are severely lacking of real world knowledge.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
 #1838

Quote
According to multiple, peer-reviewed studies, simply being in an open network instead of a closed one is the best predictor of career success.
...
In fact, the study shows that half of the predicted difference in career success (i.e., promotion, compensation, industry recognition) is due to this one variable.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelsimmons/2015/01/15/this-is-the-1-predictor-of-career-success-according-to-network-science/

Thank you. So much for RealBitcon's IQ delusionary bullshit.

username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 09:56:26 PM
Last edit: August 18, 2015, 10:26:36 PM by username18333
 #1839

(In light of the posts above, a psychology review seems in order.)

Quote
According to multiple, peer-reviewed studies, simply being in an open network instead of a closed one is the best predictor of career success.
...
In fact, the study shows that half of the predicted difference in career success (i.e., promotion, compensation, industry recognition) is due to this one variable.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelsimmons/2015/01/15/this-is-the-1-predictor-of-career-success-according-to-network-science/
(Colorization mine.)


"[J]ob performance" (Penn State University) was (at least, in part) the subject of discussion (theretofore), not "career success" (Simmons). (Note: your post [tacitly] equates the two.)

(In light of the posts above, a psychology review seems in order.)

Quote from: Penn State University, Psychology 532   <http://elearning.la.psu.edu/psy/532/lesson-2/intelligence-and-leadership/g-factor>
[...]

g and Leadership



This single-factor intelligence has been found to be the best predictor of general job performance, particularly for complex jobs (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). However, the link between g and leadership is not as strong as one would think. The correlation is moderate (0.21-0.27; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004). That is not to say that the relationship is not useful, just that when one considers that the relation of g to general job performance is 0.51 (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), it does not seem as impressive. In fact, intelligence actually ranks behind extraversion (0.31) and conscientiousness (0.28) for relationship to leadership ability (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &  Gerhardt, 2002). See the figure.
(Citation abridged. Colorization added.)

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 09:59:49 PM
 #1840

This is all to say that you cannot cancel out a debt with another debt; you cannot make payment on a debt with a promise to pay (bank note); that is not a payment and discharge of the debt.
Demand lawful money and full discharge, and start utilizing the alternative currency that is in place. See my earlier posts here.
(Colorization mine.)


Quote from: Peaceful Revolution Network link=http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.
(Red colorization mine.)

“Tax revenue” is a form of collateral for the loans provided to governments by central banks.
(Blue colorization added.)

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 ... 151 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!